A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ok, hands up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 03, 07:24 PM
jim beam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of
the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any
thoughts?

jb

Ads
  #2  
Old September 4th 03, 09:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

Jim Beam writes:

http://www.jimbeam.com/jb_web/

quick survey:


hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?


further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience
of the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.


why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this.
any thoughts?


I see you have a hard time asking the question. How about starting
with:

"Do you feel free to criticize a piece of equipment that you haven't
tried."

The answer is yes. You don't have to try everything to form an
opinion, especially if you can cite concrete reasons for that opinion.
An example is, using non-pneumatic tires to avoid flats. I have not
tried such tires since the days of riding a tricycle and an American
Flyer wagon and have never used them on a bicycle, yet I feel
competent in explaining why you wouldn't want to use them. Evidence
abounds.

Similarly, I can advise against recumbents for general bicycling, for
transportation, touring and riding trails, as I define it from my own
experience. This in spite of persistent claims by their advocates of
the recumbent's superiority over conventional bicycles. Evidence
abounds.

There are scientific analyses and history to spare us the task of
incrementally testing every piece of equipment that appears on the
market. These, together with observation of others who willingly
perform such tests, enable us to make decisions about these things.

I would expect you to understand this since you put yourself forth as
a scientific person. Apparently you are sensitive to posing this
question since you have been argumentative here on many issues. You
dodge and weave as you pose the "question" which appears as an only
slightly veiled criticism... backing into the subject.

So my question is:
At what school did you pass English, and is your spelling a revolt
against what was taught there?

Jobst Brandt

  #3  
Old September 4th 03, 09:20 PM
Benjamin Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

jim beam wrote:

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?


Certainly. I'll always feel free to criticize components which purport to
solve non-existent problems, and are less durable, more expensive, and
incompatible with existing standards.

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the
author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting
phenomenon.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any
thoughts?


In many cases I'm sure you could attribute it to what Jobst Brandt calls
MAS, or "Male Answer Syndrome".

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants,
today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing.
-- Dave Barry
  #4  
Old September 4th 03, 09:43 PM
Art Harris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

jim beam wrote:
why do people do it?


I don't know. Why do you use different names in every ng you post to?

Art Harris
  #5  
Old September 4th 03, 11:08 PM
Werehatrack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:24:51 GMT, jim beam may have
said:

quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?


Sure. Sometimes, the problems are so obvious that it would be not
just a waste of money, but utterly counterproductive to buy a piece of
gear just to confirm that it's crap. Every sale of such an item
would, after all, reward the seller for stocking something that wasn't
worth buying. If it *is* worth buying, it's the seller's job to
present a convincing argument in its favor, not the buyer's
responsibility to spend first and discover later...even though that is
often what really happens.

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of
the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.


If the facts are known and not erroneous, where's the problem? On
this one, you'll have to cite examples to get an opinion, not just
generalize.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any
thoughts?


Simplest answer, because they value their own opinions and experiences
enough to feel that they have an argument to support. Example: My
own experience with powder coatings has been abysmal, and I make no
bones about the fact that I will not recommend the process for the
majority of potential applications. Others have had different
results, and have different opinions in consequence. This makes
neither them nor me globally right or wrong, but it contributes to the
information pool that may allow someone to make an informed decision
when both sides are presented.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.
  #7  
Old September 5th 03, 01:20 AM
swamprun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an
almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote:
While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a
product (e.g. solid tires) or a concept (e.g. the current industry
standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these forums, I have yet to
see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should
not ride a recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to
personal preference.


  #8  
Old September 5th 03, 01:23 AM
Chalo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up

jim beam wrote:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?


Heck yeah. Machines are machines, after all. They'd never exist to
begin with if they weren't predicated on fundamental engineering
principles. Those priciples are knowable, and it is possible to build
a level of familiarity with them such that one can make good
assumptions based on a few pertinent data.

Bikes being mature technology, there are very few new developments
that aren't analogous to other sound or not-so-sound innovations of
times past. Those earlier trials (and errors) are an excellent guide
by which to judge "new" ideas.

Previously unavailable materials don't change all the design
guidelines that have come before, they just introduce some different
values into the old formulae.

Chalo Colina
  #9  
Old September 5th 03, 02:07 AM
Dave Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up


"jim beam" wrote in message
...
quick survey:

hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment
they've never tried. anyone?

further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of
the author and/or based on erroneous "facts" is a particularly
interesting phenomenon.

why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any
thoughts?

jb

It's my opinion that the internet allows anonymous people to feel good about
rendering an opinion as a fact, and not have to back it up or defend it. I
think we all like to feel that we're an expert about something and there are
millions of us that like, enjoy, and are passionate about bikes. We don't
know how to say "in my opinion", and "I read an article", and on and so
forth. We spew hearsay, fifth-hand anecdotes and ill-considered opinions as
facts that all should believe.There are less than a handful of people that
post here that I would absolutely trust what they say as being based of
facts and expertise. Peter Chisholm and Sheldon Brown are two of them.


  #10  
Old September 5th 03, 02:11 AM
Mike S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ok, hands up


"swamprun" wrote in message
news
I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an
almost religious zeal for their machines, but few facts about riding them.


Actually, you can say that about almost anything you care to name: wheels,
disc brakes, 15/16db spokes, carbon rear triangles, compact frames, Brand X
bikes, and on, and on...

Mike
(not a recumbent rider)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
hands and neck bothering me. Geometry? curt General 14 March 8th 04 03:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.