It'll double your chain life and you'll never have to adjust or oil the chain manually again.
I have philosophical problems with total loss lubrication. At least with a molybdenum disulfide based viscous lube a significant portion stays on the chain and sprockets.
Or get a BMW F650CS. It has a belt that's rated to last up to 75,000 miles. Much better than the 15,000 you usually get out of a manually lubed chain.
Well, I ride an R90S now, so I'm shafted, so to speak. Belts are a better solution though. Cams should also be driven by Kevlar belts. Then they'd outlast most motors and probably never need adjustment.
The problem with 2-stroke engines is that they're dirty. They aren't illegal because they're 2-stroke, they're illegal because they can't pass modern emissions.
Two strokes need not be dirty. A sealed case design with fuel and air injection, such as the Australian Orbital models, can run significantly more cleanly than similar displacement carbureted four stroke engines. Two strokes with OCP direct fuel injection have met even California Ultra Low Emissions Level (ULEV) standards. And off course, it produces much more power.
I guess I'm showing my age and former poverty here. Before o-ring chains became pervasive, broken chains were much more common. One of mine was an old fashioned metal piece of crap. The other was an elderly Tsubaki o-ring chain on a Ninja 900. I never recovered the chain so I am not sure of the details, but IIRC, the sprockets were pretty worn (which also means worn chain). I made very little money back then, had no car and frequently rode 200-500 miles in rough weather.
I have also seen chains fail from broken or improperly installed master link clips. I guess that isn't technically "breaking" but the net effect is similar.
Personally, I think small bore two stroke dirt bikes are plenty serious. Not that I ever even owned a dirt bike, but I used to have to test ride them at work. Mostly motocross, not enduro, so 125, 250 and 500cc, not 150cc. But trust me, a CR500 is serious.
I wish you could still get two stroke street bikes in the US. I have an RD400 Daytona project bike in my basement right now.
A thin aluminum frag-guard would keep the driver perfectly safe in the (unlikely) event of a chain failure.
That's not a nelly little bicycle chain. Motorcycle chains are stout stuff.
I've broken a couple. It is annoying, since it tends to strand you and/or lose races, but I have never been hurt or seen anyone hurt as a result. Can't say the same for any number of other component failures (coolant hoses for instance). For me the worst thing about chains is the constant lubing and adjusting. I'd like to see more kevlar drive belts (no adjustment necessary) like Harley-Davdson uses.
That said, some olde tyme designs had three chains: one timing (to the cam), one primary (to the gearbox) and one final drive. But I have never seen a motorcycle cam or primary chain break through a case.
I am a unix sysadmin. My primary, machine is a TiBook, my secondary is a Fedora Dell GX270. At home my wife has an iBook. Until last week I had never really used Windows on the desktop for more than a few minutes at a time. I used to use DOS a lot, but I hated it. Last week I had to use Windows in a rather arcane class. It wasn't fun.
I was actually a beta tester, so this has been working for me for a while, but my number one bug in Jaguar and Panther is officially fixed. WINS resolution now works for SMB network browsing!
Beats me. They didn't require that of me, and that was six years ago, when PDF was still relatively exotic. I looked at HR's web site and it doesn't say anything about requiring.docs. Sounds like a lot of places do though, so he probably just plays it safe. I make it a point to distribute my meeting minutes and all final documents in PDF. I only send easily editable formats when I solicit comments and those are typically RTF or plain text. Nobody around here complains. I have a copy of Office X on my Powerbook, but rarely use it. OTOH, I don't often use StarOffice 7 or OpenOffice.org on my fedora desktop either.
Sounds like my kind of dog. Although Danes and the like worry me because of the short life expenctancy. One of my Border Collies is 18, and despite epilepsy, two brutal dog attacks and being run completely over by an oil truck, shows no signs of mortality. Another is 13 and basically a puppy. The svejkist is a 6 year old deformed runt rescue poodle.
The Sadlow translation is earthier and shows a sharper edgier Svejk. People say it is more faithful, essentially more Czech, than the Parrot translation. Understandable, considering Parrot was an English diplomat.
What kind of dog? One of mine should be named Svejk, based on his behavior. "Humbly report Sir, I reported to the back door per regulations, but could not remember how to ask to be let out. So I peed at my post. But I am certain the persian rug contained the damage, protecting the newly polyurethaned floor."
Adam Smith, and nearly all of the British classical economists believed in labor value. David Ricardo was the first to expound a formal theory, and attempt to empirically measure the investment of labor, but Smith most certainly agreed with him that Labor was the source of value, and along with market variables played a major role in setting prices.
But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. It is often difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different quantities of labour. The time spent in two different sorts of work will not alone determine this proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an hour's hard work, than in two hours easy business; or, an hour's application to a trade which it costs ten years' labour to learn, than in a month's industry at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure, either of hardship or ingenuity. In exchanging, indeed, the different productions of different sorts of labour for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality, which though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life. (Smith 1776, Book I, Chapter V)
In speaking, however, of labour, as being the foundation of all value, and the relative quantity of labour as almost exclusively determining the relative value of commodities, I must not be supposed to be inattentive to the different qualities of labour, and the difficulty of comparing an hour's or a day's labour, in one employment, with the same duration of labour in another. The estimation in which different qualities of labour are held, comes soon to be adjusted in the market with sufficient precision for all practical purposes, and depends much on the comparative skill of the labourer, and intensity of the labour performed. The scale, when once formed, is liable to little variation. If a day's labour of a working jeweller be more valuable than a day's labour of a common labourer, it has long ago been adjusted, and placed in its proper position in the scale of value. (David Ricardo 1821, Chapter I, Section IV)
In "The Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith explains the "Diamond-Water paradox". The most useful, valuable, life-sustaining entity on the planet is water - yet, it has practically no price, since supply is free ( it rains ! ). The least useful frivilous commodity is the diamond, but it has enormous, immense value in the eyes of man.
So, Smith says, an economist must never attempt to tie value with price, since they don't have much of a relationship. Porn on the net is much more valuable than all the useful techie manuals & MIT courseware put together, because Porn is the ultimate diamond.
I think Smith's point was not that value and price are unrelated, but that utility and value are unrelated. Water had immense utility, but held little value in Smith's Britain, as evidenced by its low price. Diamonds OTOH, had little utility but immense value and a high price. Smith surmised the value of a commodity had to come from somehting besides its utility. He believed the source of a commodity's value was the labor invested in producing it from raw materials. Water had little value added through labor, while diamonds had a lot (mining, polishing, cutting). David Ricardo and Karl Marx later refined this idea, which dominated the British tradition of political economy, into the Value Theory of Labor.
In the late 19th century, a competing theory of value emerged: marginal utility. Karl Menger argued that value was derived not from utility, but from marginal utility, the utility of an additional unit of the commodity. Hence water was immensely valuable when you had none, and remains so right up to the point where you have enough to survive. Then it's value dropped precipitously. Diamonds, OTOH, had pretty much the same utility regardless of how many you had (this was before industrial diamonds).
If both are scarce, water is more valuable because it has extremely high utility, but it's utility rapidly diminishes on the margin and hence its value drops precipitously. Once you have enought to survive you start buying the diamonds.
It it popular among neo-liberals and neo-classisists to claim marginal utility has killed the Labor Theory of Value, but that is an overstatement. Labor value is still a useful analytical tool and has many proponents. Both systems have their place. Likewise, Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, and his brilliant description of the role of conspicuous waste and conspicuous consumption in society and economics, goes a long way to answering the Diamonds and Water Paradox.
Incidently, the Air Force has plenty of tech-saavy people, often in the form of reservists. I've had systems guys in deployed locations who were company-grade officers... but senior software engineers at major corporations, often using linux on-the-job.
Sounds like the resume my boss just forwarded me for an interview. Except my guy is a Marine and a field grade officer. Worked for major proprietary unix vendor; has some Linux skills on his resume. Pretty good overall, but his resume is in MS Word format. What is that all about? You'd think he'd understand the advantages of PDF. It looks like crap. I guess I'll find out when I interview him.
Actually, English is also an official language of the Indian state. The constitution provided for this mainly to facilitate state business between the national government and those of non-Hindi speaking state governments.
Not really. Soviet military budget growth was moderate, about 4-7% anually, from 1965-1975. Then it dropped dramatically to about 2% between 1977-1982. After 1982 it hovered between 1-2%. From 1977 on there was no growth at all in spending on new weapons.
The Reagan administration's massive increases in military spending had no impact on Soviet spending at all. They tied their military budget growth rate to their GDP growth. When economic growth slowed, so did military spending increases.
I based my accusation of fallacy on the idea that the mainstream and technical reporters were not authoritative in the financial field. If they actually called this a cash bailout, then the certainly weren't. Cash was the last thing Apple needed at the time.
That said, I am not sure they actually reported the deal that way. Hell, I have had fellow sysadmins insist that MS actually bought Apple. I am pretty sure CNN and O'Reilly never reported that. OTOH, I would love to see a WSJ article which called it a bailout. Their faux finance and econ expertise is typically good for a laugh.
No, I believe that it is in the public interest that we hold all companies to legal standards and that those standards, by necessity, should be higher for monopolies. However, I think that it is obvious that some companies, like Enron, are completely out of control with no regard for law or business ethics, while others, like Baxter Healthcare and 3M are responsible actors. You have to admit that just because GM sued Ford buyers in 1903 does not make it plausible that they would do so today, even in secret by proxy. If MS did pay SCO to sue Linux users, it is an extreme case. Although IANAL, I would be shocked if it were legal
Unless I misunderstand your position, I don't agree with you at all. The Seldon suits were a sick joke and failed in court. The whole affair illustrated the need for effective anti-trust regulation.
They're not going to use the money to SUE someone for buying a GM.
Hopefully not, but GM once sued Ford's customers for buying Model Ts. OK, it wasn't actually GM yet, but some of the manufacturers in 1903 Seldon consortium later became GM.
That is a logical fallacy. An "appeal to authority" to be precise, IIRC. The press saying something is true does not make it true. MS bought 150,000 shares of non-voting preferred stock at $1000 a share. The deal was a show of good faith as part of a larger deal where they agreed to continue development of Mac MS Office for five years an Apple agreed to drop outstanding legal claims and bundle MS Explorer. MS did not agree to develop Office for OS X (Rhapsody, and Cocoa only at the time). The stock payed a dividend and was convertible to common stock at $16.50 after three years. MS ended up converting and selling at a market price of ~$82,IIRC. I can't remember what the dividend was. At the time, Apple had already issued their convertible debenture, sold most of their plant and some ARM holdings. They had over $6 billion in cash and cash equivalents. That is even more than they hold now. Microsoft's investment was merely window dressing. In fact, I don't see that Apple got much out of it at all. MS clearly had no plans to drop Office. They far exceeded the terms of their agreement by developing an OS X version.
Basically, your observations about cars are correct. I was going to point out the Czech exception, but you noted that.
Motorcycles are another story. Russian bikes are not much to speak of, and the Dneper and Ural owe a lot to older BMW designs. However the East German MZ was an innovative and scrappy marque, enjoying racing success well into the 1960s. In fact, it was the defection of MZ rider Ernst Degner to Suzuki in 1961 that gave the Japanese rotary valve technology, making their own two-strokes competitive for the first time. By the seventies, GP development budgets had far exceeded MZ's limited recources and they faded from the racing scene. But they continued to make staid inexpensive bikes. Lately they have enjoyed a bit of a renaissance, even in the US.
Not surprisingly, the Czechs also made excellent motorcycles. CZ dominated GP Motocross in the 1960s, winning more titles than any other manufacturer. Likewise, Jawa/ESO completely dominated Speedway and ice racing right through the 1980s. They also made some fine motocross, and IIRC, trials bikes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have philosophical problems with total loss lubrication. At least with a molybdenum disulfide based viscous lube a significant portion stays on the chain and sprockets.
Well, I ride an R90S now, so I'm shafted, so to speak. Belts are a better solution though. Cams should also be driven by Kevlar belts. Then they'd outlast most motors and probably never need adjustment.
Got shaft now, I'm ashamed to admit. I'm an old man and thus ride an R90S these days. Chain abuse was youthful indescretion.
I guess I'm showing my age and former poverty here. Before o-ring chains became pervasive, broken chains were much more common. One of mine was an old fashioned metal piece of crap. The other was an elderly Tsubaki o-ring chain on a Ninja 900. I never recovered the chain so I am not sure of the details, but IIRC, the sprockets were pretty worn (which also means worn chain). I made very little money back then, had no car and frequently rode 200-500 miles in rough weather.
I have also seen chains fail from broken or improperly installed master link clips. I guess that isn't technically "breaking" but the net effect is similar.
Personally, I think small bore two stroke dirt bikes are plenty serious. Not that I ever even owned a dirt bike, but I used to have to test ride them at work. Mostly motocross, not enduro, so 125, 250 and 500cc, not 150cc. But trust me, a CR500 is serious.
I wish you could still get two stroke street bikes in the US. I have an RD400 Daytona project bike in my basement right now.
A thin aluminum frag-guard would keep the driver perfectly safe in the (unlikely) event of a chain failure.
That's not a nelly little bicycle chain. Motorcycle chains are stout stuff.
I've broken a couple. It is annoying, since it tends to strand you and/or lose races, but I have never been hurt or seen anyone hurt as a result. Can't say the same for any number of other component failures (coolant hoses for instance). For me the worst thing about chains is the constant lubing and adjusting. I'd like to see more kevlar drive belts (no adjustment necessary) like Harley-Davdson uses.
That said, some olde tyme designs had three chains: one timing (to the cam), one primary (to the gearbox) and one final drive. But I have never seen a motorcycle cam or primary chain break through a case.
Done. Or at least I meta-modded the offtopic mod "unfair." I wish I could fix it.
I am a unix sysadmin. My primary, machine is a TiBook, my secondary is a Fedora Dell GX270. At home my wife has an iBook. Until last week I had never really used Windows on the desktop for more than a few minutes at a time. I used to use DOS a lot, but I hated it. Last week I had to use Windows in a rather arcane class. It wasn't fun.
Wohoo!
I was actually a beta tester, so this has been working for me for a while, but my number one bug in Jaguar and Panther is officially fixed. WINS resolution now works for SMB network browsing!
Beats me. They didn't require that of me, and that was six years ago, when PDF was still relatively exotic. I looked at HR's web site and it doesn't say anything about requiring .docs. Sounds like a lot of places do though, so he probably just plays it safe. I make it a point to distribute my meeting minutes and all final documents in PDF. I only send easily editable formats when I solicit comments and those are typically RTF or plain text. Nobody around here complains. I have a copy of Office X on my Powerbook, but rarely use it. OTOH, I don't often use StarOffice 7 or OpenOffice .org on my fedora desktop either.
Sounds like my kind of dog. Although Danes and the like worry me because of the short life expenctancy. One of my Border Collies is 18, and despite epilepsy, two brutal dog attacks and being run completely over by an oil truck, shows no signs of mortality. Another is 13 and basically a puppy. The svejkist is a 6 year old deformed runt rescue poodle.
The Sadlow translation is earthier and shows a sharper edgier Svejk. People say it is more faithful, essentially more Czech, than the Parrot translation. Understandable, considering Parrot was an English diplomat.
Have you seen the new English translation?
What kind of dog? One of mine should be named Svejk, based on his behavior. "Humbly report Sir, I reported to the back door per regulations, but could not remember how to ask to be let out. So I peed at my post. But I am certain the persian rug contained the damage, protecting the newly polyurethaned floor."
Thanks. I think there is another guy here who uses the same handle in Czech.
Adam Smith, and nearly all of the British classical economists believed in labor value. David Ricardo was the first to expound a formal theory, and attempt to empirically measure the investment of labor, but Smith most certainly agreed with him that Labor was the source of value, and along with market variables played a major role in setting prices.
But though labour be the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities, it is not that by which their value is commonly estimated. It is often difficult to ascertain the proportion between two different quantities of labour. The time spent in two different sorts of work will not alone determine this proportion. The different degrees of hardship endured, and of ingenuity exercised, must likewise be taken into account. There may be more labour in an hour's hard work, than in two hours easy business; or, an hour's application to a trade which it costs ten years' labour to learn, than in a month's industry at an ordinary and obvious employment. But it is not easy to find any accurate measure, either of hardship or ingenuity. In exchanging, indeed, the different productions of different sorts of labour for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality, which though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life. (Smith 1776, Book I, Chapter V)
In speaking, however, of labour, as being the foundation of all value, and the relative quantity of labour as almost exclusively determining the relative value of commodities, I must not be supposed to be inattentive to the different qualities of labour, and the difficulty of comparing an hour's or a day's labour, in one employment, with the same duration of labour in another. The estimation in which different qualities of labour are held, comes soon to be adjusted in the market with sufficient precision for all practical purposes, and depends much on the comparative skill of the labourer, and intensity of the labour performed. The scale, when once formed, is liable to little variation. If a day's labour of a working jeweller be more valuable than a day's labour of a common labourer, it has long ago been adjusted, and placed in its proper position in the scale of value. (David Ricardo 1821, Chapter I, Section IV)
I think Smith's point was not that value and price are unrelated, but that utility and value are unrelated. Water had immense utility, but held little value in Smith's Britain, as evidenced by its low price. Diamonds OTOH, had little utility but immense value and a high price. Smith surmised the value of a commodity had to come from somehting besides its utility. He believed the source of a commodity's value was the labor invested in producing it from raw materials. Water had little value added through labor, while diamonds had a lot (mining, polishing, cutting). David Ricardo and Karl Marx later refined this idea, which dominated the British tradition of political economy, into the Value Theory of Labor.
In the late 19th century, a competing theory of value emerged: marginal utility. Karl Menger argued that value was derived not from utility, but from marginal utility, the utility of an additional unit of the commodity. Hence water was immensely valuable when you had none, and remains so right up to the point where you have enough to survive. Then it's value dropped precipitously. Diamonds, OTOH, had pretty much the same utility regardless of how many you had (this was before industrial diamonds).
If both are scarce, water is more valuable because it has extremely high utility, but it's utility rapidly diminishes on the margin and hence its value drops precipitously. Once you have enought to survive you start buying the diamonds.
It it popular among neo-liberals and neo-classisists to claim marginal utility has killed the Labor Theory of Value, but that is an overstatement. Labor value is still a useful analytical tool and has many proponents. Both systems have their place. Likewise, Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class, and his brilliant description of the role of conspicuous waste and conspicuous consumption in society and economics, goes a long way to answering the Diamonds and Water Paradox.
Sounds like the resume my boss just forwarded me for an interview. Except my guy is a Marine and a field grade officer. Worked for major proprietary unix vendor; has some Linux skills on his resume. Pretty good overall, but his resume is in MS Word format. What is that all about? You'd think he'd understand the advantages of PDF. It looks like crap. I guess I'll find out when I interview him.
Actually, English is also an official language of the Indian state. The constitution provided for this mainly to facilitate state business between the national government and those of non-Hindi speaking state governments.
The Reagan administration's massive increases in military spending had no impact on Soviet spending at all. They tied their military budget growth rate to their GDP growth. When economic growth slowed, so did military spending increases.
I based my accusation of fallacy on the idea that the mainstream and technical reporters were not authoritative in the financial field. If they actually called this a cash bailout, then the certainly weren't. Cash was the last thing Apple needed at the time.
That said, I am not sure they actually reported the deal that way. Hell, I have had fellow sysadmins insist that MS actually bought Apple. I am pretty sure CNN and O'Reilly never reported that. OTOH, I would love to see a WSJ article which called it a bailout. Their faux finance and econ expertise is typically good for a laugh.
No, I believe that it is in the public interest that we hold all companies to legal standards and that those standards, by necessity, should be higher for monopolies. However, I think that it is obvious that some companies, like Enron, are completely out of control with no regard for law or business ethics, while others, like Baxter Healthcare and 3M are responsible actors. You have to admit that just because GM sued Ford buyers in 1903 does not make it plausible that they would do so today, even in secret by proxy. If MS did pay SCO to sue Linux users, it is an extreme case. Although IANAL, I would be shocked if it were legal
Unless I misunderstand your position, I don't agree with you at all. The Seldon suits were a sick joke and failed in court. The whole affair illustrated the need for effective anti-trust regulation.
They're not going to use the money to SUE someone for buying a GM.
Hopefully not, but GM once sued Ford's customers for buying Model Ts. OK, it wasn't actually GM yet, but some of the manufacturers in 1903 Seldon consortium later became GM.
That is a logical fallacy. An "appeal to authority" to be precise, IIRC. The press saying something is true does not make it true. MS bought 150,000 shares of non-voting preferred stock at $1000 a share. The deal was a show of good faith as part of a larger deal where they agreed to continue development of Mac MS Office for five years an Apple agreed to drop outstanding legal claims and bundle MS Explorer. MS did not agree to develop Office for OS X (Rhapsody, and Cocoa only at the time). The stock payed a dividend and was convertible to common stock at $16.50 after three years. MS ended up converting and selling at a market price of ~$82,IIRC. I can't remember what the dividend was. At the time, Apple had already issued their convertible debenture, sold most of their plant and some ARM holdings. They had over $6 billion in cash and cash equivalents. That is even more than they hold now. Microsoft's investment was merely window dressing. In fact, I don't see that Apple got much out of it at all. MS clearly had no plans to drop Office. They far exceeded the terms of their agreement by developing an OS X version.
If nothing else, she was an original.
Basically, your observations about cars are correct. I was going to point out the Czech exception, but you noted that.
Motorcycles are another story. Russian bikes are not much to speak of, and the Dneper and Ural owe a lot to older BMW designs. However the East German MZ was an innovative and scrappy marque, enjoying racing success well into the 1960s. In fact, it was the defection of MZ rider Ernst Degner to Suzuki in 1961 that gave the Japanese rotary valve technology, making their own two-strokes competitive for the first time. By the seventies, GP development budgets had far exceeded MZ's limited recources and they faded from the racing scene. But they continued to make staid inexpensive bikes. Lately they have enjoyed a bit of a renaissance, even in the US.
Not surprisingly, the Czechs also made excellent motorcycles. CZ dominated GP Motocross in the 1960s, winning more titles than any other manufacturer. Likewise, Jawa/ESO completely dominated Speedway and ice racing right through the 1980s. They also made some fine motocross, and IIRC, trials bikes.
No Lebel.