You are officially a cycling amateur if...
Comments
-
-
You are a cycling amateur if you claim quick links work.
They fuse together over time from the front and rear mech, sprockets and chainrings rubbing it. Quick links are a marketing gimmick that get sold to people because people like to think such things are possible. People that use them for under 500 miles will always say they "work", because thats not enough gear changes to get it all fusing together yet.
I buy a bike, ride it, the quick link fuses together and you say "I can't use one"?
Nope, the manufacturers cannot manufacture one - guess why? Because they don't work. Maybe if they made it out of the same material as the chain (or for something like this, something harder than the chain) it might be a start.0 -
you don't know that amateur and professional status on licences was done away with some years ago (now cat 4 to Elite) :-)0
-
Manc33 wrote:You are a cycling amateur if you claim quick links work.
They fuse together over time from the front and rear mech, sprockets and chainrings rubbing it. Quick links are a marketing gimmick that get sold to people because people like to think such things are possible. People that use them for under 500 miles will always say they "work", because thats not enough gear changes to get it all fusing together yet.
I buy a bike, ride it, the quick link fuses together and you say "I can't use one"?
Nope, the manufacturers cannot manufacture one - guess why? Because they don't work. Maybe if they made it out of the same material as the chain (or for something like this, something harder than the chain) it might be a start.
So the quick link on the winter bike with 6 years use, (thousands of miles on the same cassette/rings in all weathers) that was undone for the first time ever last week with no problem at all was a was one off in the world of countless fused together quick links then?
Blimey, it must be magic.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Huh? You think it's amateur to use brakes?Manc33 wrote:....You are officially a cycling amateur if you use brakes EVER - except to finally stop for the day.
You do love your conspiracy theories. You've previously claimed that carbon seatposts are a gimmick and they just break although you're the only person I can recall reporting a seatpost breakage. I'm no expert on quick links. I recently fitted one (without any difficulty) but have yet to try disconnecting it. However I'm inclined to believe the many people who've used these for years and found them reliable and practical. Is it possible you're assigning fault to hardware in cases where the fault actually lies elsewhere?Manc33 wrote:You are a cycling amateur if you claim quick links work.
They fuse together over time from the front and rear mech, sprockets and chainrings rubbing it. Quick links are a marketing gimmick that get sold to people because people like to think such things are possible. People that use them for under 500 miles will always say they "work", because thats not enough gear changes to get it all fusing together yet.
I buy a bike, ride it, the quick link fuses together and you say "I can't use one"?
Nope, the manufacturers cannot manufacture one - guess why? Because they don't work. Maybe if they made it out of the same material as the chain (or for something like this, something harder than the chain) it might be a start.0 -
My experience is SRAM 8/9 speed quicklinks are easy peasy to get off even after thousands of miles of usage (especially if you know the correct technique) whereas KMC 9 speed quicklinks are a pain in the arse by comparison, even when new.0
-
Manc33 wrote:You are a cycling amateur if you claim quick links work.
They fuse together over time from the front and rear mech, sprockets and chainrings rubbing it. Quick links are a marketing gimmick that get sold to people because people like to think such things are possible. People that use them for under 500 miles will always say they "work", because thats not enough gear changes to get it all fusing together yet.
I buy a bike, ride it, the quick link fuses together and you say "I can't use one"?
Nope, the manufacturers cannot manufacture one - guess why? Because they don't work. Maybe if they made it out of the same material as the chain (or for something like this, something harder than the chain) it might be a start.
They work on my motorbike chain
You are officially an amateur cyclist when you refer to a motorbike on an amateur cycling thread. Fact.0 -
SRAM 9 speed quick links (or whatever they are called) work fantastically well for me. Thousands of miles per year and no problems.0
-
You are officially a cycling amateur if... your missus laughs at you in lycra, particularly in bib tights. :oops: :oops:0
-
Ai_1 wrote:you're the only person I can recall reporting a seatpost breakage.
When I posted about my carbon seatpost breaking, someone else posted pretty soon after in that same thread, saying they had the same one and it broke. People just have selective memory because it is me saying it. People see what they want to see, if I am saying something it must be wrong. You're not going to remember someone else posted in that same thread, of course.Ai_1 wrote:I'm no expert on quick links. I recently fitted one (without any difficulty) but have yet to try disconnecting it. However I'm inclined to believe the many people who've used these for years and found them reliable and practical. Is it possible you're assigning fault to hardware in cases where the fault actually lies elsewhere?
Maybe all the working ones are Shimano I don't know, I have only used SRAM ones and they always end up a permanent part of the chain.0 -
Manc33 wrote:Maybe all the working ones are Shimano I don't know, I have only used SRAM ones and they always end up a permanent part of the chain.
As I posted above, the SRAM ones that I have had have not been a problem at all.0 -
KMC ones are great, I've used loads without any problems. I don't think Shimano make quick links. When I got a Shimano chain with a groupset I binned the joining pin and used a quick link. Took the chain off several times to clean it never had a problem. There is a bit of a knack to splitting a quick link without a pair of pliers, but it's not difficult. You are far more likely to break a chain you've joined badly with a chain tool, any Shimano chain where you haven't used a joining pin for example, than to break a split link. I've used split links several times to get people moving again that were stranded with broken chains. But I've not yet had to use one myself to fix a broken chain on my bike, always carry one just in case though.southdownswolf wrote:Manc33 wrote:Maybe all the working ones are Shimano I don't know, I have only used SRAM ones and they always end up a permanent part of the chain.
As I posted above, the SRAM ones that I have had have not been a problem at all.0 -
No I don't remember, just had a look and right you are, but the fact remains that failures of carbon seatposts are an unusual occurrence and yet you stated that carbon seatposts as a whole were not trustworthy, just a gimmick, and we should only buy metal seatposts. Ignoring the fact that you'd bought a product of suspect provenance (a £25 carbon seatpost you stated was a known "fake"). In fact i think you went so far as to tell us that Thompson seatposts were the only seatposts that worked and everything else was crap.Manc33 wrote:Ai_1 wrote:you're the only person I can recall reporting a seatpost breakage.
When I posted about my carbon seatpost breaking, someone else posted pretty soon after in that same thread, saying they had the same one and it broke. People just have selective memory because it is me saying it. People see what they want to see, if I am saying something it must be wrong. You're not going to remember someone else posted in that same thread, of course....
Why would people pick on you and think what you say is wrong? Many things you've posted have been rather silly and inaccurate opinions which you stated as fact so I, and I suspect others too, now take your comments with a pinch of salt. There may be something to them, but there may not. By all means tell us you've had problems with X, Y or Z and you like A, B and C but don't state as fact opinions based on a single case or small sample. Apologies, I've gone off topic....
Shimano don't make them as far as I'm aware. I think it's just SRAM and KMC.Manc33 wrote:Maybe all the working ones are Shimano I don't know, I have only used SRAM ones and they always end up a permanent part of the chain.0 -
Nope, I can't find the quick link conspiracy but that doesn't mean there isn't one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... story.html
Anyway back OT
You spend more time on this forum than on your bike
It's raining
It's windy
It's cold“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:Manc33 wrote:You are a cycling amateur if...
...it might be a start.
So the quick link on the winter bike with 6 years use, (thousands of miles on the same cassette/rings in all weathers) that was undone for the first time ever last week with no problem at all was a was one off in the world of countless fused together quick links then?
Blimey, it must be magic.
Can we see pics of your shredded transmission please? You tight 4rse.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You engage in heated online discussion about the durability of components.You are officially a cycling amateur if...0 -
Why doesn't Shimano make quick links? There's a clue!
My answer would be "because they know better". :P
A Halford's Carrera bike I had around year 2000 (£600, yellow, hydraulic discs) had a quick link on the chain, but I don't know what brand the chain was. Never rode that bike far enough to fully test the quick link.
I remember selling that bike crapping myself in case the guy rode off on it (which he easily could have). 0 -
If you don't use a quick link and wireless electronic shifting?
From the article on the home page about SRAM's new groupset.0 -
^ As far as i am aware, there is only one pro squad running SRAM this year, so they had better catch up pronto.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
So you had a bike. It was fitted with a quick link. The quick link never failed (regardless whether you rode it far or not). You were terrified that it would fail if the guy rode it home.Manc33 wrote:A Halford's Carrera bike I had around year 2000 (£600, yellow, hydraulic discs) had a quick link on the chain, but I don't know what brand the chain was. Never rode that bike far enough to fully test the quick link.
I remember selling that bike crapping myself in case the guy rode off on it (which he easily could have).
Am I missing something here? All you appear to be telling us is that you have an irrational fear of quick link failure.
Given that you had this fear back in 2000, what induced you to continue trying them in order to build up your considerable knowledge of their propensity for failure?...or have you actually got bugger all experience of quick links?0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
So you had a bike. It was fitted with a quick link. The quick link never failed (regardless whether you rode it far or not). You were terrified that it would fail if the guy rode it home.Manc33 wrote:A Halford's Carrera bike I had around year 2000 (£600, yellow, hydraulic discs) had a quick link on the chain, but I don't know what brand the chain was. Never rode that bike far enough to fully test the quick link.
I remember selling that bike crapping myself in case the guy rode off on it (which he easily could have).
Am I missing something here? All you appear to be telling us is that you have an irrational fear of quick link failure.
Given that you had this fear back in 2000, what induced you to continue trying them in order to build up your considerable knowledge of their propensity for failure?...or have you actually got bugger all experience of quick links?
60% of the time, they fail every time.0 -
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)0 -
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)
You just made that up.0 -
Prove it. Using statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)
You just made that up. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Prove it. Using statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)
You just made that up.
80% of people lie 20% of the time and 20% of people lie 80% of the time.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Too absolute.pinarello001 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Prove it. Using statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)
You just made that up.
80% of people lie 20% of the time and 20% of people lie 80% of the time. The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Too absolute.pinarello001 wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Prove it. Using statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
250 apparently. :PMaglia Rosa wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Quality use of statistics.Maglia Rosa wrote:
60% of the time, they fail every time.
Sigh. One born every minute :-)
You just made that up.
80% of people lie 20% of the time and 20% of people lie 80% of the time.
You can't handle the truth.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You are officially a cycling amateur if you cannot believe a quick link can get worn down over time.
What next, chains don't stretch? Its not stretched its just an irrational fear?
Sometimes things wear out. One of those things is quick links, or weakest links as I call them.0
