Eddy Merckx Elite

On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 05:28:36 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:36:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.

Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.

He had stated that he had a million in investments and then stated
that he had made "4% last month", or words to that effect,

Not exactly what he said:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/cwnYLEAEa_4/m/xpaTZObFAQAJ
On my smallest investment account, just last month I made 4%.
I still have a half million more dollars in other accounts.
What do you suppose that will make my income for one month?

The half million grew to a million in:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/5Dzs6MuEgY0/m/V9VnFEvKBAAJ
Well, this person who you seem to think is so dumb is sitting
on a million dollars. What do you have fatso?

The 14 page resume arrived shortly thereafter in:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/5Dzs6MuEgY0/m/EvXTIo3KBAAJ
My resume and my recommendations are on LinkedIn so you can
look them up anytime you like. That is a mere 3 pages of so
of a 14 page resume that used to go into great detail. So
you don't believe me, you can always look it up and prove
me a liar.

That was followed by the wrong definition of VHDL which starts around
he
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/5Dzs6MuEgY0/m/8fCcXhDoAAAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/5Dzs6MuEgY0/m/-6XA5N7oAAAJ
VHDL is very high density logic and if you are talking about
Very High-level Design Language you say so and don't try to
fool people with acronyms that are most commonly used for
something else.

This is my personal favorite. Analog Devices is not listed in his
resume, Grainger should Granger Assoc, and the threat at the end is
disappointing because I was trying to help Tom make corrections to his
resume:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/yzMUyoSvAgAJ
I know that working at Analog Devices designing chips to
you seems somehow important but not to me then and not
to me now. Since you don't understand anything about chip
design and how 20 engineers will work on the same chip
and each has a section of the design that is so insignificant,
it isn't worth talking about. I think that medical instrument
or lab instrument design being FAR more meaningful. But you
want to tell us that working for Grainger or whoever for
most of your life was just so damned rewarding. I'm glad
you liked your job but don't criticize mine or my requirements.
YOU don't like my writing? **** you. And if I have the bad
enough luck to meet you I will emphasis that directly in
your face.


--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison

Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Op vrijdag 12 maart 2021 om 04:17:40 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?


If someone states that tires of the same construction (ie. Continental GP5000) the wider version will have less RR and are more comfortable he/she is mistaken. This is easy to understand. Inflate the wider version to the same pressure and it will have less RR but also is less comfortable for the same reason: less vertical deflection when hitting a bump. As for the less prone to puncture statement this is only true for the pinch flat part. I always opposed to the less RR and more comfortable ride statements of people who never used tires of the same construction for both widths. I use Continental GP5000 tires in 25, 28 and 32 mm width and my observation is exactly on par with the results of the test I referred to. Besides the higher weight and being less aero you can achieve a lower RR with wider tires but they will be more uncomfortable. You can use wider tires at a lower pressure for traction and/or comfort on rough surface without an increased chance of a pinch flat but the RR will be more. To speak in your terms wider tires are more versatile but nothing comes for free.

Lou

On 3/12/2021 3:52 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op vrijdag 12 maart 2021 om 04:17:40 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?


If someone states that tires of the same construction (ie. Continental GP5000) the wider version will have less RR and are more comfortable he/she is mistaken. This is easy to understand. Inflate the wider version to the same pressure and it will have less RR but also is less comfortable for the same reason: less vertical deflection when hitting a bump. As for the less prone to puncture statement this is only true for the pinch flat part. I always opposed to the less RR and more comfortable ride statements of people who never used tires of the same construction for both widths. I use Continental GP5000 tires in 25, 28 and 32 mm width and my observation is exactly on par with the results of the test I referred to. Besides the higher weight and being less aero you can achieve a lower RR with wider tires but they will be more uncomfortable. You can use wider tires at a lower pressure for traction and/or comfort on rough surface without an increased chance of a pinch flat but the RR
will be more. To speak in your terms wider tires are more versatile but nothing comes for free.

Lou


+1

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 11:36:45 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.

Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.

That is taxable income per year though I'm now not far from making that per month. But making money and spending money when Biden is in power wouldn't be very smart now would it. Where it is is inflation safe. Biden has sent us down the road to super inflation and according to Frank, that's no problem at all because he doesn't give one **** about the rest of the world and all of the people in it as long as he can get along. The normal communist schpeal.

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 2:53:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:09:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.
Well,I never thought that 23's were "super narrow" as I had ridden
19mm sew ups at one time :-) and as for rolling resistance I have the
suspicions that it is a highly over rated consideration. Does a 25mm
tire (pumped up to 100 psi) really decrease your speed on your 2 mile
Sunday ride to Church? And as for"more comfortable" I remember a bloke
named Frank, telling the world how tension your thigh muscles a bit
and sort of decompress your buttocks when riding over bumps. My own
humble opinion is if you want springs then buy a mountain bike. They
come with front and back suspension.

Tests of rolling resistance mean almost nothing because they do not reflect real world conditions. There is no rider on the test machine and there are no real road conditions. That is why the road Pros discovered that wide tires are actually faster. Not because of the tiny difference in rolling resistance but because in the road world on normal road conditions the rider is being thrown up and down and that is similar to putting the brakes on. Pro's used to somewhat make up for this by riding extremely smoothly being very careful with their pedal strokes etc. But with the wider tires (most pro's in the Tour use 26 mm sewups they are a lot more free to ride any way they like. Smooth circular pedal strokes no longer gain them as much and you can watch some of them riding as "mashers".

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:17:46 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 11:36:45 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.

Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.
That is taxable income per year though I'm now not far from making that per month. But making money and spending money when Biden is in power wouldn't be very smart now would it. Where it is is inflation safe. Biden has sent us down the road to super inflation and according to Frank, that's no problem at all because he doesn't give one **** about the rest of the world and all of the people in it as long as he can get along. The normal communist schpeal.

If the Biden economy is so bad, how are you close to making $480K per year? Doing what? You stated your retirement account was sub $1M, and it is not going to be generating 50% returns in any Biden market. That's impossible because he's a communist, and the market hates him.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?
Well. I designed the first full time working heart-lung machine and the respiratory gas analyzer both of which you will no doubt make use of in the very near future. From you comments you nearly have a heart attack when you make your unfounded assertions and it turns out that I have wide experience in those fields and can see you for the fool you are.

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 1:52:31 AM UTC-8, wrote:
Op vrijdag 12 maart 2021 om 04:17:40 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/11/2021 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".
I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.

That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison
Well, there are always more details one can consider. Care to summarize
which further details you think need mention?

If someone states that tires of the same construction (ie. Continental GP5000) the wider version will have less RR and are more comfortable he/she is mistaken. This is easy to understand. Inflate the wider version to the same pressure and it will have less RR but also is less comfortable for the same reason: less vertical deflection when hitting a bump. As for the less prone to puncture statement this is only true for the pinch flat part. I always opposed to the less RR and more comfortable ride statements of people who never used tires of the same construction for both widths. I use Continental GP5000 tires in 25, 28 and 32 mm width and my observation is exactly on par with the results of the test I referred to. Besides the higher weight and being less aero you can achieve a lower RR with wider tires but they will be more uncomfortable. You can use wider tires at a lower pressure for traction and/or comfort on rough surface without an increased chance of a pinch flat but the RR will be more. To speak in your terms wider tires are more versatile but nothing comes for free.

Lou

You are quite right Lou, but you do not have equal pressures in the wider tires and the difference in rolling resistance is absolutely nowhere near the improvement is actual road performance from hard narrow tires to soft wider tires. I run 28 mm tires on all of my newer bikes because they are designed to receive such tires. And I ride 70 lbs in them. Over a measured course the wider softer tires are more comfortable, handle better and are safer on these rough roads. Plus I cannot tell any difference in the 25 mile lap time other than my condition.

My Time Edge was unrideable with 23 mm tires on it. But with 28's it was the best riding bike I had.

On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:33:16 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 6:17:46 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 11:36:45 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.

Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.
That is taxable income per year though I'm now not far from making that per month. But making money and spending money when Biden is in power wouldn't be very smart now would it. Where it is is inflation safe. Biden has sent us down the road to super inflation and according to Frank, that's no problem at all because he doesn't give one **** about the rest of the world and all of the people in it as long as he can get along. The normal communist schpeal.
If the Biden economy is so bad, how are you close to making $480K per year? Doing what? You stated your retirement account was sub $1M, and it is not going to be generating 50% returns in any Biden market. That's impossible because he's a communist, and the market hates him.

Why do you take something some nitwit like Jeff says and attribute it to me.. In the last 9 months I have made $160,000 dollar on my investments. That was almost entirely from the Trump economy. If you want to believe that the US sending $900,000,000 to Iran and China are helping his economy, you are perfectly welcome to do so.