This is what's wrong with The Industry™
- Thread starter Electric_City
- Start date
-
- Tags
- e-bike
ThE ThuNderDoMe wAs RigGeD!1!
Brake spacers and bleed spacers which don't have what model of brakes they're for engraved on them.
I've got dozens of the fucking things and no idea if I've got the correct one for half our bikes to be able to properly bleed them.
I've got dozens of the fucking things and no idea if I've got the correct one for half our bikes to be able to properly bleed them.
Is it really that critical? I usually just use a wedge of wood or whatever is nearby.
You can get an overpriced, fancy anodized piece of alumin(i)um from your favorite Germans to solve this issue.
Bleedblock – Le Block
trickstuff.de
Wire cutters with two flat parallel faces on them held in the caliper with a zip tie works great.
You can thank me later.
Whoever signed off on the detailed design for SRAM DUB cranks deserves to have a crank spindle forcibly inserted in them. The fact that a breaker bar/torch is necessary to remove a crank bolt after 30 years of "innovation" should be embarrassing.
The drive side cover to my wife's new DUB crankset endowed bike fell off on Saturday. She'd owned the bike for 8 days.
Bike shop must not have torqued to 3000lb/ft. Their fault.
Just keep a few sections of PVC pipe extensions around, it'll be fine.
Aren't the pads then not ending up too close to the rotor?
No, the pistons will always retract the amount the seals want them to. To advance the pistons (and end up with the pads closer to the rotor) you'd replace the rotor with something thinner or replace the rotor and pads with a spacer that's thinner, then pump the lever. This is how you get a shorter than normal lever throw at the cost of pad/rotor clearance. Of course, the effect only lasts until the pads wear or you push the pistons back.
Doing it my way gets the same result as using the correct spacer. It's just faster and riskier. Just like me
He's indoctrinating us in preparation for Scott's new handlebar/stem/steerer standard that allows for total internal cabling at the cost of your relationship with your shop mechanic.
Interesting. I was always afraid of overfilling and the one time I tried a similar method to yours I did not manage to get the pads rub free. But it was with a Formula R1, which are notorious for little piston movement.No, the pistons will always retract the amount the seals want them to. To advance the pistons (and end up with the pads closer to the rotor) you'd replace the rotor with something thinner or replace the rotor and pads with a spacer that's thinner, then pump the lever. This is how you get a shorter than normal lever throw at the cost of pad/rotor clearance. Of course, the effect only lasts until the pads wear or you push the pistons back.
Doing it my way gets the same result as using the correct spacer. It's just faster and riskier. Just like me
This and this
I have a similar experience and opinion of cinch cranks. I swore them off after my experience with my EVIL, but they were one of the few non-ridiculous options for my road bike that were light and fit SRAM's special 12sp chain. It goes together OK, but lubricating the chainring interface on your crankset shouldn't be a maintenance item if you want a creak free ride. The RF cranks on the evil did it and now my Eastons do it. Yuck. My shimanos don't and never have. I disagree with the switch to torx, but that's small bananas
yeah a news rag trying to convince customers that SRAM or Trek's latest campaign to get us to part with our money is definitely part of what's wrong with the industry. I'm all for improvements, but things like fork axles seem absolutely daft, similar to flat mount discs on MTB or full on internal routing...just why. It seems like the auto industry trying to prevent people from working on their own cars and forcing them into the dealer.
To be clear, I don't condone overfilling or piston advancing. I don't think the shorter lever throw is worth the reduced clearance and it's not a lasting adjustment. I also don't condone bleeding with the pads and rotor in place unless you can be careful to definitely not get a single drop of oil on them. It's like disassembling small parts while standing on a deck with widely spaced boards. You're almost asking for trouble.
but y tho
less likely to damage the bolt or tool for a given torque value compared to hex.
Good to see some things never change.
SRAM cranks; either falling off on their own, or remaining in place for eternity since 2005. Accept no substitutes.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22781373/VRG_ILLO_4687_Amazon_Bikes.jpg)
As demand for bikes surged, Amazon got in the way
Customer service on Amazon can’t compare to an independent bike shop.
No matter the cranks, when the loosen/fall off, it's absolutely installation error. If you didn't do it, whomever did should make it right. The taper-lock system used on these cranks is the same as has been used since the dawn of dedicated mountain bikes...except instead of a square, it's splined. Still taper lock. I really don't find this very hard. I do remember a few years when I was stupidly trying to remove cranks with large Allen wrenches and stuff, but otherwise it's not a big deal. I like shimano's, but they screwed that up initially too with the plastic preloader, instead of metal.
I do like that you can use a small torx in a big torx head when you're really in a pinch, but I really wish they started with it and didn't just decide one day that I needed a new set of tools. Now I have to carry torx and allens to do the same things I used to be able to do with allens.
Several problems IME:
Giant aluminum bolts/fasteners with huge amounts of friction and loc-tite with dinky little torque interfaces. Even relatively large torx fittings are relatively small for this application. Sure, you can impart a ton of torque...plenty of torque to strip the interface right out. Most common in pivot bolts. Yay, we saved weight. Even lighter with the metal shavings from the rounded hole.
Shallow torx heads that work fine in the laboratory and also save weight, but on the trail trying to tighten with a multi-tool, also resulting in stripped interface or busted knuckles. The hex interface keeps the tool somewhat straight, not perfect, but better in many cases. That's kind of the issue, the interface on these doesn't keep the tool straight and impart the force evenly. On the negative side of hex tools, when the tool gets worn that can trash your interface real quick.
And yea, now starting to use different sized torx bolts like T20, T15, is really annoying. Many of these are decent, but then we need the whole bike to be like this, not just select parts.
Last edited:
Torx head fasteners usually have shallow engagement and are more of a liability than an asset. Trash bin.
or maybe that's a feature to keep people from ham fisting the shit out of them.
I don't like torx, and I like the cheese torx bits that come on MTB multi-tools even less.
That has been a problem for at least a decade, in my experience.
It will absolutely never happen in MTB, but I like how in the BMX world, some brands were pushing for a single hex key size for the entire bike.
That has been a problem for at least a decade, in my experience.
It will absolutely never happen in MTB, but I like how in the BMX world, some brands were pushing for a single hex key size for the entire bike.
I wondered why people were hating on this up until I had to remove a set. Seriously put so much force into undoing that crank that I was afraid I'd either strip the bolt retaining thingy out of the crank, or that something would suddenly give and I'd do myself an injury in the subsequent explosion.
Nah, if the BB spindle is still in the crank when they fall off its more rider error.
I used to be all aboard the Torx bandwagon, until on my new AXS dropper post they put in a T25 for the rail clamp bolt with a torque rating of 12 n-m. Came damn close to stripping it the first time I tried to loosen it (with a good Wera Torx L-wrench). Torx is fine for low torque stuff (~5 n-m), but I want deeper hex for anything above that.