Cannondale's tests of disks and QRs

Tony Raven wrote:

I would be very
surprised if they plucked figures out of the air rather than using data
available to them.

I would be surprised if you ever stopped trying to dream up excuses for
them. Excuses that could be demolished in about 5 minutes by someone
with an ounce of wit and access to an internet search engine. Would you
like me to walk you through it?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan wrote:
On 2004-09-17, Tony Raven wrote:

Post the rest of the report and I'll give you my view of it. I don't
intend to play twenty questions where you release bits and then we have
to ask questions to discover other relevant facts or get refuted by bits
you haven't yet disclosed


I have about 300-400 pages of dross to sift through. I do not
have easy access to a scanner. It appears that you have 3 options.
You can trust me to decide what is relevant and what is not (you
could preface your assessment with "Assuming James is telling
the truth"). You could get all the info yourself, which would
cost 10 minutes of your time and an airmail stamp. Or you
could choose the 3rd way, and pick incessantly at irrelevant
details, always claiming that I must be hiding something.
There was ample information in my first post for anyone
with a clue and access to Google to work out if the testing
was remotely competent or not. I believe most people did
work it out, hence the ridiculing by many and conspicuous
absence of others who have previously taken an interest in
the subject.

If you are satisfied with the competence and honesty of
Cannondale's testing, then that's ok. You probably won't
suffer this failure, so why should you care?

James

james, with respect, and i mean this to be constructive, you clearly
have genuine good intent, but dude, your attitude stinks. if you can
get past that, i think you'll find doors suddenly open where they were
shut before. i don't think tony's being anything more than cautious
based on the fact that, be honest, you /do/ like to dismiss anything
that doesn't paint things the way you want them painted. in this case,
i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.

James Annan wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

I would be very
surprised if they plucked figures out of the air rather than using
data available to them.


I would be surprised if you ever stopped trying to dream up excuses for
them. Excuses that could be demolished in about 5 minutes by someone
with an ounce of wit and access to an internet search engine. Would you
like me to walk you through it?

James


stop being so childish. get on with the data and drop the vitriol.

James Annan wrote:
On 2004-09-17, Tony Raven wrote:

Post the rest of the report and I'll give you my view of it. I don't
intend to play twenty questions where you release bits and then we have
to ask questions to discover other relevant facts or get refuted by bits
you haven't yet disclosed


I have about 300-400 pages of dross to sift through. I do not
have easy access to a scanner. It appears that you have 3 options.
You can trust me to decide what is relevant and what is not (you
could preface your assessment with "Assuming James is telling
the truth"). You could get all the info yourself, which would
cost 10 minutes of your time and an airmail stamp. Or you
could choose the 3rd way, and pick incessantly at irrelevant
details, always claiming that I must be hiding something.
There was ample information in my first post for anyone
with a clue and access to Google to work out if the testing
was remotely competent or not. I believe most people did
work it out, hence the ridiculing by many and conspicuous
absence of others who have previously taken an interest in
the subject.

If you are satisfied with the competence and honesty of
Cannondale's testing, then that's ok. You probably won't
suffer this failure, so why should you care?


James, you whole approach and language says you are on a crusade for
your theory and to cast out those who are not true believers. You are a
scientist. Start behaving like one and stop behaving like a religious
zealot.

I have no idea whether Cannondale's testing is competent and honest or
not. I do know how process and procedures work within a company,
particularly a US company, on matters of product safety which was the
basis for my comments. If you were asked to peer review a scientific
paper would you tell the journal it was OK to publish based on a few
extracts the editor had sent you or would you want to read the whole
paper before making a decision?

And quit with the "guilt hits", it does you no favours.

Tony

jim beam wrote:


i'm afraid it /is/ incumbent on _you_ to clean up your act and be much
more forthcoming.

I'm curious as to whether you hold Canondale to this same standard.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tony Raven wrote:


James, you whole approach and language says you are on a crusade for
your theory and to cast out those who are not true believers.

I'm trying to encourage you to think for yourself. You have obviously
decided that I am not trustworthy, and the only thing that I can think
of that could change your mind is for you to see the documents for
yourself and KNOW that I have not concealed anything of importance. So
why not take me out of the equation completely, and YOU find out what
CANNONDALE said to the CPSC, and try YOUR OWN analysis. It shouldn't be
about what I think or claim.

It would take no effort from you to get the documents and check for
yourself. But for some reason, you seem to prefer to maintain this state
of affairs.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

jim beam wrote:


stop being so childish. get on with the data and drop the vitriol.

I'll write up my own analysis when I have the time, and put it on my
web-site. I'll also ask Cannondale if they have any defence of their
experiment.

As for what you and Tony Raven do, that is your business.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Tony Raven writes:

Tim McNamara wrote:
Right. I'm 215 so I'm in the same ballpark. But here's the
question I have. Does putting an unrealistically high load on the
bars- after all, even at 215 lbs a fair amount of my weight is
being supported by the feet and butt, my full weight is not on my
hands- mask the problem? Would a realistic weight of, say, 100 lbs
make a difference?

Remember that when you are braking hard the weight transfers to the
front wheel and the braking limit is when your rear wheel starts to
lift and all the weight is on the front. I don't know how much on
top of that the effective weight is increased by the decelleration.

I don't either, but I'd be astonished if there were 275 lbs against my
handlebars through my arms under braking. I'd be even more astonished
if the average 175 lbs person loaded the bars with 275 lbs. I'm not
including running into a wall, but maximal braking.

My assumption, but it is only an assumption, is that the figures
used will have derived from monitoring real life figures.
Cannondale for certain will have a truck load of data from their
development programmes using instrumented bikes ridden by their test
riders. I would be very surprised if they plucked figures out of
the air rather than using data available to them.

It depends if they are testing for a problem, or trying to rule out
liability. That's a big issue in safety testing being done by a
manufacturer with a vested interest in the outcome, rather than being
done by someone independent. Would you trust Ford's safety analysis
of the Explorer?

James Annan writes:

jim beam wrote:


stop being so childish. get on with the data and drop the vitriol.

I'll write up my own analysis when I have the time, and put it on my
web-site. I'll also ask Cannondale if they have any defence of their
experiment.

I think most of us would just settle for a verbatim of the Cannondale
research.

Helen Deborah Vecht writes:

Tim McNamara typed


(iarocu) writes:

Tim McNamara wrote in message
...
"Paul - xxx" writes:

Right. I'm 215 so I'm in the same ballpark. But here's the
question I have. Does putting an unrealistically high load on the
bars- after all, even at 215 lbs a fair amount of my weight is
being supported by the feet and butt, my full weight is not on my
hands- mask the problem? Would a realistic weight of, say, 100 lbs
make a difference? And hard braking forces rather than a "light
hand force," whatever that means?

Yebbut when you're braking doesn't more/almost all your weight get
transferred forward to your handlebars & front wheel??

I strongly suspect that if I loaded the bars with 275 lbs, I'd be
going over them immediately thereafter.