Freewheels

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:20:03 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

snipped for clarity and brevity

Maybe you could give an example of my style that you find offensive.
I'll try to correct it.

Some might say you are often insulting, condescending, abrasive,
relentlessly self-promoting and remarkably lacking in self-awareness.

Speak for yourself rather than "some". You use a fairly broad brush in
your critique but no specifics. Please cite an example of the failings
so that I can better understand what it is that annoys you. I was
expecting Carl to do that, but you didn't seem to speak for him.


jeepers jobst, do you really want a list? how about your constant
presentation mere opinion as if it were fact? how about your ridiculous
defense of your fundamental misunderstandings of fatigue and residual
stress? how about your ridiculous misunderstandings on bearings and
hydrodynamic separation? how about ridiculous misunderstandings and
misconceptions about a load calculation which you think is a strength
calculation and your multi-million dollar, industry transforming, spoke
tension "as high as the rim can bear"? how about mis-attributing rim
cracking to anodizing? how about misunderstanding shimmy as a gyroscope
problem? how about not understanding how brinelling really works? how
about crank fatigue and thinking that a pedal eye modification somehow
cures all crank fatigue? how about your mis-analysis and mis-attribution
of a non-existent issue with octalink? how about air being "an
incompressible fluid"? how about having not the first damned clue about
surface adsorption? how about omitting results, only conclusions when
"testing"? how about embellishment of your "resume" with your summer job
at porsche? how about representing your book as having been "peer
reviewed" when is hasn't? how about not fixing any of its fundamental
errors, even when others have taken the trouble to notify you of them, and
thus continuing to rip people off by knowingly publishing bull****?

i could go on, but it's tedious. bottom line, these are all failings you
need to both address and remedy. first and foremost, you need to correct
the mistakes in your book.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0700, Ozark Bicycle wrote:

On Oct 31, 1:59 pm, wrote:

snipped for clarity and brevity

Maybe you could give an example of my style that
you find offensive. I'll try to correct it.

Jobst Brandt

Some might say you are often insulting, condescending, abrasive,
relentlessly self-promoting and remarkably lacking in self-awareness.


excuse me, i must be having a problem with my software - can you
understate that for me one more time?

In article
,
bfd wrote:

On Oct 31, 11:17*am, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
],
*Ryan Cousineau wrote:

I'd like to point out that for TTists and racers, the differences
are measurable, and even significant, when it comes to placings.
Sure, for most amateurs, placings don't have any real return, but
they're fun.

Sure! *I used to race 1992-2000 and based my bike choices around
that. * Here's the problem, though. *About 0.5% of American
cyclists race (shirt-cuff estimate plucked out of thin air).
*However, most road bikes sold in America are designed to emulate
racing but are marketed to the 99.5% who don't race. *Imagine if
most of the cars on the showroom floor were designed to emulate
NASCAR- bare metal interiors, one seat, no insulation... there'd be
a segment of the market thrilled with them but most people would
stay away in droves because the vehicles wouldn't be suited to
their purposes, needs and tastes. *Road bikes in America face the
same problem.


The bottom line is what sells! Bicycle Mfrs follow the Auto Industry
in the "Win on Sunday, Selll on Monday." When Greg Lemond and Lance
were dominating the Tour, sales were up. Hey, if you got $8-10K or
more laying around, you can basically get the same bike as the pros.

Problem is that they don't sell all that well.

The equipment that works best for racing doesn't work best for
commuting, etc. *For people doing road races, crits, TTs, etc.,
these product may have value. *That's great. *But manufacturers are
replacing more practical products with these racing products and
making bikes less suitable for most people's use. *Unfortunately,
this is the kind of design thinking behind the majority of road
bikes offered for sale in the US.

Again, racing parts sell. The fact that you can spend $3500 for the
2009 Campy Super Record 11 speed group (and let me say that a group
today doesn't include hubs, seatpost and pedals!) says it all. I bet
Campy will have NO PROBLEM selling each and every one it makes.

Depends on how many they make. If they make six million, they're not
likely to sell them all. If they make 150,000 then they will.

A 16 pound carbon fiber bike with 2 mm clearance between a 700 x 23
and the frame, gearing from 50"-120", etc. is suitable for racing
and not much else (posing aside). *You can find lots of 'em in bike
shops these days. *

True. What you are not recognizing is that the majority of riders
today look at bikes as a toy or exercise machine. So, that 16lb, or
less, racing bike is the only way to go! Further, people think the
lighter the faster. On a big hill or a series of hills that might be
the case. I'm guilty of it as I pull out my 17lb carbon for any rides
with long and big hills.

Most Americans have been trained to think of bikes as toys, I agree. In
most of the world that is not the case- bikes are just how people get
around. If more bikes that weren't toys were available in American,
more people would see bikes as non-toys.

With current materials, it would be feasible to build a 20 pound
bike with 700 x 28s, fenders, lighting, comfortable riding
position, 30"-85" gearing, durable wheels that can be repaired
without needing proprietary spokes/hubs/rims/tools. *Yes, it'd be
expensive. *A non-astronomically priced bike like that could be
made easily under 25 pounds.

I see a lot of cyclo-cross bikes on the roads and trails around
here with smooth tires and no hint of the rider being a 'crosser.
*The riders are usually pretty obviously commuting. *They buy 'em
because they can put reasonable sized tires and fenders on them,
even if it's a bit kludgy.


Agree. I did just that. Using a mix of new and old, I recently build
up a steel "cross" bike with matching fenders, comfortable riding
position and standard gear like 48/34 compact crank and 32h spoke
wheels. One key is it can be repaired at "anybikeshopusa." I haven't
weighed it, but guess its in the 20lb range, +/- a pound or two. No
big deal, I'm commuting and was looking for something that was
smooth, comfortable and a joy to ride! All, I need is a rear rack to
carry my backpack.

Of course, my "racing" friends are amazed that for what I paid, I
didn't build up a lightweight, fancy dancy bike. But, then again they
don't commute by bike...

Bingo!

On Oct 31, 2:20 pm, wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
snipped for clarity and brevity
Maybe you could give an example of my style that you find
offensive. I'll try to correct it.
Some might say you are often insulting, condescending, abrasive,
relentlessly self-promoting and remarkably lacking in
self-awareness.

Speak for yourself rather than "some". You use a fairly broad brush
in your critique but no specifics. Please cite an example of the
failings so that I can better understand what it is that annoys you.
I was expecting Carl to do that, but you didn't seem to speak for him.

Jobst Brandt

Personally, I'm annoyed when people offer you counter-arguments with
photographs and exploded diagrams, and you dismiss the examples
because they're not cross-sectional.

Maybe you don't intend it to come off that way, but you seem to set up
your own Rules Of Evidence and are unkind to those who don't intuit
those rules.

Hank who? wrote:

snipped for clarity and brevity

Maybe you could give an example of my style that you find
offensive. I'll try to correct it.

Some might say you are often insulting, condescending, abrasive,
relentlessly self-promoting and remarkably lacking in
self-awareness.

Speak for yourself rather than "some". You use a fairly broad
brush in your critique but no specifics. Please cite an example of
the failings so that I can better understand what it is that annoys
you. I was expecting Carl to do that, but you didn't seem to speak
for him.

Personally, I'm annoyed when people offer you counter-arguments with
photographs and exploded diagrams, and you dismiss the examples
because they're not cross-sectional.

Where did I dismiss someone's response because there were no cross
sectional views of the part. If you can understand where individual
parts fit in an exploded view, you must be clairvoyant. There are no
connecting offset lines in the Shimano blow-ups so there is no way of
telling where they go. The purpose of these exploded views is to
identify parts, and they do that admirably.

Maybe you don't intend it to come off that way, but you seem to set
up your own Rules Of Evidence and are unkind to those who don't
intuit those rules.

I don't see what you mean by "come off that way". I wanted to make
clear why I could not understand how these elements fit. Did I not do
that in the most straight forward manner? How would you phrase the
desire to see a cross section drawing rather than a blow-up?

Jobst Brandt

On 31 Oct 2008 19:59:37 GMT, wrote:

Carl Fogel wrote:

I'd like to point out that for TTists and racers, the differences
are measurable, and even significant, when it comes to placings.
Sure, for most amateurs, placings don't have any real return, but
they're fun.

Sure! I used to race 1992-2000 and based my bike choices around
that. Here's the problem, though. About 0.5% of American cyclists
race (shirt-cuff estimate plucked out of thin air). However, most
road bikes sold in America are designed to emulate racing but are
marketed to the 99.5% who don't race. Imagine if most of the cars
on the showroom floor were designed to emulate NASCAR- bare metal
interiors, one seat, no insulation... there'd be a segment of the
market thrilled with them but most people would stay away in droves
because the vehicles wouldn't be suited to their purposes, needs and
tastes. Road bikes in America face the same problem.

The equipment that works best for racing doesn't work best for
commuting, etc. For people doing road races, criteriums, TTs, etc.,
these product may have value. That's great. But manufacturers are
replacing more practical products with these racing products and
making bikes less suitable for most people's use. Unfortunately,
this is the kind of design thinking behind the majority of road
bikes offered for sale in the US.

What escapes most people today, in contrast to days gone by, public
posturing is widespread and we are taught to not criticize people for
their quirks. Walter Mitty is well and alive in our culture as much
today as in James Thurber's time:

http://www.enotes.com/secret-life

I am Lance Armstrong in disguise! Just look at my bike and clothing.

So we should criticize people for their quirks?
And for public posturing?

Passively, yes. You don't need to fawn over Walter Mitty's getup or
allusions to fame as is commonly done these days. We should not
pander to these excesses or accept their stories as real life.

Can we start by practicing on you before we tear into Walter Mitty?

It's done here all the time BY the Walter Mittys, as if I were living
an imaginary life. Maybe you could give an example of my style that
you find offensive. I'll try to correct it.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Could you give us an example in which you "passively" criticised
someone's quirks or public posturing on RBT?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

wrote: (clip) If you can understand
where individual
parts fit in an exploded view, you must be clairvoyant. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or perhaps have an adequate ability to visualize spacial relationships. I
did not see the specific drawings in question, but I have never had a
problem with exploded views. It helps to tell yourself: "This has to go
together without violating the 'pushing order' of the parts."

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote:

[snip]

I think that
people are in a better position now to buy a comfortable bike than
they ever were -- especially if you consider all the ancient bikes
Carl trots out that look like you could kill yourself just getting on
them. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

It's hard to say which of the older bicycles is the most dangerous.

Uncle James Starley built an enormous 84-inch tangent-laced beast in
1874 and shipped it across the ocean to the US for an exhibition. The
monster is now back where it belongs in the UK:
http://tinyurl.com/ypp8dj
http://tinyurl.com/ypalw2

That's a seven-foot tall wheel. Normally, a five-foot tall wheel was
considered huge. It took _two_ mounting steps, _plus_ that
rear-mounted saddle-horn, for the rider to get up to where he could
push the treadles.

But at least it was ridden. It's often questioned whether uncle
James's bizarre lady's side-saddle Ariel highwheeler with offset rear
wheel was ever actually mastered by anyone:
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...image=10319547

Despite the caption, the woman is _not_ riding the insanely difficult
contraption. She's posing motionless for the camera--you can see the
line of the supporting wire slanting down from the right to her
handlebar and rising up on the left at the fellow's hand.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 01:53:14 +0000, Leo Lichtman wrote:

wrote: (clip) If you can understand
where individual
parts fit in an exploded view, you must be clairvoyant. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or perhaps have an adequate ability to visualize spacial relationships.

indeed. telling comment from jobst though - it goes some way to explain
why he thinks people are bull****ting him when they're not.

now, if only we could figure out why /he/ has to bull**** when trying to
bridge the gap between what little he does know, and the vast amount that
he doesn't. throw in there the inability to crack open a book too while
we're at it...



I did not see the specific drawings in question, but I have never had a
problem with exploded views. It helps to tell yourself: "This has to
go together without violating the 'pushing order' of the parts."

On Oct 31, 4:27*pm, wrote:
Hank who? wrote:
snipped for clarity and brevity
Maybe you could give an example of my style that you find
offensive. *I'll try to correct it.
Some might say you are often insulting, condescending, abrasive,
relentlessly self-promoting and remarkably lacking in
self-awareness.
Speak for yourself rather than "some". *You use a fairly broad
brush in your critique but no specifics. *Please cite an example of
the failings so that I can better understand what it is that annoys
you. *I was expecting Carl to do that, but you didn't seem to speak
for him.
Personally, I'm annoyed when people offer you counter-arguments with
photographs and exploded diagrams, and you dismiss the examples
because they're not cross-sectional.

Where did I dismiss someone's response because there were no cross
sectional views of the part. *If you can understand where individual
parts fit in an exploded view, you must be clairvoyant. *There are no
connecting offset lines in the Shimano blow-ups so there is no way of
telling where they go. *The purpose of these exploded views is to
identify parts, and they do that admirably.

Maybe you don't intend it to come off that way, but you seem to set
up your own Rules Of Evidence and are unkind to those who don't
intuit those rules.

I don't see what you mean by "come off that way". *I wanted to make
clear why I could not understand how these elements fit. *Did I not do
that in the most straight forward manner? *How would you phrase the
desire to see a cross section drawing rather than a blow-up?

Jobst Brandt

Please don't think that I'm trying to attack you here. It sounded like
you wanted constructive feedback, so I gave you an honest answer based
on my recollections.

Here's the first example I could find:
http://tinyurl.com/5le6ye

I also was annoyed by your intransigence on the subject of pawl noise
in this thread. When presented with loads of evidence, you pointed at
the diagram and said "Impossible!" Real-world results notwithstanding.

I am reasonably sure that it is not your intention to be dismissive of
the posters who offer you evidence, but rather to vent frustration at
the manufacturers who post inadequate documentation. Nonetheless,
that's the impression you've left me with over several year of posting
in this group.