rec.bicycles.tech - FAQ?

Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as my
general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've like others
been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob, daft or previously
commonly asked questions (see my question below perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for answering my
question it's always been my feeling that what is read online can either be
inaccurate (with obvious exceptions e.g. sheldons site) or that personal
views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove more useful and
so post here anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is
unecessarily bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
changing technologies and views.

It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
to octalink for example.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

Keironk writes:

Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
basis to account for changing technologies and views.

Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

Have not been antiquated by any developments.

It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.

They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?

Jobst Brandt

wrote in message
...
Keironk writes:

Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
basis to account for changing technologies and views.

Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.


New products are often released, all right they're often similar to existing
models but the slight differences seem to be the points that are often
addressed in the group.


http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html


ahuh, ... this kinda thing aside tho; this covers the more major topics.


Have not been antiquated by any developments.

It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.

They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.


Notice from my original post

---snip

...personal views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove
more useful...

snip--

If all i wanted was epirical lab data then i'd be happy with the
manufacturer spiel, the human factor is the whole point; a range of tests.
Obviously any faq would have to be objectively moderated to cover the range
of views while emphasising the majority finding.


I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?

What's your beef Brandt? You elect officials to run all aspects of your
country in supposedly free elections when in actual fact they're, largely,
still born in to the position, do you suppose these numpties actually know
anything about the areas in which they work? What about managers generally?
They manage people not the work. I'm happy to help or step aside, it was
just an idea, i don't own it.

You clearly have a low opinion of everyone else and a massively inflated
opinion of yourself. Stick it all your arse.

Cychlo-path wrote:
Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as my
general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've like others
been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob, daft or previously
commonly asked questions (see my question below perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for answering my
question it's always been my feeling that what is read online can either be
inaccurate (with obvious exceptions e.g. sheldons site) or that personal
views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove more useful and
so post here anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is
unecessarily bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
changing technologies and views.

It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
to octalink for example.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
Anyone else interested in this collaboration?


potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
written on the tablets of stone.

On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam wrote:
potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
written on the tablets of stone.- Hide quoted text -

Jim,

That may be because everything else is related based on his reasoning
in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle web we
weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol

But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
relationships every time a new revelation is observed. Kind of like
editing a constantly changing English language dictionary, in complex
relationships of course. I don't know how Sheldon keeps up with all he
has created.

On Mar 4, 10:08 am, "Cychlo-path" wrote:
wrote in message

...





Keironk writes:

Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
basis to account for changing technologies and views.

Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.

New products are often released, all right they're often similar to existing
models but the slight differences seem to be the points that are often
addressed in the group.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

ahuh, ... this kinda thing aside tho; this covers the more major topics.

Have not been antiquated by any developments.

It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.

They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.

Notice from my original post

---snip

...personal views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove
more useful...

snip--

If all i wanted was epirical lab data then i'd be happy with the
manufacturer spiel, the human factor is the whole point; a range of tests.
Obviously any faq would have to be objectively moderated to cover the range
of views while emphasising the majority finding.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?

What's your beef Brandt? You elect officials to run all aspects of your
country in supposedly free elections when in actual fact they're, largely,
still born in to the position, do you suppose these numpties actually know
anything about the areas in which they work? What about managers generally?
They manage people not the work. I'm happy to help or step aside, it was
just an idea, i don't own it.

You clearly have a low opinion of everyone else and a massively inflated
opinion of yourself. Stick it all your arse.



"Well, enough about how wonderful I am. I want to give others a chance
to speak; why don't you tell us how wonderful I am." - plausibly
attributed to Jobst Brandt

ddog wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam wrote:
potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
written on the tablets of stone.- Hide quoted text -

Jim,

That may be because everything else is related based on his reasoning
in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle web we
weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol

But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
relationships every time a new revelation is observed.

that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can say so.
way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
/more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
downright misleading.

Kind of like
editing a constantly changing English language dictionary, in complex
relationships of course. I don't know how Sheldon keeps up with all he
has created.

indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes his
seriously and updates accordingly.

On 2007-03-04, jim beam wrote:
Cychlo-path wrote:
[...]
Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
changing technologies and views.

It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
to octalink for example.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
Anyone else interested in this collaboration?


potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows.

Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic valves on
Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered "Original
Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the History tab. It
belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.

Ben C wrote:
On 2007-03-04, jim beam wrote:
Cychlo-path wrote:
[...]
Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
changing technologies and views.

It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
to octalink for example.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
Anyone else interested in this collaboration?


potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows.

Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic valves on
Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered "Original
Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the History tab. It
belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.

wow, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt

his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!

In article ,
jim beam wrote:

ddog wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam wrote:
potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
who knows. all i know is that he doesn't want anyone else to
"update" anything since all is written on the tablets of stone.-
Hide quoted text -

That may be because everything else is related based on his
reasoning in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle
web we weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol

If your ddoggerel is superior, then start posting it. When Jobst's
position has been actually disproven by data or better explanations,
he's accepted it and moved on.

But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
relationships every time a new revelation is observed.

that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can say
so.

Unfortunately, wikis are also plagued with opinion presented as fact,
bad science, bad research, personal and political agendas, etc. Wikis
are a double edged sword that cut both ways. Wikis are sort of a
persistent Usenet.

way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
/more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
downright misleading.

Ah, the irony.

Kind of like editing a constantly changing English language
dictionary, in complex relationships of course. I don't know how
Sheldon keeps up with all he has created.

indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes his
seriously and updates accordingly.

And yet:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/