Talk:Rotafix
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}
(Fordfasterr on May 23, 2006)
[edit]Agreed.
I have several wheels built up this way, this is very useful (specially) when you install a fixed cog onto a freewheel hub. Typically, the user would have to install a bottom bracket lockring on the hub to try to secure the cog, but with rotafix, you don't really need to. Be warned, if you over-tighten the cog using the rotafix method, you may easily strip the threads on the hub!!
- Thanks.
(Etymology)
[edit]it should be noted that the term "rotafix" comes from how it's named after the italian bike group that seems to be the main group of people using this method. chaingang rotafixa. rotafixing is the verbed form.
- Is "Rotafix" a (registered) trademark, i.e. should it be "Rotafix™" or "Rotafix®"...? If not a trademark, may "rotafix" rather than "Rotafix" be used...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Some guy with a stuck cog May 7th, 2007
[edit]I know this wiki has the "nothing else links to this wiki" tag and has a possible trademark infringing name, but please, please do not delete it. I was cranking on a stuck cog w/ a chainwhip for 15 minutes and thought it was hopeless until I stumbled across this node. After a quick un-rotafix it loosened right up.
howto
[edit]I put up a proposal for deletion for this article, because it is nonencyclopaedic, is a howto and is non-notable. The article has since been edited, and now the tone is much better, but none of my objections have been really been dealt with. It's still a howto on a non-notable subject, now it is just a better written one. It would be far more at home on the [wikibook on bicycles]. There are a couple comments above stating the usefulness of this info, however they only serve to underline how it is a howto article and not a encyclopaedic one. If it were housed on wikibooks it would be just a useful, and available, and it would be far more in context. --Keithonearth (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)