Bike designs which should be binned

[freeflow]

I can understand the POV that q/r isn't necessary on a bike that's not used for racing. It can be argued that as q/r enables quick thieving, then the answer must surely be track nuts or better still, something even more secure needing a special removal tool. But if it's argued that q/r is unnecessary and possibly dangerous in the hands of people who lack the wit to use them, then continuing to fit q/r as standard can only be an otherwise pointless marketing gimmick. Fitting them and then modifying fork ends to render them both "safe" and useless for their intended purpose is nonsense.

Again No. Quick release skewers would be better if they were called tool-less skewers and in this respect they are quite excellent. You need to get away from conflating racing requirements with things that make general cycling more convenient.

What would be better is tool-less a la the tool-less DT-Swiss axles I have on my current bike which have levers that don't flip but can be pulled outward to clear obstructions when tightening, and which, if you pull a little harder, allow the level to be removed from the skewer, thus unintentionally making the tool-less through axle more robust against opportunistic theft.

[Mick F]

As for the "lawyer's lips", they are standard on the Moulton TSR (don't know about other Moultons) but I left no time in filing mine off even though the bike was under warranty at the time.

[Bmblbzzz]

.......Also @MartinC pretty much all motorcycles worldwide have had the rear brake on the right pedal since ~mid-70s at least.

Thinking about it that's pretty much the last time I rode a motorcycle, BSA C12 and a Bantam. So I guess that this means that the rear brake on a bicycle should be on the right pedal and the gear change on the left pedal. Presumably if you've got a rear mech with a clutch it should have a lever for the right hand but maybe derailleurs are wrong and we should all have Pinion gear boxes.

@ the clutch.

[thirdcrank]

Both my sets came on off-the-peg Cannondales. The first lot were only small pips on the tips of the fork ends and easily filed off. The second lot are in the form are shaped fork ends with recesses for the q/r locks. I suppose they could be ground off but it would be quite a job to do it without damaging the fork ends.

[Bmblbzzz]

Don't know when it was required by UK law. But even in countries that drive on the right, bikes with a lever-operated front front brake and backpedal rear brake always have that brake lever on the right.

That’s not true. Here in Sweden coaster-braked bikes all have their front brake lever on the LH side. As indeed do all bikes. I assume the same is true in all other countries where the standard way is to have the front brake on the LH side.

Yeah, I knew there'd be variation, so I didn't say "all countries". Didn't realize it'd be Sweden (I wonder if it's related to H Day: they just switched everything over?) I should think there'll also be variation over time and by manufacturer, particularly if we go back far enough. But there are countries that drive on the right where it's standard to have brakes set up front-left if they're both lever operated but front-right if there's only one lever.

[slowster]

Once lawyers' lips are added to the drop outs, a quick release skewer is no longer the optimal type of wheel fastening. They are a safety feature which has been added to an existing design which worked very well, but in so doing has reduced what makes QRs so good. Nor do they address the real problem, which is user error and ignorance. Instead they effectively encourage people who don't know better to continue to make the same mistake, e.g. using the QR lever as a handle to tighten the skewer nut (rather than using the cam).

Moreover the need to adjust the skewer every time the wheel is re-inserted creates its own safety hazard, which is that people who are careless or in a hurry will over- or under-tighten the skewer. Without lawyers' lips the clamping force need only be adjusted the first time the wheels are installed. Under-tightening is especially dangerous with disc brakes, and I would not want to rely on the small bit of metal of the lips to retain a disc wheel which had been insufficiently secured in a standard drop out against the braking force that would seek to eject the wheel.

With regard to the DT Swiss skewers, I've seen reports of them breaking, and again they strike me as an inferior design.

I think that with lawyers' lips the optimal wheel fastening is arguably a security skewer or large wing nuts on a solid axle. With those the ability to spin the nut or allen key with fingers will be more convenient and quicker than manually unscrewing a skewer nut, and users are much less likely to under-tighten them than a QR which has been tightened by using the QR lever as a handle to tighten the skewer nut.

[Cowsham]

Heavy children's bikes -- little wonder the wanes don't take up cycling.

+1 and the useless steel caliper brakes they fit on them which are too stiff for kiddies hands to operate

Yep -- they just fob us off with this crap

[ElCani]

Don't know when it was required by UK law. But even in countries that drive on the right, bikes with a lever-operated front front brake and backpedal rear brake always have that brake lever on the right.

That’s not true. Here in Sweden coaster-braked bikes all have their front brake lever on the LH side. As indeed do all bikes. I assume the same is true in all other countries where the standard way is to have the front brake on the LH side.

Yeah, I knew there'd be variation, so I didn't say "all countries". Didn't realize it'd be Sweden (I wonder if it's related to H Day: they just switched everything over?) I should think there'll also be variation over time and by manufacturer, particularly if we go back far enough. But there are countries that drive on the right where it's standard to have brakes set up front-left if they're both lever operated but front-right if there's only one lever.

Interesting, and… odd! Do you know which countries?

[Jdsk]

Interesting, and… odd! Do you know which countries?

https://gocycle.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ar ... rake-Left-

"Most performance bikes in Japan seem to follow French practice (front – left)."
https://www.renehersecycles.com/which-h ... ich-brake/

"Japan is front brake right"
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 6&start=15

And for one particular product:
Japan FBR
https://gocycle.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ar ... rake-Left-

"Brake Levers. Left - Right?"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28715

"Rear brake on the left or right handlebar?"
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60201&hilit=brake+l ... left+right

Jonathan

[MartinC]

The real drawback with lawyers lips is that they predispose the circumstances which they're attempting to mitigate. A well adjusted QR won't come undone. Making you change the adjustment every time you remove and replace the wheel increases the chances of bad adjustment. Brucey has a protocol where he memorises the number of turns required to clear the lips and repeats this every time. I'm sceptical about this 'cos I'd never remember how many turns for which bike. Also because creating a proxy for adjustment checking just encourages you not to check the adjustment after it's potentially been changed.

The advantage of QR's for ordinary cyclists is tool-less wheel removal/replacement (racers can't quickly change wheels anymore 'cos of disk brakes). Lawyers lips are there to cater for one risk that people who don't need and don't know how to operate QR's might inflict on themselves. They aren't going to stop them forgetting to do them up or using them as a nut and ignoring the slight movement until it frets it's way past them. They are there purely to mitigate the liability of the manufacturer. This is terrible, something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done.

I don't care if people file them off or not. Idiots will still be idiots. I've never got round to filing any off yet. I just sigh every time I change a wheel and carefully check the adjustment. Verschlimmbessern.

[Stradageek]

I mean, hub gears are fine, but the embarrassing truth is that Shimano and SRAM do it better.

Without trying to be too argumentative, but coming from a background where I regularly have a garage full of shed discards for renovation (helping a local charity) I can honestly say:

A false neutral on an AW3 is more easily remedied than a maladjusted or mangled derailleur system and a single speed chain lasts pretty much forever, derailleur chains don't.

Shimano hub gears are nice and slick but very 'draggy' compared to an AW3

The SRAM 3-speed hub is nice but I don't find the gear changes as slick as the AW3

And, to be just a little bit argumentative; if the AW3 is so poor, why has it remained in production since 1936?

The most common problem, as you have indicated, is that people just don't know what they are or what they are missing

[rogerzilla]

As for the "lawyer's lips", they are standard on the Moulton TSR (don't know about other Moultons) but I left no time in filing mine off even though the bike was under warranty at the time.

I've had a couple of pairs of new build forks from Argos and they certainly don't put such abominations on their dropouts.

[sjs]

I can understand the POV that q/r isn't necessary on a bike that's not used for racing. It can be argued that as q/r enables quick thieving, then the answer must surely be track nuts or better still, something even more secure needing a special removal tool. But if it's argued that q/r is unnecessary and possibly dangerous in the hands of people who lack the wit to use them, then continuing to fit q/r as standard can only be an otherwise pointless marketing gimmick. Fitting them and then modifying fork ends to render them both "safe" and useless for their intended purpose is nonsense.

This is a view I have a lot more sympathy for, although I’d argue that lawyer lips make QRs “less convenient” rather than “useless”. I certainly think that the number of people who are unable to use QRs properly but would still benefit from tool-free wheel removal (basically while fixing punctures when out riding) is pretty small. However, seeing as every modern bike I’ve worked on has lawyer lips on the fork, irrespective of the method used to secure the wheel, it seems that protecting people (and companies) from a badly installed front wheel will always be prioritised. Not the end of the world.

Adding 15 seconds or so to the time taken to fix a puncture does not amount to rendering q/rs useless. OTOH perhaps the fact that a certain amount of screwing/unscrewing is necessary leads to an increased number of people never understanding the basic principle of the q/r.

[rogerzilla]

The AW slippage problem is down to one of two things:

1. Badly adjusted cable (too tight in high gear, too loose in normal gear)

2. Worn clutch, worn planet pins and/or worn bores for the pins, allowing the clutch to squirm off the ends of the pins under high torque against spring pressure. This can only happen in the highest gear.

The cure for (2) is not to ride out of the saddle in the highest gear and to replace badly-worn clutches and pins (they are cheap and easily found).

AW hubs made since the 1990s (I think), and the alloy-shelled SRF3 and SRC3 (also BSR and BWR on Bromptons) are a No Intermediate Gear (NIG) design and cannot slip. They are excessively complex, though, and less reliable.

[thirdcrank]

Put this the other way round. What is the point of fitting a bike with quick release hubs if their operation is to be hampered? Why not fit track nuts?