Discussion:
Only 14 gear ratios? Primitive!
(too old to reply)
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-04 05:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)

Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.

Here's the link to the half hour explanation video:

You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.

No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2024-12-04 14:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios, that
is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the
beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation of
it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.

I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.

Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 15:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as downsides,
none of which would be deal breakers for some applications. Motor power
for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated than a
standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light and reliable
at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
--
Add xx to reply
AMuzi
2024-12-04 16:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)


* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-04 16:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal
gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our
machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a
display stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like
child's play. It's a true continuously variable transmission, with
an infinite number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No
slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the
beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's
operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as downsides,
none of which would be deal breakers for some applications. Motor
power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated than a
standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light and
reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic control
slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT is much more
complex than what I drive* and infinitely more complex than what I most
often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!

"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
--
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
2024-12-04 16:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a
Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude
more complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a
Rohloff look like child's play. It's a true
continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based.
No slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction
losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning
to the beginning to digest the super-complicated
explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight,
efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight
as downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for
some applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less
complicated than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap,
light and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared
CVT is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely
more complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern
protocols.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
cyclintom
2024-12-04 17:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a
Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude
more complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a
Rohloff look like child's play. It's a true
continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based.
No slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction
losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning
to the beginning to digest the super-complicated
explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight,
efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight
as downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for
some applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less
complicated than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap,
light and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared
CVT is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely
more complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern
protocols.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 18:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a
Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude
more complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a
Rohloff look like child's play. It's a true
continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based.
No slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction
losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning
to the beginning to digest the super-complicated
explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight,
efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight
as downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for
some applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less
complicated than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap,
light and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared
CVT is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely
more complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern
protocols.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze and
the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 18:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a
Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude
more complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a
Rohloff look like child's play. It's a true
continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based.
No slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction
losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning
to the beginning to digest the super-complicated
explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight,
efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight
as downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for
some applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less
complicated than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap,
light and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared
CVT is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely
more complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern
protocols.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze and
the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 18:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a
Sturmey- Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students
could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude
more complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a
Rohloff look like child's play. It's a true
continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based.
No slipping surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction
losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning
to the beginning to digest the super-complicated
explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight,
efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight
as downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for
some applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less
complicated than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap,
light and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared
CVT is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely
more complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern
protocols.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze and
the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.

tears of laughter tommy....
--
Add xx to reply
Tom Kunich
2024-12-04 22:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching,
I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey- Archer AW hub
and mount it on a display stand near an explanatory poster, so
interested students could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look
like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios, that is
completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and supposedly
minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to
start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to
digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated than
a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light and
reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic control
slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT is much more
complex than what I drive* and infinitely more complex than what I
most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern protocols.
--
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this
complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone. I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.

During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.

I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money. The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money. And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.

Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about. Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be. That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer. Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.

I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 22:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ

Aug 9, 2013, 11:11:36 AM, ***@yahoo.com wrote:

"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3

Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-05 04:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Oh good grief! No, Tom, you're math is wrong.

Pick any row. Do the cumulative multiplication for the twelve months,
that you seem to be claiming is appropriate.

Then tell us how it generates the number in the last column - the one
labeled "Ave" for "Average."

Or even simpler, note all the rows have values that are higher than the
"Ave" listing.

You're looking like an ignorant fool yet again; this time, with simple
math.
--
- Frank Krygowski
zen cycle
2024-12-05 10:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you
have
none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/
G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the
development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://
www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/
shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
    Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug
Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec     Ave
2009     0.0     0.2     -0.4     -0.7     -1.3     -1.4     -2.1
-1.5     -1.3     -0.2     1.8     2.7
    -0.4
2010     2.6     2.1     2.3     2.2     2.0     1.1     1.2
1.1     1.1     1.2     1.1     1.5     1.6
2011     1.6     2.1     2.7     3.2     3.6     3.6     3.6
3.8     3.9     3.5     3.4     3.0     3.2
2012     2.9     2.9     2.7     2.3     1.7     1.7     1.4
1.7     2.0     2.2     1.8     1.7     2.1
2013     1.6     2.0     1.5     1.1     1.4     1.8     2.0
1.5     1.2     1.0     1.2     1.5     1.5
2014     1.6     1.1     1.5     2.0     2.1     2.1     2.0
1.7     1.7     1.7     1.3     0.8     1.6
2015     -0.1     0.0     -0.1     -0.2     0.0     0.1     0.2
0.2     0.0     0.2     0.5     0.7     0.1
2016     1.4     1.0     0.9     1.1     1.0     1.0     0.8
1.1     1.5     1.6     1.7     2.1     1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that
average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Oh good grief! No, Tom, you're math is wrong.
Pick any row. Do the cumulative multiplication for the twelve months,
that you seem to be claiming is appropriate.
Then tell us how it generates the number in the last column - the one
labeled "Ave" for "Average."
Or even simpler, note all the rows have values that are higher than the
"Ave" listing.
You're looking like an ignorant fool yet again; this time, with simple
math.
Quelle surprise!
cyclintom
2024-12-05 21:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by zen cycle
Quelle surprise!
Isn't everyone impressed that you can speak a phrase in a foreign language!

Tu es un idiot!
Jeff Liebermann
2024-12-06 00:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by zen cycle
Quelle surprise!
Isn't everyone impressed that you can speak a phrase in a foreign language!
Tu es un idiot!
Very impressive. You seem to have used Google translate, which
produced a marginal translation of "you are an idiot". It should be:
"Vous êtes un idiot" or more commonly "Vous êtes un idiot".
This should explain why:
<https://www.lawlessfrench.com/grammar/subject-pronouns-tu-vs-vous/>

For you, the more appropriate phrase would be:
"Vous êtes un putain d'idiot"
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
zen cycle
2024-12-06 11:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by zen cycle
Quelle surprise!
Isn't everyone impressed that you can speak a phrase in a foreign language!
Tu es un idiot!
Ich musste Google Translate nicht verwenden, um mir zu helfen.
cyclintom
2025-01-26 00:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by zen cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by zen cycle
Quelle surprise!
Isn't everyone impressed that you can speak a phrase in a foreign language!
Tu es un idiot!
Ich musste Google Translate nicht verwenden, um mir zu helfen.
Tell us about those two 200 mile days you showed us on your strava account. Chris Horner just took his son who is 100 times the rider on a century. Tell him how that's nothing.
cyclintom
2024-12-05 21:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Oh good grief! No, Tom, you're math is wrong.
Pick any row. Do the cumulative multiplication for the twelve months,
that you seem to be claiming is appropriate.
Then tell us how it generates the number in the last column - the one
labeled "Ave" for "Average."
Or even simpler, note all the rows have values that are higher than the
"Ave" listing.
You're looking like an ignorant fool yet again; this time, with simple
math.
Frank again shows why he was fired as a plant engineer. He doesn't understand basic mathematics.

That chart shows the AVERAGE inflation value for the previous YEAR. Since the BUDGET was set by the PREVIOUS Congress, the inflations goes for Obama from 2010 to 2017.

Moreover the average inflation rate from 2010 is increased OVER the inflation rate of the following year.

That you cannot understand the most basic principles of inflation tells me that you were NEVER a mechanical engineer of any standing. My wife could teach engineering AT LEAST as well as you because teaching engineering is NOT engineering itself.

You're not Jobst and you never will be. Time to stop pretending you are. While Jobst and I did not get along after the bullshit he pulled endangering beginning riders, his engineering was never in question.

Yours is.
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-06 01:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Oh good grief! No, Tom, you're math is wrong.
Pick any row. Do the cumulative multiplication for the twelve months,
that you seem to be claiming is appropriate.
Then tell us how it generates the number in the last column - the one
labeled "Ave" for "Average."
Or even simpler, note all the rows have values that are higher than the
"Ave" listing.
You're looking like an ignorant fool yet again; this time, with simple
math.
Frank again shows why he was fired as a plant engineer. He doesn't understand basic mathematics.
That chart shows the AVERAGE inflation value for the previous YEAR. Since the BUDGET was set by the PREVIOUS Congress, the inflations goes for Obama from 2010 to 2017.
Moreover the average inflation rate from 2010 is increased OVER the inflation rate of the following year.
If you wanted to talk about the cumulative inflation during Obama's
terms, you should have used the word "cumulative."

And even if you did, your claim of 25% [cumulative] inflation was off by
nearly a factor of two. Do the numbers, Tom. They work out to about 14%.

Here's an interesting coincidence: If you run the numbers for cumulative
inflation under G.W.Bush, immediately before Obama, you _do_ find a
cumulative value nearly twice as large as Obama's! (I get 24.4%.)

Oddly, Tom doesn't complain about the W.Bush years.
--
- Frank Krygowski
zen cycle
2024-12-06 11:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://
www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-
rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and
Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
    Jan     Feb     Mar     Apr     May     Jun     Jul     Aug
Sep     Oct     Nov     Dec     Ave
2009     0.0     0.2     -0.4     -0.7     -1.3     -1.4
-2.1     -1.5     -1.3     -0.2     1.8     2.7
    -0.4
2010     2.6     2.1     2.3     2.2     2.0     1.1     1.2
1.1     1.1     1.2     1.1     1.5     1.6
2011     1.6     2.1     2.7     3.2     3.6     3.6     3.6
3.8     3.9     3.5     3.4     3.0     3.2
2012     2.9     2.9     2.7     2.3     1.7     1.7     1.4
1.7     2.0     2.2     1.8     1.7     2.1
2013     1.6     2.0     1.5     1.1     1.4     1.8     2.0
1.5     1.2     1.0     1.2     1.5     1.5
2014     1.6     1.1     1.5     2.0     2.1     2.1     2.0
1.7     1.7     1.7     1.3     0.8     1.6
2015     -0.1     0.0     -0.1     -0.2     0.0     0.1     0.2
0.2     0.0     0.2     0.5     0.7     0.1
2016     1.4     1.0     0.9     1.1     1.0     1.0     0.8
1.1     1.5     1.6     1.7     2.1     1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that
average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Oh good grief! No, Tom, you're math is wrong.
Pick any row. Do the cumulative multiplication for the twelve months,
that you seem to be claiming is appropriate.
Then tell us how it generates the number in the last column - the one
labeled "Ave" for "Average."
Or even simpler, note all the rows have values that are higher than the
"Ave" listing.
You're looking like an ignorant fool yet again; this time, with simple
math.
Frank again shows why he was fired as a plant engineer. He doesn't
understand basic mathematics.
That chart shows the AVERAGE inflation value for the previous YEAR.
Since the BUDGET was set by the PREVIOUS Congress, the inflations goes
for Obama from 2010 to 2017.
Moreover the average inflation rate from 2010 is increased OVER the
inflation rate of the following year.
If you wanted to talk about the cumulative inflation during Obama's
terms, you should have used the word "cumulative."
And even if you did, your claim of 25% [cumulative] inflation was off by
nearly a factor of two. Do the numbers, Tom. They work out to about 14%.
Here's an interesting coincidence: If you run the numbers for cumulative
inflation under G.W.Bush, immediately before Obama, you _do_ find a
cumulative value nearly twice as large as Obama's! (I get 24.4%.)
Oddly, Tom doesn't complain about the W.Bush years.
Of course not. Tommy denies that Bush signed the TARP act in response to
the recession, instead he insists there was no recession before obama
took office.
Frank Krygowski
2025-01-25 23:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
If you wanted to talk about the cumulative inflation during Obama's
terms, you should have used the word "cumulative."
And even if you did, your claim of 25% [cumulative] inflation was off by
nearly a factor of two. Do the numbers, Tom. They work out to about 14%.
Here's an interesting coincidence: If you run the numbers for cumulative
inflation under G.W.Bush, immediately before Obama, you _do_ find a
cumulative value nearly twice as large as Obama's! (I get 24.4%.)
Oddly, Tom doesn't complain about the W.Bush years.
Krygowski, on a good day you're a fool.
As usual, Tom gets blown out of the water by mathematics so he descends
into insults.

Your math was totally wrong. Admit it and shut up.
--
- Frank Krygowski
cyclintom
2025-01-26 00:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
If you wanted to talk about the cumulative inflation during Obama's
terms, you should have used the word "cumulative."
And even if you did, your claim of 25% [cumulative] inflation was off by
nearly a factor of two. Do the numbers, Tom. They work out to about 14%.
Here's an interesting coincidence: If you run the numbers for cumulative
inflation under G.W.Bush, immediately before Obama, you _do_ find a
cumulative value nearly twice as large as Obama's! (I get 24.4%.)
Oddly, Tom doesn't complain about the W.Bush years.
Krygowski, on a good day you're a fool.
As usual, Tom gets blown out of the water by mathematics so he descends
into insults.
Your math was totally wrong. Admit it and shut up.
Could it be any plainer why Frank failed as a plant engineer? And anytime you think you can shut me up, you coward, you're welcome to try.
Frank Krygowski
2025-01-26 02:48:56 UTC
Permalink
... anytime you think you can shut me up, you coward, you're welcome to try.
Nobody can shut you up. You spew nonsense daily, and ignore all evidence
that your spewing is imaginary and crazy. You refuse to be embarrassed
by your own endless idiocy, and you pretend you haven't been repeatedly
shown to be a fool.

That's exactly why Jay Beattie left this discussion group. It's exactly
why Jobst Brandt called you out many times. It's why all the most
intelligent members of this group are so frequently saying you're
absolutely, totally wrong on so many widely different points.

Your only benefit is that you constantly demonstrate how daft a person
and his views can be. Those who ever agree with you on any topic
probably wish you'd go away, because you make them look crazy by
association.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2025-01-26 11:12:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 21:48:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
... anytime you think you can shut me up, you coward, you're welcome to try.
Nobody can shut you up. You spew nonsense daily, and ignore all evidence
that your spewing is imaginary and crazy. You refuse to be embarrassed
by your own endless idiocy, and you pretend you haven't been repeatedly
shown to be a fool.
That's exactly why Jay Beattie left this discussion group. It's exactly
why Jobst Brandt called you out many times. It's why all the most
intelligent members of this group are so frequently saying you're
absolutely, totally wrong on so many widely different points.
Your only benefit is that you constantly demonstrate how daft a person
and his views can be. Those who ever agree with you on any topic
probably wish you'd go away, because you make them look crazy by
association.
Krygowski can dish out insults, but whines and complains like a five
year old when he gets them.

--
C'est bon
Soloman
zen cycle
2025-01-26 12:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
... anytime you think you can shut me up, you coward, you're welcome to try.
Nobody can shut you up. You spew nonsense daily, and ignore all evidence
that your spewing is imaginary and crazy. You refuse to be embarrassed
by your own endless idiocy, and you pretend you haven't been repeatedly
shown to be a fool.
That's exactly why Jay Beattie left this discussion group. It's exactly
why Jobst Brandt called you out many times. It's why all the most
intelligent members of this group are so frequently saying you're
absolutely, totally wrong on so many widely different points.
Your only benefit is that you constantly demonstrate how daft a person
and his views can be. Those who ever agree with you on any topic
probably wish you'd go away, because you make them look crazy by
association.
+1 to all that.
zen cycle
2025-01-26 12:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
If you wanted to talk about the cumulative inflation during Obama's
terms, you should have used the word "cumulative."
And even if you did, your claim of 25% [cumulative] inflation was off by
nearly a factor of two. Do the numbers, Tom. They work out to about 14%.
Here's an interesting coincidence: If you run the numbers for cumulative
inflation under G.W.Bush, immediately before Obama, you _do_ find a
cumulative value nearly twice as large as Obama's! (I get 24.4%.)
Oddly, Tom doesn't complain about the W.Bush years.
Krygowski, on a good day you're a fool.
As usual, Tom gets blown out of the water by mathematics so he descends
into insults.
Your math was totally wrong. Admit it and shut up.
If you recall, he also claims the economy was in great shape before
obama took office. Apparently the fact that the recession occurred in
2008 is all left-wing media lies.
Shadow
2025-01-26 00:01:25 UTC
Permalink
10 million illegal aliens have been getting free medical care <implied - from federal funding>
What are your sources? I'm curious how you can be so wrong.

Trump says there is not enough money to treat 10 million
Americans and don't even get him started on immigrants he imports and
"legalizes" to work at his resorts at half the wages.

And yet he receives exactly the same amount of taxes Obama
did (more actually). Where on Earth is he putting the money? In Musk's
saving accounts?
[]'s

//

Can undocumented immigrants get Medicare or Medicaid? Undocumented
immigrants don't have access to health insurance plans that are
Federal government-sponsored.

...........

More than 1 million immigrants, most lacking permanent legal status,
are covered by State health programs. Most of the States are
Republican, since they benefit most from the cheap labor

//
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
AMuzi
2025-01-27 15:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
10 million illegal aliens have been getting free medical care <implied - from federal funding>
What are your sources? I'm curious how you can be so wrong.
Trump says there is not enough money to treat 10 million
Americans and don't even get him started on immigrants he imports and
"legalizes" to work at his resorts at half the wages.
And yet he receives exactly the same amount of taxes Obama
did (more actually). Where on Earth is he putting the money? In Musk's
saving accounts?
[]'s
//
Can undocumented immigrants get Medicare or Medicaid? Undocumented
immigrants don't have access to health insurance plans that are
Federal government-sponsored.
...........
More than 1 million immigrants, most lacking permanent legal status,
are covered by State health programs. Most of the States are
Republican, since they benefit most from the cheap labor
//
Expenditures have been massive, contrary to established law
(and common sense):

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/3120970/nyc-spending-biden-border-crisis-5-billion/

https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-monthly-payment-nyc-higher-veterans-compensation-1886431

And the disinformation has been equally offensive. Rather
than directly paid through Federal programs the funding is
more circuitous:

https://thenationaldesk.com/news/fact-check-team/exploring-financial-impact-illegal-immigration-across-us-new-york-california-texas-florida-illinois-migrants-southern-border-national-security-costs-spending-reform-social-services

"The Federal Government is only picking up a portion of the
bill and spent around $66 billion..."

Which funds are significantly diverted to the apparatchiks
and their mistresses in the larger cities' leadership and
bureaucracy. Which is why have made few protests about
violation of the borders. Or as they say in Chicago about
corruption, "Count me in or cut it out."

p.s. Much is made of illegal labor in certain industries.
Let's consult a noted expert of that in his own words:


(under 3 minutes)
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2025-01-28 00:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Shadow
10 million illegal aliens have been getting free medical care <implied - from federal funding>
What are your sources? I'm curious how you can be so wrong.
Trump says there is not enough money to treat 10 million
Americans and don't even get him started on immigrants he imports and
"legalizes" to work at his resorts at half the wages.
And yet he receives exactly the same amount of taxes Obama
did (more actually). Where on Earth is he putting the money? In Musk's
saving accounts?
[]'s
//
Can undocumented immigrants get Medicare or Medicaid? Undocumented
immigrants don't have access to health insurance plans that are
Federal government-sponsored.
...........
More than 1 million immigrants, most lacking permanent legal status,
are covered by State health programs. Most of the States are
Republican, since they benefit most from the cheap labor
//
Expenditures have been massive, contrary to established law
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/3120970/nyc-spending-biden-border-crisis-5-billion/
https://www.newsweek.com/migrants-monthly-payment-nyc-higher-veterans-compensation-1886431
And the disinformation has been equally offensive. Rather
than directly paid through Federal programs the funding is
https://thenationaldesk.com/news/fact-check-team/exploring-financial-impact-illegal-immigration-across-us-new-york-california-texas-florida-illinois-migrants-southern-border-national-security-costs-spending-reform-social-services
"The Federal Government is only picking up a portion of the
bill and spent around $66 billion..."
Which funds are significantly diverted to the apparatchiks
and their mistresses in the larger cities' leadership and
bureaucracy. Which is why have made few protests about
violation of the borders. Or as they say in Chicago about
corruption, "Count me in or cut it out."
p.s. Much is made of illegal labor in certain industries.
http://youtu.be/iE2bOM9kRiY
(under 3 minutes)
COME TO THE U.S. AND WE'LL GIVE YOU MONEY !

And, strangely enough, they come :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-06 16:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze
and the wife spent your SS check already?
--
Add xx to reply
I absolutely love to see you crying about my wealth bvecause you have none.
And you still haven't explained how you went from being broke and living
on social security in 2013 to reaping a $12000 monthly income off your
investments with no other source of income.
tears of laughter tommy....
Rather than lying about everything that you can, I'll just show them: I
never said I was broke and I never said that I was living on Social
Security alone.
Liar
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/hicB2nXjlr4/m/G2axqs0k_IwJ
"Trouble is that while I was out of it I sold or gave away almost my
entire bicycle collection. And all of my wardrobe and most of my tools!
And now on Social Security I have to VERY slowly make it up."
Post by Tom Kunich
I said that during the Great Recession that occurred
during Obama that I lost half of my investments that weren't made up
during Obama's time in office with his 25% inflation over his 8 years.
Liar, you made up that lie after you realized no one was giving you any
credibility. Not to mention your claims of 25% inflation are a lie as
well, the average rate of inflation under Obama was 1.4 %.
Post by Tom Kunich
During Trump I regained my investments BACK to what they were before Obama
and then with far better investment advice I grew it to $1.1 million
despite the 22% inflation during the 4 years of Biden.
<yawn> blah blah tommy bullshit.
Post by Tom Kunich
I understanjd why you deny that reality is real but then you have nothing
because you do not even have a passing clue of how to handle money.
And yet, I can afford to take international vacations, while you still
grovel in your hovel.
Post by Tom Kunich
The
alligator tears you cried when I said that I had been making $233,000
dollars a year showed that you simply canmot believe that a real engineer
can make that sort of money.
no salaried engineer made $233K in the years you were working, with the
possible exception of a principal in a start-up. You weren't a principal
in a startup or you would have bragged about it by now.
Post by Tom Kunich
And even in these times of hardship I have
been offered $200,000/yr to move to Texas.
Hardship - for you. You're broke and living on social security, and no
one offered you a $200K job.
Post by Tom Kunich
Too bad you can't get anything right - there isn't anything you won't lie
about.
I haven't lied about anything yet.
- you never broke $100K in a year, and even that would have been an
exceptionally generous salary for a high-school dropout with no degree.
Post by Tom Kunich
Except that you seem to be so set on me being a drunk that you must
be.
I'm not the one with a drunk driving arrest.
Post by Tom Kunich
That you never once referred to having a wife until you had a need to
"prove" that you're not a queer.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true.
Post by Tom Kunich
Poor Liebermann couldn't even support
himself so he couldn't find a wife and everyone else that is married
mentions their wives now and again. But your supreme egotism
Funny, I'm not the one claiming to be have made more than most CEOs,
having a $12000/mo investment income, being a "senior business
consultant", discovering HIV.....
Post by Tom Kunich
is the very
mark of homosexuality and even if you're not queer you will surely become
one to torture some insecure person.
lol..."I'll become one to torture some insecure person".....yeah tommy,
that's how it works. People become gay for the purpose of torturing
insecure people...
Post by Tom Kunich
I had far too much experrience with interviewing queers dying from AIDS to
not recognize the symptoms in you.
No, tommy, you never interviewed gays. Even if you were involved in
high-level development of the PCR, you would not have had any cause to
be involved in the sociological aspect of the homosexual lifestyle. It
would have had absolutely no bearing on any aspect of the development of
the PCR. It's just another lie you tell in hopes that it will get people
to respect you.
--
Add xx to reply
We all know how incredibly stupid you are but https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/ shows the actual inflation rates during Obama, Trump and Biden.
and as usual, you post a link that disproves your own claim
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave
2009 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.1 -1.5 -1.3 -0.2 1.8 2.7
-0.4
2010 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.6
2011 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.2
2012 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.1
2013 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.5
2014 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.3 0.8 1.6
2015 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.3
Care to point out anywhere in those 8 years that would have driven the
average to 25%
--
Add xx to reply
Perhaps you'd like to let us know why you do not understand that average inflation values are not additive but multiplicative?
Yes, tommy, unfortunately you don't seem to understand what
"multiplicative" means.

_this_ is how it works: To get cumulative change from yearly change,
convert the percentage back to decimal, multiply the values, then
convert back to percentage.

Using the above numbers 1.016*1.032*1.021....= 1.119 > 11.9%

And here's a handy little calculator that confirms it:
https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator

2009 to 2016 shows 11.87% (likely since the table above rounded the numbers)

Again, care to tell us where you came up with 25%?

It's likely the same place where you got the idea that "everybody lost
money in the stock market during the Obama presidency".

and the same place where you got the idea that TDR means "time delay
reflection"

and the same place where you got fiber optic telecom cables are called
light lines

and the same place where you said a dent popped out of your top tube by
riding the bike

and the same place where you got special campagnolo non-stretch shifter
cables....

The list goes on, and on, and on....
cyclintom
2025-01-25 20:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Yes, tommy, unfortunately you don't seem to understand what
"multiplicative" means.
_this_ is how it works: To get cumulative change from yearly change,
convert the percentage back to decimal, multiply the values, then
convert back to percentage.
Using the above numbers 1.016*1.032*1.021....= 1.119 > 11.9%
https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator
2009 to 2016 shows 11.87% (likely since the table above rounded the numbers)
Again, care to tell us where you came up with 25%?
It's likely the same place where you got the idea that "everybody lost
money in the stock market during the Obama presidency".
and the same place where you got the idea that TDR means "time delay
reflection"
and the same place where you got fiber optic telecom cables are called
light lines
and the same place where you said a dent popped out of your top tube by
riding the bike
and the same place where you got special campagnolo non-stretch shifter
cables....
The list goes on, and on, and on....
No wonder no one was wiklling to pay you a working wage. You're going to have a really ugly retirement. You're going to be replaced by someone that knows what they are doing.
Tom Kunich
2024-12-08 21:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I
had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey- Archer AW hub and
mount it on a display stand near an explanatory poster, so
interested students could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look
like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios, that is
completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and supposedly
minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start
at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated than a
standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light and
reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic control
slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT is much more
complex than what I drive* and infinitely more complex than what I
most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern protocols.
--
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this
complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze and
the wife spent your SS check already?
The problem is that continue to deny you're a queer. Never once did you
mention a wife in all these years until you needed to "prove" you're
straight. Instead, it was everything you were doing with the guys.

Everytime you post it is the same ego trip that homosexuals repeatly show.
zen cycle
2024-12-09 04:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I
had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey- Archer AW hub and
mount it on a display stand near an explanatory poster, so
interested students could see what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look
like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios, that is
completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and supposedly
minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start
at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated than a
standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light and
reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic control
slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT is much more
complex than what I drive* and infinitely more complex than what I
most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
Firefox is very wary of corvair.com!
"Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN"
Yeah I saw that. Old page format, never updated to modern protocols.
--
To Franhk, he only uses old technology but then he shows us this
complicated POS that no one is going to build.
Wow, you're a cranky little bitch today. What's the matter, no booze and
the wife spent your SS check already?
The problem is that continue to deny you're a queer.
That's true
Post by Tom Kunich
Never once did you
mention a wife in all these years until you needed to "prove" you're
straight.
No matter how many times you tell that lie, it will never become true
Post by Tom Kunich
Instead, it was everything you were doing with the guys.
Care to produce a post in which I claimed everything I did was with "the
guys"?
Post by Tom Kunich
Everytime you post it is the same ego trip that homosexuals repeatly show.
Please produce a post in which you claim I'm demonstrating my ego.

For every one you post from me, I'll produce ten of you constantly
bragging about how tough, strong, rich, and smart you are.
Roger Merriman
2024-12-04 19:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV’s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.

Heavy goods vehicles at least the Lorries seem to be roughly the same
EV/ICE ie 12/18 gears.

Buses seem to be single speed but then their speed doesn’t vary much, ie
0-20/30mph ish

All of such vehicles seem to be automatic gearboxes though fairly
sophisticated, ie able to cope with engine braking and so on, certainly not
seen a lorry on fire for few years now which had run out of brakes coming
off the hill, which certainly used to be a thing as child ie a lorry in the
escape lane ie sand pit with smoking brakes or on fire!

Ie impressive as it might be I’m not sure of it’s applicable really.

Roger Merriman
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-04 20:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV’s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.
It's true that my EV, like (I believe) most, has one single fixed
reduction ratio. The real reason is the torque curve for its electric
motor happens to match what's necessary for motoring. Its peak torque is
at low rpm, useful when starting from a stop. The torque decreases at
higher rpm, which matches the reduced torque requirement for cruising at
speed.

But some hybrids have surprisingly complicated transmissions. I don't
think that many people know that Prius hybrids use an unusual planetary
gear setup, to sort of blend the power from the battery and the engine.

Post by Roger Merriman
Ie impressive as it might be I’m not sure of it’s applicable really.
Right. Derailleur transmissions have a lot going for them. I'm surprised
Rohloff has done as well as it has. But we'll see, I guess.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Roger Merriman
2024-12-04 20:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV’s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.
It's true that my EV, like (I believe) most, has one single fixed
reduction ratio. The real reason is the torque curve for its electric
motor happens to match what's necessary for motoring. Its peak torque is
at low rpm, useful when starting from a stop. The torque decreases at
higher rpm, which matches the reduced torque requirement for cruising at
speed.
Only converted classics seem to have a gearbox ie multiple gears.
Post by Frank Krygowski
But some hybrids have surprisingly complicated transmissions. I don't
think that many people know that Prius hybrids use an unusual planetary
gear setup, to sort of blend the power from the battery and the engine.
http://youtu.be/ZmHpSyTsfm0
Post by Roger Merriman
Ie impressive as it might be I’m not sure of it’s applicable really.
Right. Derailleur transmissions have a lot going for them. I'm surprised
Rohloff has done as well as it has. But we'll see, I guess.
Cycling being much less homogeneous and relatively simplicity does allow
some small companies to exist, and technological diversity, ie can buy
bikes with cable or electronic systems or even wireless, have disk with
hydraulics or cable or a hybrid of both, or rim brakes of few different
types, even some hydraulic systems still being sold.

Some of technology maybe is a bit stagnant ie sees no to limited
development but still a long way off being obsolete and still sold either
on bikes or as 3rd party kit.
Roger Merriman
AMuzi
2024-12-04 20:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV’s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.
It's true that my EV, like (I believe) most, has one single fixed
reduction ratio. The real reason is the torque curve for its electric
motor happens to match what's necessary for motoring. Its peak torque is
at low rpm, useful when starting from a stop. The torque decreases at
higher rpm, which matches the reduced torque requirement for cruising at
speed.
Only converted classics seem to have a gearbox ie multiple gears.
Post by Frank Krygowski
But some hybrids have surprisingly complicated transmissions. I don't
think that many people know that Prius hybrids use an unusual planetary
gear setup, to sort of blend the power from the battery and the engine.
http://youtu.be/ZmHpSyTsfm0
Post by Roger Merriman
Ie impressive as it might be I’m not sure of it’s applicable really.
Right. Derailleur transmissions have a lot going for them. I'm surprised
Rohloff has done as well as it has. But we'll see, I guess.
Cycling being much less homogeneous and relatively simplicity does allow
some small companies to exist, and technological diversity, ie can buy
bikes with cable or electronic systems or even wireless, have disk with
hydraulics or cable or a hybrid of both, or rim brakes of few different
types, even some hydraulic systems still being sold.
Some of technology maybe is a bit stagnant ie sees no to limited
development but still a long way off being obsolete and still sold either
on bikes or as 3rd party kit.
Roger Merriman
"Only converted classics seem to have a gearbox ie multiple
gears."

I think you'll find modern not-electric vehicles now have
quite sophisticated (read 'complex') 5 or 6 step auto
gearboxes with their own sensor, servo, electronic and
cooling problems.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Roger Merriman
2024-12-05 11:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV’s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.
It's true that my EV, like (I believe) most, has one single fixed
reduction ratio. The real reason is the torque curve for its electric
motor happens to match what's necessary for motoring. Its peak torque is
at low rpm, useful when starting from a stop. The torque decreases at
higher rpm, which matches the reduced torque requirement for cruising at
speed.
Only converted classics seem to have a gearbox ie multiple gears.
Post by Frank Krygowski
But some hybrids have surprisingly complicated transmissions. I don't
think that many people know that Prius hybrids use an unusual planetary
gear setup, to sort of blend the power from the battery and the engine.
http://youtu.be/ZmHpSyTsfm0
Post by Roger Merriman
Ie impressive as it might be I’m not sure of it’s applicable really.
Right. Derailleur transmissions have a lot going for them. I'm surprised
Rohloff has done as well as it has. But we'll see, I guess.
Cycling being much less homogeneous and relatively simplicity does allow
some small companies to exist, and technological diversity, ie can buy
bikes with cable or electronic systems or even wireless, have disk with
hydraulics or cable or a hybrid of both, or rim brakes of few different
types, even some hydraulic systems still being sold.
Some of technology maybe is a bit stagnant ie sees no to limited
development but still a long way off being obsolete and still sold either
on bikes or as 3rd party kit.
Roger Merriman
"Only converted classics seem to have a gearbox ie multiple
gears."
I think you'll find modern not-electric vehicles now have
quite sophisticated (read 'complex') 5 or 6 step auto
gearboxes with their own sensor, servo, electronic and
cooling problems.
Even fairly old ones are 5/6 gears my 21 year old Volvo is 5 speed auto,
with winter mode and so on, much better if not manual transmission quick
(for general use) on pick up ie doesn’t lag on engagement or kick down and
seems to be fairly intelligent in choosing the ratios.

Which the work car I had used be for that was dreadful very laggy and well
slushy and while not technically slow felt it due to the gearbox, some of
this I’m sure hinder by it having a relatively small for the cars size
diesel engine.

I’m not particularly aware of problems with such auto transmission, I’d
note that lorries are universally auto boxes now, and folks can have
problems with even single speed transmission see the Tesla Model S for that
example.

Roger Merriman
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Merriman
Post by AMuzi
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios,
that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to
the beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation
of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency,
etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
It actually seems to me to be significantly less complicated
than a standard automatic transmission
Post by AMuzi
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
Nothing a good pair of legs can't handle :)
I have to admit I don't know much about modern electronic
control slushboxes (except to avoid them) but the geared CVT
is much more complex than what I drive* and infinitely more
complex than what I most often ride (fixed)
* https://corvair.com/user-cgi/catalog.cgi?show_page=130
The trend forward seems to be for much less complex gearboxes with single
gear, ie EV?s certainly for cars and what not, as the electric motor has
much better torque range, vs internal combustion.
Heavy goods vehicles at least the Lorries seem to be roughly the same
EV/ICE ie 12/18 gears.
Buses seem to be single speed but then their speed doesn?t vary much, ie
0-20/30mph ish
All of such vehicles seem to be automatic gearboxes though fairly
sophisticated, ie able to cope with engine braking and so on, certainly not
seen a lorry on fire for few years now which had run out of brakes coming
off the hill, which certainly used to be a thing as child ie a lorry in the
escape lane ie sand pit with smoking brakes or on fire!
Ie impressive as it might be I?m not sure of it?s applicable really.
Roger Merriman
ICE engines have maximum torque at about 4,000 rpm. So they need a gearbox to allow the engine to generate enough torque to pull off a stop. Electric cars generate 100% torque at 0 rpm so they have no need for a gear box unless construction of the electric motor doesn't allow it to turn fast enough to hold freeway speeds. Tesla builds his own motors to avoid that problem.
cyclintom
2024-12-04 17:50:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand.
Internal gear hubs are more complicated. (When I was
teaching, I had our machinist do a cutaway of a Sturmey-
Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand near an
explanatory poster, so interested students could see what
made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more
complicated than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff
look like child's play. It's a true continuously variable
transmission, with an infinite number of gear ratios, that
is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the
beginning to digest the super-complicated explanation of
it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
Brilliant and clever! Thank you.
I can only see complexity, cost to fabricate and weight as
downsides, none of which would be deal breakers for some
applications. Motor power for example.
Sort of the inverse of fixed, which are dirt cheap, light
and reliable at the cost of zero gear variance.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I think that the weight and complexity and the fact that no one needs z continuously variable transmission when geared automatics are cheaper and lighter and just as effective is the problem. Showing the ability to do something is not the same as showing a need for it.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 15:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations and
thought "how do they account for that"...then they showed the elliptical
gear design...well done!
--
Add xx to reply
Tom Kunich
2024-12-04 22:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces,
and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations and
thought "how do they account for that"...then they showed the elliptical
gear design...well done!
Why do you use the term ecentric rather than cam?
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces,
and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations and
thought "how do they account for that"...then they showed the elliptical
gear design...well done!
Why do you use the term ecentric rather than cam?
Eccentric is an adverb modifying 'movement', Cam is a noun.
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces,
and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations and
thought "how do they account for that"...then they showed the elliptical
gear design...well done!
Why do you use the term ecentric rather than cam?
Eccentric is an adverb modifying 'movement', Cam is a noun.
--
Add xx to reply
Showing again how stupid you are. You never mentioned movement.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces,
and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations and
thought "how do they account for that"...then they showed the elliptical
gear design...well done!
Why do you use the term ecentric rather than cam?
Eccentric is an adverb modifying 'movement', Cam is a noun.
--
Add xx to reply
Showing again how stupid you are. You never mentioned movement.
wow...I wrote:

"I was noticing the eccentric movement during one of the animations"

gawd you're a fucking idiot
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 17:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 17:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
--
Add xx to reply
Tom Kunich
2024-12-04 22:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective. The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about, and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance. Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload. That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer. So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.

Keep the stupidity coming.
zen cycle
2024-12-05 10:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload.
"spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings"?
I'd love to see you post a published spec that supports Sram BB30s have
different crank bearing sizes
Post by cyclintom
That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer.
Which has nothing to do with the size of the bearing.
Post by cyclintom
So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.
No, what you've just proven is why your crank arm fell off.
Post by cyclintom
Keep the stupidity coming.
No need to with you around.
John B.
2024-12-05 11:33:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 05:32:57 -0500, zen cycle
Post by zen cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload.
"spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings"?
I'd love to see you post a published spec that supports Sram BB30s have
different crank bearing sizes
Post by cyclintom
That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer.
Which has nothing to do with the size of the bearing.
Post by cyclintom
So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.
No, what you've just proven is why your crank arm fell off.
Post by cyclintom
Keep the stupidity coming.
No need to with you around.
Like most craftsmen I know when I'm assembling something and it
doesn't fit correctly my first move is to disassembly it and
reassemble it very carefully to determine is the problem actually the
item, or was it me?

Tommy's solution is to assume that the part is wrong.
--
Cheers,

John B.
AMuzi
2024-12-05 14:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John B.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 05:32:57 -0500, zen cycle
Post by zen cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload.
"spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings"?
I'd love to see you post a published spec that supports Sram BB30s have
different crank bearing sizes
Post by cyclintom
That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer.
Which has nothing to do with the size of the bearing.
Post by cyclintom
So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.
No, what you've just proven is why your crank arm fell off.
Post by cyclintom
Keep the stupidity coming.
No need to with you around.
Like most craftsmen I know when I'm assembling something and it
doesn't fit correctly my first move is to disassembly it and
reassemble it very carefully to determine is the problem actually the
item, or was it me?
Tommy's solution is to assume that the part is wrong.
And extra style points for RTFM, which saves a lot of time
and money in most cases.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
John B.
2024-12-06 04:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by AMuzi
Post by John B.
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 05:32:57 -0500, zen cycle
Post by zen cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload.
"spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings"?
I'd love to see you post a published spec that supports Sram BB30s have
different crank bearing sizes
Post by cyclintom
That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer.
Which has nothing to do with the size of the bearing.
Post by cyclintom
So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.
No, what you've just proven is why your crank arm fell off.
Post by cyclintom
Keep the stupidity coming.
No need to with you around.
Like most craftsmen I know when I'm assembling something and it
doesn't fit correctly my first move is to disassembly it and
reassemble it very carefully to determine is the problem actually the
item, or was it me?
Tommy's solution is to assume that the part is wrong.
And extra style points for RTFM, which saves a lot of time
and money in most cases.
One base I was stationed had a rule that if you were working on an
airplane that you MUST have the appropriate manual on hand and open to
the correct section or page for the work you were doing.
And they used to check.
--
Cheers,

John B.
cyclintom
2025-01-26 00:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by zen cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
--
- Frank Krygowski
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
lol...sure tommy, but then you can't figure out out to attach a crank
arm or adjust a headset without claiming the parts are defective.
I'm waiting for you to prove they aren't defective.
we aren't taking your word for it.
Post by Tom Kunich
The torque value is
set not to crush the wave washer, which you don't know anything about,
I have Sram Red BB30s on two bikes.
Post by Tom Kunich
and
setting the torque to that value crushes the wave washer flat. That means
that the non-drive side is out of tolerance.
More likely it means you're doing it wrong
Post by Tom Kunich
Not that you would know
anything about tolerances.
I know you have none.
--
Add xx to reply
If you did your own work on your bikes you would know that the SRAM spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings and that the wave washer only offers a preload.
"spacing is controlled by the different crank size bearings"?
I'd love to see you post a published spec that supports Sram BB30s have
different crank bearing sizes
Post by cyclintom
That is, the non-drive side bearing prevents the off-side crank arm from being over-tightened and pushing it solidly up against the wave washer.
Which has nothing to do with the size of the bearing.
Post by cyclintom
So you just proved yet again that you don't work on your own bikes.
No, what you've just proven is why your crank arm fell off.
Post by cyclintom
Keep the stupidity coming.
No need to with you around.
You have an awful lot of practice getting things wrong, Move down to the chart for GXP (SRAM) It plainly shows one side is 24 mm and the off-side is 22 mm.

https://wheelsmfg.com/crankset-tech

How can you be so stupid so often?
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-04 19:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.

Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
--
- Frank Krygowski
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 21:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Tom Kunich
2024-12-04 22:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work,
who needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
And you have never worked on your own bikes so what do you know about it?
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work,
who needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
And you have never worked on your own bikes so what do you know about it?
I worked part time in 3 bike shops and have always done my own work.

How are those special campagnolo non-stretch shifter cables working out?
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said. The cups are installed properly but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly. The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not. This is an education that you will never be able to use because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.

How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Zen Cycle
2024-12-04 23:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said.
You wish
Post by cyclintom
The cups are installed properly
Probably not
Post by cyclintom
but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly.
Yeeaaaaah, because sealed bearing assemblies are prone to being out of
alignment....lol...
Post by cyclintom
The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not.
lol...sure, the singular points of contact in a caged ball bearing lend
themselves to being more tolerant of lateral
misalignments....sure...lol. That's one quick way to a 'notch-o-matic'
headset.
Post by cyclintom
This is an education that you will never be able to use
no, that's an education no one should use.
Post by cyclintom
because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.
Other than a few instances of needing to re-tighten a headset, I haven't
had any problems I couldn't figure out.
Post by cyclintom
How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Look in the mirror
--
Add xx to reply
cyclintom
2024-12-04 23:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said.
You wish
Post by cyclintom
The cups are installed properly
Probably not
Post by cyclintom
but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly.
Yeeaaaaah, because sealed bearing assemblies are prone to being out of
alignment....lol...
Post by cyclintom
The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not.
lol...sure, the singular points of contact in a caged ball bearing lend
themselves to being more tolerant of lateral
misalignments....sure...lol. That's one quick way to a 'notch-o-matic'
headset.
Post by cyclintom
This is an education that you will never be able to use
no, that's an education no one should use.
Post by cyclintom
because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.
Other than a few instances of needing to re-tighten a headset, I haven't
had any problems I couldn't figure out.
Post by cyclintom
How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Look in the mirror
--
Add xx to reply
"Notchomatic"? Only you couldn't understand why headsets used to be different. I especially like your "probably not" based upon Adrews saying that as a faint possibility there could be a bump on the cup holding it misalligned. Is there ABYTHING that you could possibly understand? Tell us more about your professional cat 3 racing career as a permanent last place.
AMuzi
2024-12-05 03:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said.
You wish
Post by cyclintom
The cups are installed properly
Probably not
Post by cyclintom
but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly.
Yeeaaaaah, because sealed bearing assemblies are prone to being out of
alignment....lol...
Post by cyclintom
The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not.
lol...sure, the singular points of contact in a caged ball bearing lend
themselves to being more tolerant of lateral
misalignments....sure...lol. That's one quick way to a 'notch-o-matic'
headset.
Post by cyclintom
This is an education that you will never be able to use
no, that's an education no one should use.
Post by cyclintom
because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.
Other than a few instances of needing to re-tighten a headset, I haven't
had any problems I couldn't figure out.
Post by cyclintom
How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Look in the mirror
--
Add xx to reply
"Notchomatic"? Only you couldn't understand why headsets used to be different. I especially like your "probably not" based upon Adrews saying that as a faint possibility there could be a bump on the cup holding it misalligned. Is there ABYTHING that you could possibly understand? Tell us more about your professional cat 3 racing career as a permanent last place.
I might also mention that a modern headset cartridge bearing
upside down will give your symptom.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
zen cycle
2024-12-05 10:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said.
You wish
Post by cyclintom
The cups are installed properly
Probably not
Post by cyclintom
but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly.
Yeeaaaaah, because sealed bearing assemblies are prone to being out of
alignment....lol...
Post by cyclintom
The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not.
lol...sure, the singular points of contact in a caged ball bearing lend
themselves to being more tolerant of lateral
misalignments....sure...lol. That's one quick way to a 'notch-o-matic'
headset.
Post by cyclintom
This is an education that you will never be able to use
no, that's an education no one should use.
Post by cyclintom
because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.
Other than a few instances of needing to re-tighten a headset, I haven't
had any problems I couldn't figure out.
Post by cyclintom
How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Look in the mirror
--
Add xx to reply
"Notchomatic"? >
no, 'notch-o-matic'
Only you couldn't understand why headsets used to be different.
is it something along the lines of your explanation why one-piece
stem/bars were created? because "no one could ever get carbon bars to
stop slipping"?
I especially like your "probably not" based upon Adrews saying that as a faint possibility there could be a bump on the cup holding it misalligned.
yes tommy. In standard english, "probably not" perfectly aligns with the
notion of a faint possibility to the contrary.
Is there ABYTHING that you could possibly understand?
I understand that you're completely incompetent. Have you managed to
find a source for those magic campaganolo non-stretch shifter cables yet?
Tell us more about your professional cat 3 racing career as a permanent last place.
lol..."professional cat 3"?....And I'm the one who doesn't understand
things....
cyclintom
2025-01-26 00:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by zen cycle
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by cyclintom
Post by Zen Cycle
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist do
a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display stand
near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see what made
it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite number
of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping surfaces, and
supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys
You may want to start at about 14:30 before returning to the beginning
to digest the super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
And his latest, can't get a headset to seat.
--
Add xx to reply
Plainly showing that you don't work on your own bike so you don't understand what was said.
You wish
Post by cyclintom
The cups are installed properly
Probably not
Post by cyclintom
but the heasset won't adjust properly probably indicating that the sealed bearings are crooked and not allowing the steering to be adjusted properly.
Yeeaaaaah, because sealed bearing assemblies are prone to being out of
alignment....lol...
Post by cyclintom
The original headset was a caged bearing type that is more flexible to the top and bottom of the head tube being offset slightly. But the sealed bearings are not.
lol...sure, the singular points of contact in a caged ball bearing lend
themselves to being more tolerant of lateral
misalignments....sure...lol. That's one quick way to a 'notch-o-matic'
headset.
Post by cyclintom
This is an education that you will never be able to use
no, that's an education no one should use.
Post by cyclintom
because you don't work on your own bikes and because it makes no sense to you since you don't know how to adjust a headset.
Other than a few instances of needing to re-tighten a headset, I haven't
had any problems I couldn't figure out.
Post by cyclintom
How does it feel to be as stupid as you are? Is it painful?
Look in the mirror
--
Add xx to reply
"Notchomatic"? >
no, 'notch-o-matic'
Only you couldn't understand why headsets used to be different.
is it something along the lines of your explanation why one-piece
stem/bars were created? because "no one could ever get carbon bars to
stop slipping"?
I especially like your "probably not" based upon Adrews saying that as a faint possibility there could be a bump on the cup holding it misalligned.
yes tommy. In standard english, "probably not" perfectly aligns with the
notion of a faint possibility to the contrary.
Is there ABYTHING that you could possibly understand?
I understand that you're completely incompetent. Have you managed to
find a source for those magic campaganolo non-stretch shifter cables yet?
Tell us more about your professional cat 3 racing career as a permanent last place.
lol..."professional cat 3"?....And I'm the one who doesn't understand
things....
Now that we are really impressed with you being a "racer" at 65 years of age maybe you can audition with Mike's Bikes racing team
Tom Kunich
2024-12-04 22:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that a man that was fired as a plant
engineer believes a constant velocity transmission with cam operated
sliding ration adjusters would be "very complicated." I designed most of
the hardware for many instruments from the ProPette, the Progroup which
added a turn table with test tubes besides the 3 dimentional plate
mechanism to the mechanical heart valve in my heart/lung machine.
Frank Krygowski
2024-12-05 04:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that a man that was fired as a plant
engineer believes a constant velocity transmission with cam operated
sliding ration adjusters would be "very complicated."
I was never fired from any job. I was actively recruited for each of my
two teaching positions.
Post by Tom Kunich
I designed most of
the hardware for many instruments from the ProPette, the Progroup which
added a turn table with test tubes besides the 3 dimentional plate
mechanism to the mechanical heart valve in my heart/lung machine.
Maybe you did - although I doubt it, based only on your decades-long
history of lies here. I'm VERY skeptical about you designing any
mechanical part of a heart/lung machine.

Why not give us details on those supposed designs of yours? Let us be
astonished at your brilliance!
--
- Frank Krygowski
Catrike Ryder
2024-12-05 08:44:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 23:27:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that a man that was fired as a plant
engineer believes a constant velocity transmission with cam operated
sliding ration adjusters would be "very complicated."
I was never fired from any job. I was actively recruited for each of my
two teaching positions.
Easy to say, pretty difficult to prove... and given that you are a
known liar......
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
I designed most of
the hardware for many instruments from the ProPette, the Progroup which
added a turn table with test tubes besides the 3 dimentional plate
mechanism to the mechanical heart valve in my heart/lung machine.
Maybe you did - although I doubt it, based only on your decades-long
history of lies here. I'm VERY skeptical about you designing any
mechanical part of a heart/lung machine.
Why not give us details on those supposed designs of yours? Let us be
astonished at your brilliance!
--
C'est bon
Soloman
cyclintom
2025-01-26 00:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 23:27:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that a man that was fired as a plant
engineer believes a constant velocity transmission with cam operated
sliding ration adjusters would be "very complicated."
I was never fired from any job. I was actively recruited for each of my
two teaching positions.
Easy to say, pretty difficult to prove... and given that you are a
known liar......
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
I designed most of
the hardware for many instruments from the ProPette, the Progroup which
added a turn table with test tubes besides the 3 dimentional plate
mechanism to the mechanical heart valve in my heart/lung machine.
Maybe you did - although I doubt it, based only on your decades-long
history of lies here. I'm VERY skeptical about you designing any
mechanical part of a heart/lung machine.
Why not give us details on those supposed designs of yours? Let us be
astonished at your brilliance!
Not just a liar but a communist that hates the Constitution because it gives peopel the freedom to defend themselves.
AMuzi
2025-01-26 14:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by cyclintom
Post by Catrike Ryder
On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 23:27:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by cyclintom
Post by Frank Krygowski
Bike transmissions: Derailleurs are easy to understand. Internal gear
hubs are more complicated. (When I was teaching, I had our machinist
do a cutaway of a Sturmey-Archer AW hub and mount it on a display
stand near an explanatory poster, so interested students could see
what made it work.)
Rohloff 14 speed gear hubs are an order of magnitude more complicated
than AWs. But this new gizmo makes a Rohloff look like child's play.
It's a true continuously variable transmission, with an infinite
number of gear ratios, that is completely gear-based. No slipping
surfaces, and supposedly minimal friction losses.
http://youtu.be/mWJHI7UHuys You may want to start at
about 14:30 before returning to the beginning to digest the
super-complicated explanation of it's operation.
No info in the video about prototype weight, efficiency, etc.
So this is something you consider "super complicated" is it? All
anyoine should have needed is to see the levers slidding in the slots
to grasped the method that was used to both make the tranmission
continuously variable and limit the upper and lower ratios. But I
suppose you needed a half hour showing gears to grasp the idea.
Yes, Tom, I do consider that mechanism to be super complicated.
Of course, all of us here are familiar with your status as a mechanical
genius. ... um, one whose cranks fall off his bike, whose handlebars
slip, whose seatpost slips, whose derailleurs frequently don't work, who
needs special "non-stretch" cables ...
It doesn't surprise me at all that a man that was fired as a plant
engineer believes a constant velocity transmission with cam operated
sliding ration adjusters would be "very complicated."
I was never fired from any job. I was actively recruited for each of my
two teaching positions.
Easy to say, pretty difficult to prove... and given that you are a
known liar......
Post by Frank Krygowski
Post by Tom Kunich
I designed most of
the hardware for many instruments from the ProPette, the Progroup which
added a turn table with test tubes besides the 3 dimentional plate
mechanism to the mechanical heart valve in my heart/lung machine.
Maybe you did - although I doubt it, based only on your decades-long
history of lies here. I'm VERY skeptical about you designing any
mechanical part of a heart/lung machine.
Why not give us details on those supposed designs of yours? Let us be
astonished at your brilliance!
Not just a liar but a communist that hates the Constitution because it gives peopel the freedom to defend themselves.
It does no such thing.
Our Constitution doesn't 'give' rights, merely enumerates
and describes our natural rights. If we have a right to
life, that directly implies a right to preserve and defend
life.
--
Andrew Muzi
***@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Loading...