|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Scientism (1) once more rears its ugly head on RBT
It should be clear by now from the contemporary thread "The zero wind
tunnel option for serious cyclists" -- http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bi...cea8efe5ad78b3 -- that I see no insuperable difficulty in getting a useful practical result of Cd or CdA for a particular cyclist on his own roads under average conditions, and that, equally, I think repeatable accuracy (of the kind the wannabe academics on RBT are always demanding because they think it makes them look knowledgeable) will definitely require time in a wind tunnel with a dummy on a bike, and then won't translate precisely to a human because the little *******s are always making unconscious shifts in their position, and can't even pedal without moving their legs. What I'd really like to do is to put a set of various shapes and sizes of cyclists, real human ones, in the wind tunnel in cycling clothes from street to wrinkly lycra to skintight racing, and let them settle to a natural posture and blow air over them from various angles at various speeds -- and then we'll discover a *huge* variability which will absolutely dwarf the irrelevant 2% accuracy Creepy Carl was whining about yesterday. Jesus save me from the scientism (1) of people who can't grasp that 2% when you're talking about something as variable as the human body is incredibly accuracy -- so high in fact that it automatically becomes questionable precisely because it is so precise! Don't misunderstand me. I admire and honor the fellows working obsessively to achieve greater accuracy and precision in cyclist wind drag simply for the satisfaction of saying that they did it, and I'll gleefully use their ranges of numbers when they finalize them, and I am happy to use their interim numbers with confidence until then. But I don't think that for hobby cyclists such precision is required or such accuracy is of more than intellectual interest, certainly not to the point of splashing out on expensive instruments. And I abhor the slack clowns who don't have the brains to make the distinction or, worse, try to build up their profiles on the net by kibbitzing the work of their betters for not being perfect. Perfection is a helix we spiral down until we die. And just before we die, the Japanese will invent a handheld nuclear laser micrometer 10^15 more accurate than the benchtop model, and the hunt for "precision" starts again. Life's a bitch and then you die before you find out what-- Andre Jute http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html (1) Scientism is an excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques. We often see it when third rate academics or wannbe academics use thought or expression they regard as characteristic of scientists. The crudest version is the demand for spurious "rigor" or "accuracy" or "precision" to an extent totally irrelevant to the function being performed for what are after all hobbyists. Examples of scientism on RBT are Carl Fogel and his fellow- traveller Tim McNamara. |
Ads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Your Chance To Own - The UGLY Rears Its Ugly Head | pdc | Unicycling | 9 | July 13th 07 11:14 AM |
Poll: ""The Ugly" Ugly or not Ugly | mawesome | Unicycling | 23 | October 21st 06 05:10 AM |
Poll: ""The Ugly" Ugly or not Ugly | pdc | Unicycling | 18 | October 20th 06 05:48 AM |
Poll: ""The Ugly" Ugly or not Ugly | Spencer Hochberg | Unicycling | 0 | October 19th 06 10:13 PM |
hub spacers, and a question about older ZIPP rears | Josh | Techniques | 3 | December 31st 05 02:38 PM |