Lawyer lips - who's filed them off?

[Six jours]

That's the theory. Now let's take a look at the real life.

What I see in real life is that many cyclists concerned about a possible front wheel pull-out failure usually resort to extreme measures when tightening his front quick release lever. They screw the nut down to the point when closing the QR lever by hand becomes impossible. Instead they resort to using a piece of pipe that they put over the QR lever to get some extra leverage, or simply use a hammer to whack the QR lever into its closed position. Needless to say, a quick release closed in that fashion cannot be opened again by a bare hand. It requires a large amount of leverage to open the lever. In other words, there's absolutely nothing "quick" about "quick release" closed in that way. We have seen this discussed quite numerous times on this forum, with relation to disc brake problem as well as for other reasons.

I've never seen anyone do that either, and I live in the same part of the world as you. Regardless, the fact that you know stupid people doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to put up with useless and annoying features on our bicycles. Again, the correct use of quick releases is astonishingly easy to learn and practice.

Meanwhile, a front fork with "lawyer lips" eliminates the need for extreme tightening of a QR lever. A QR lever closed with relatively light force is perfectly sufficient to guarantee that the front wheel will not part with the fork. This makes the QR lever perfectly openable by a bare hand without too much strain. Yes, it might also require a few turns of the nut to fully disengage the wheel, but it is not an issue for a completely freewheeling nut. (I'm surprised anyone is even complaining about that nut. If it were tightened, I'd understand. But a loose nut?) In other words, in this scenario it is specifically "lawyer lips" that allow us to put the "quick" into the "quick release".

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Lawyer lips don't "eliminate the need for extreme tightening", because the need never existed in the first place. I suppose it may be true that lips allow incomplete tightening of the QR, but why do we need to come up with solutions for problems that are caused by the user in the first place? Or, without meaning to be repetitive, why should every cyclist be inconvenienced because some cyclists are idiots?

[AndreyT]

I thought I established enough context in my posts to make it clear that I'm talking about situations inherently prone to the front wheel pull-out failure, like on bicycles with disc brakes. When this problem originally surfaced, there was quite a lot empirical research done into the amount of clamping force required from a typical QR to reliably prevent this failure scenario from happening. The conclusion of that research, if I remember correctly, that on most bicycles used for that research the reliable clamping force could not be achieved with QR operated by bare hand. This is where the extreme methods of QR clamping come from. And this is where "lawyer lips" actually open the possibility to operate the QR as a QR.

I'm not going to dig up all those threads here, although I remember that I saw this issue debated again very recently, either here or on roadbikereview.

I also remember that such threads consistently attracted individuals who confessed to routinely closing the QR with excessive force (i.e. using tools) "just in case", even though their bicycles were not equipped with disc brakes. Nobody seemed to regard that as something unusual. I wonder where were our QR experts with their "some cyclists are idiots" comments back then?

[Six jours]

I thought I established enough context in my posts to make it clear that I'm talking about situations inherently prone to the front wheel pull-out failure, like on bicycles with disc brakes.

You were mistaken.

I also remember that such threads consistently attracted individuals who confessed to routinely closing the QR with excessive force (i.e. using tools) "just in case", even though their bicycles were not equipped with disc brakes. Nobody seemed to regard that as something unusual. I wonder where were our QR experts with their "some cyclists are idiots" comments back then?

If you'll give me exact dates and times I'll try to account for my whereabouts. I mean, you know, if it's really important to you.

[Homebrew01]

I thought I established enough context in my posts to make it clear that I'm talking about situations inherently prone to the front wheel pull-out failure, like on bicycles with disc brakes.

Oh ... well I've assumed all along that the discussion is about regular road bikes, except for the few instances where disc brakes have been specifically mentioned.

[Drew Eckhardt]

He's already filed them off one of his newer bikes. Anyone else done that?

Sure. Only takes a few seconds with a file when they're made of aluminum.

[Mr. Fly]

It is really ironic, since I'm more than sure that an attempt to reorient the front dropouts would immediately trigger an inflamed reaction from the various armchair cyclists claiming that the new dropout orientation completely defeats the purpose and the functionality of the quick release. I.e. the very same thing that we observe now with relation to "lawyer lips", but to a much greater degree.

Errr...which armchair cyclist are you referring to? Yourself maybe?

Look, the physics is clear - if you orientate the dropout correctly (or place the disc caliper correctly), disc braking will not eject the wheel. Therefore, quick releases can be kept as-is without endangering anyone because that becomes an irrelevant point, even without lawyer lips. Only if you do not orientate the dropout or place the disc caliper correctly for use with disk brakes does the quick release clamping force become an issue.

So it is ironic that one is trying to cover up incompetence in engineering with a "feature" that negates a fairly useful function. Because I have respect for engineers, I'm thinking it has to do with lawyers; if you change something to fix a known issue (even if the occurrence of the issue is fairly rare), then you've more or less admitted a mistake and may be open for liability lawsuits.

I'm sure bike manufacturers considered that solution and ended up concluding that "lawyer lips" would be perceived as something much less blasphemous than reoriented dropouts.

Why would reorientating the dropout (to let's say face "forward") or placing the disc caliper in a more suitable location be perceived as blasphemous? Are you sure you're not projecting your own opinions onto manufacturers?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Keep them if you wish, but they are just a hinderance for any cyclist who isn't known as "Fred".

Only a hindrance for cyclists who are all thumbs, and in a big hurry to remove a wheel a few seconds quicker.

[Homebrew01]

Only a hindrance for cyclists who are all thumbs, and in a big hurry to remove a wheel a few seconds quicker.

Speak for yourself

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Speak for yourself

Ya mean you actually find it difficult and/or time consuming to remove/replace a wheel because of so-called lawyer lips?

Just callin' a spade, a spade, ya know?

[Homebrew01]

Ya mean you actually find it difficult and/or time consuming to remove/replace a wheel because of so-called lawyer lips?

Just callin' a spade, a spade, ya know?

An inconvenience and annoyance since for me, there is no benefit.
If you feel safer, by all means leave them on.

As a counter-troll to your post, I could suggest that I am competent enough to not need them, and perhaps you recognize your limitations ?

[Booger1]

I'm not a lawyer,I cut them off......

My 1976 Ross had them for about an hour,my 1978 Shogun did not have them.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

An inconvenience and annoyance since for me, there is no benefit.
If you feel safer, by all means leave them on.

As a counter-troll to your post, I could suggest that I am competent enough to not need them, and perhaps you recognize your limitations ?

And the benefit for taking the time time in cutting them off is what exactly, besides making a statement about your "competence"?

[Six jours]

Dunno about him, but the benefit for me is that now the quick release operates as it was meant to, without the unnecessary and inconvenient additional step.

[Homebrew01]

And the benefit for taking the time time in cutting them off is what exactly, besides making a statement about your "competence"?

4 pages and you haven't figured out what the benefit of removing them is ?
If you like them, leave them on.

[cyccommute]

Ya mean you actually find it difficult and/or time consuming to remove/replace a wheel because of so-called lawyer lips?

Just callin' a spade, a spade, ya know?

It's an annoyance, yes. But, if you've ever tried to mount the bike to a roof rack on a car, it's more than annoying. It's a good way of getting clocked in the head. And it might be even more than annoying for those cars following you when the bike blows off the top of the car.

It also perpetuates the 'wing nut' concept of the quick release. I see people twisting the skewer into place all the time during 'Fix-Your-Bike' hours at my local coop. My favorites are the people who think they have to do the same thing for the rear wheel. You can see the light bulb go off when you show them the proper way to use a quick release.

[bobotech]

It also perpetuates the 'wing nut' concept of the quick release. I see people twisting the skewer into place all the time during 'Fix-Your-Bike' hours at my local coop. My favorites are the people who think they have to do the same thing for the rear wheel. You can see the light bulb go off when you show them the proper way to use a quick release.

I leave my lawyer lips. I have this weird ocd where filing them off would strike me as ruining the fork even though I fully 100 percent know that is not true. its just the weird ocd in the back of my head. But if they are already filed off, I'm not going to really care.

However I can totally see your point about the average consumer not understanding how a quick release works due to the person having to unscrew the release and then thinking "Oh, its like a wing nut, I have to screw it back on to tighten it." That point alone makes me realize that having lawyer lips will cause as many issues as it intends to solve.

[cyccommute]

I leave my lawyer lips. I have this weird ocd where filing them off would strike me as ruining the fork even though I fully 100 percent know that is not true. its just the weird ocd in the back of my head. But if they are already filed off, I'm not going to really care.

However I can totally see your point about the average consumer not understanding how a quick release works due to the person having to unscrew the release and then thinking "Oh, its like a wing nut, I have to screw it back on to tighten it." That point alone makes me realize that having lawyer lips will cause as many issues as it intends to solve.

As I said above, I leave them on too. Not because of CDO (It's like OCD but the letters are in the proper order) but because of the legal ramifications if I were to sell or donate the bike.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

It also perpetuates the 'wing nut' concept of the quick release.

Now that you mention it, I do have a concept of wing nuts who believe a distaste for Fredish "lawyer lips" is a mark of bicycling "competence."

[Nermal]

I take them off 'cause they add useless weight.

That's nothin'. Back in my backpacking days, I used to cut the tabs off the tea bags. You could feel the difference right away.

[bobotech]

That's nothin'. Back in my backpacking days, I used to cut the tabs off the tea bags. You could feel the difference right away.

Oh yeah?? Well I used to dump the tea out of the bags just into my backpack. You could REALLY feel the difference right away then because you lost the string, the bag, and the tab!! However it was a pain dumping everything out and looking for a pile of the tea leaves in the mess to make tea.

[Homebrew01]

Oh yeah?? Well I used to dump the tea out of the bags just into my backpack. You could REALLY feel the difference right away then because you lost the string, the bag, and the tab!! However it was a pain dumping everything out and looking for a pile of the tea leaves in the mess to make tea.

I would suggest just pouring the hot water directly into your backpack and catching the resulting tea as it dribbles out the bottom.

[jputnam]

The first bike I had with lawyer lips, I managed to trash the left dropout when I forgot to spin the handle -- I'd used it like a quick release instead of a wing nut, was too tired to notice the wheel was loose until I hit a root and popped the wheel out to the left. The right dropout let go cleanly, the left bent and cracked.

I've only bought one bike with lawyer lips since then, and did immediately grind them off for safety. Dangerous to have all but one equipped with quick releases and one with lips.

[LesterOfPuppets]

I have 3 bikes without lips and 4 with ATM. It's really quite nice removing and replacing the front wheel on the lipless ones. Even with a solid axle it's nice not to have to turn the nut a couple of extra turns.

I don't think I ever sat down with a file/Dremel/angle grinder, although I might have back when I had a car and did a lot of drive-bike-drive MTB trips in Toyota hatchbacks.

These days I only have to pull the wheel for the occasional flat so it's a rare annoyance.

[Savagewolf]

I keep them on my bike if they have them. I just don't see the point in taking them off. It doesn't take me that much longer to take off my wheels, and I very rarely have to take off my wheels anyways. I could care less whether people think I'm a "Fred" for not worrying about something so minor.

[woodcraft]

I just filed them off the road bike.
Tired of readjusting the QR every time the bike goes on or off the roof rack.
There was no such thing (that I know of) BITD, and I never had a problem.