|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:40:02 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. So, according to you, Chris Juden and Olaf Schulz are "honest but...don't know what is meaningful to test". Implying that Oehler is leading them around by the nose is quite a bit further than I went, Rolf. I don't know Juden and Schulz, I have no reason to believe they are either dishonest or stupid (quite the contrary from what I have seen of them), and it is my express opinion that Oehler is too uptight to be dishonest. You're on your own here, pal; my opinion stops very sharply at where the methodology and personnel of these tests is unprofessional and unseemly, with the unseemliness being in my book by far the greater sin. The last time these suspect tests came up, the German excuse was that a small *German" magazine was too poor to own the equipment to conduct the tests, to which the answer was that no test at all is better than a test so dominated by one *local* manufacturer by its input of equipment and personnel. Now the German excuse, if you're rendering it faithfully, is that the operators of and writers for a *German* magazine (and a well-known British cycling journalist into the bargain!) are so incompetent that they require not only the Schmitt Maschienenbau test equipment but the direction (and we know from which direction that SON will shine!) of the Schmidt Maschienenbau engineer, Andeas Oehler. In that case, why are they on the test at all, except as window-dressing for Oehler's promotion of his employer's generators? Which, I remind you, is what I said in the first instance. One has to wonder what the excuse will be the next time Kareless Krygo trots out these toxic articles. Andre Jute |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
Am 03.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:40:02 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. So, according to you, Chris Juden and Olaf Schulz are "honest but...don't know what is meaningful to test". No, they know how to test, and they do test. They (at least Andreas Oehler and Olaf Schulz) do regularly discuss their ideas. Implying that Oehler is leading them around by the nose is quite a bit further than I went, Rolf. It's also a lot further than I went. my opinion stops very sharply at where the methodology and personnel of these tests is unprofessional and unseemly, with the unseemliness being in my book by far the greater sin. This is where we differ: Being unprofessional means not to build the best test rig that you can think of. Being unseemly means staying in close contact with the manufacturer of equipment to be tested. Given that there is one person who knows a lot more about testing drag on bicycle dynamoes than the rest of the world, I can either be unprofessional by not talking to him or unseemly by talking to him. Given the choice between unprofessional and unseemly, being unprofessional is by far the greater sin. The last time these suspect tests came up, the German excuse was that a small *German" magazine was too poor to own the equipment to conduct the tests, to which the answer was that no test at all is better than a test so dominated by one *local* manufacturer by its input of equipment and personnel. This time round, the test rigs were build by Olaf Schulz, and still you're not happy. In that case, why are they on the test at all, except as window-dressing for Oehler's promotion of his employer's generators? Which, I remind you, is what I said in the first instance. Chris Juden as 'technical editor' of the CTC is the author responsible for chosing what tests to write, how and with whom to execute the tests and how to present the result. Olaf Schulz (whose main expertise in bicycles is with testing lights rather than hubs) had built the test rig and executed the majority of the tests. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
On 3/3/2015 7:37 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 03.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:40:02 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. So, according to you, Chris Juden and Olaf Schulz are "honest but...don't know what is meaningful to test". No, they know how to test, and they do test. They (at least Andreas Oehler and Olaf Schulz) do regularly discuss their ideas. Implying that Oehler is leading them around by the nose is quite a bit further than I went, Rolf. It's also a lot further than I went. my opinion stops very sharply at where the methodology and personnel of these tests is unprofessional and unseemly, with the unseemliness being in my book by far the greater sin. This is where we differ: Being unprofessional means not to build the best test rig that you can think of. Being unseemly means staying in close contact with the manufacturer of equipment to be tested. Given that there is one person who knows a lot more about testing drag on bicycle dynamoes than the rest of the world, I can either be unprofessional by not talking to him or unseemly by talking to him. Given the choice between unprofessional and unseemly, being unprofessional is by far the greater sin. The last time these suspect tests came up, the German excuse was that a small *German" magazine was too poor to own the equipment to conduct the tests, to which the answer was that no test at all is better than a test so dominated by one *local* manufacturer by its input of equipment and personnel. This time round, the test rigs were build by Olaf Schulz, and still you're not happy. In that case, why are they on the test at all, except as window-dressing for Oehler's promotion of his employer's generators? Which, I remind you, is what I said in the first instance. Chris Juden as 'technical editor' of the CTC is the author responsible for chosing what tests to write, how and with whom to execute the tests and how to present the result. Olaf Schulz (whose main expertise in bicycles is with testing lights rather than hubs) had built the test rig and executed the majority of the tests. Jute seems ignorant of the fact that others have also tested dynamos, with no significant differences in results. I've read reports of tests in Bicycle Quarterly (whose editor did confer with Mr. Oehler) and in the Rivendell Reader (whose editor did not confer with him). I've done tests of my own, as well. Jute maintains a trove of **** that he repeatedly slings, but it's devoid of any technical merit. If he were interested in giving (purportedly) more accurate data on dynamo performance - say, proving that OMIGOD! a SON unit actually has half a Watt more drag! - he would post links to tests showing that data and carrying the Jute imprimatur. That's how these things are normally settled in the scientific world. Such data would advance the discussion and make the **** slinging even less necessary. I suspect that at one time or another, Andreas Oehler caught Jute in a lie, and will therefore be the target of Jute**** until Jute dies. BTW, I've never owned a SON dynamo, so I don't write this out of brand loyalty. My two hub dynamos are by Shimano and Sturmey-Archer, and my other bikes have either bottle or roller dynamos. They all work fine for me. One final technical point: In these days of LED headlights, I find it strange that the a 12 Ohm load is still considered standard. It's a fairly appropriate stand-in for a halogen lamp, but does it really replicate the load of LED units? -- - Frank Krygowski |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:51:44 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/3/2015 7:37 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:40:02 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. So, according to you, Chris Juden and Olaf Schulz are "honest but...don't know what is meaningful to test". No, they know how to test, and they do test. They (at least Andreas Oehler and Olaf Schulz) do regularly discuss their ideas. Implying that Oehler is leading them around by the nose is quite a bit further than I went, Rolf. It's also a lot further than I went. my opinion stops very sharply at where the methodology and personnel of these tests is unprofessional and unseemly, with the unseemliness being in my book by far the greater sin. This is where we differ: Being unprofessional means not to build the best test rig that you can think of. Being unseemly means staying in close contact with the manufacturer of equipment to be tested. Given that there is one person who knows a lot more about testing drag on bicycle dynamoes than the rest of the world, I can either be unprofessional by not talking to him or unseemly by talking to him. Given the choice between unprofessional and unseemly, being unprofessional is by far the greater sin. The last time these suspect tests came up, the German excuse was that a small *German" magazine was too poor to own the equipment to conduct the tests, to which the answer was that no test at all is better than a test so dominated by one *local* manufacturer by its input of equipment and personnel. This time round, the test rigs were build by Olaf Schulz, and still you're not happy. In that case, why are they on the test at all, except as window-dressing for Oehler's promotion of his employer's generators? Which, I remind you, is what I said in the first instance. Chris Juden as 'technical editor' of the CTC is the author responsible for chosing what tests to write, how and with whom to execute the tests and how to present the result. Olaf Schulz (whose main expertise in bicycles is with testing lights rather than hubs) had built the test rig and executed the majority of the tests. Jute seems ignorant of the fact that others have also tested dynamos, with no significant differences in results. I've read reports of tests in Bicycle Quarterly (whose editor did confer with Mr. Oehler) and in the Rivendell Reader (whose editor did not confer with him). I've done tests of my own, as well. Jute maintains a trove of **** that he repeatedly slings, but it's devoid of any technical merit. If he were interested in giving (purportedly) more accurate data on dynamo performance - say, proving that OMIGOD! a SON unit actually has half a Watt more drag! - he would post links to tests showing that data and carrying the Jute imprimatur. That's how these things are normally settled in the scientific world. Such data would advance the discussion and make the **** slinging even less necessary. I suspect that at one time or another, Andreas Oehler caught Jute in a lie, and will therefore be the target of Jute**** until Jute dies. BTW, I've never owned a SON dynamo, so I don't write this out of brand loyalty. My two hub dynamos are by Shimano and Sturmey-Archer, and my other bikes have either bottle or roller dynamos. They all work fine for me. One final technical point: In these days of LED headlights, I find it strange that the a 12 Ohm load is still considered standard. It's a fairly appropriate stand-in for a halogen lamp, but does it really replicate the load of LED units? My understanding is that the 12 Ohm load test is required by German standards and probably doesn't replicate much of anything currently on the market. As you know, and SMS pointed out recently, the US standard for auto headlights (also based on the properties of a filament bulb) allows ungodly bright LED and Halogen low-beams. -- Jay Beattie. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
'allows ungodly bright LED and Halogen low-beams.'
that said, here's the receptionist http://i.imgur.com/moegwjN.jpgE |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
No, I don't want to indulge in mudslinging against two hobby journalists whose crime is naivety rather than malice.
After all this to and fro, the point is still that in competitive tests of the generators if several manufacturers, any "assistance" in either loans of equipment finetuned to Schmidt Maschinenbau/SON-desired parameters, or any "consulting" with the SON engineer Andreas Oehler with his known biases, is journalistically unprofessional, technically biased, and commercially unseemly. The argument that to get a test at all we must accept unprofessional journalism, technical bias and commercial skullduggery was bull**** when the first test was done and is bull**** now, totally unacceptable. At any national journal this whole affair would instantly be described as unprincipled and unfair to everyone except Oehler's employers. I am flabbergasted that, after it has dragged on so long, we find Oehler still involved in what should be independent tests. Andre Jute There are some worthwhile principles, even in hobby journalism On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 12:40:04 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 10:18 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 8:40:02 AM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote: Am 03.03.2015 um 08:05 schrieb Andre Jute: On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 5:37:38 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they'd learn even more from reading the more current follow-up article at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/public/fe...ub-dynamos.pdf Another Andreas Oehler special. Would you recommend a test conducted by Shimano employees with Shimano-developed test equipment in which Shimano products ae tested against the the products of other manufacturers? I would, on the assumption that some experts from Shimano test together with other experts not belonging to Shimano. Neither Chris Juden nor Olaf Schulz work for generator companies. Why should Germans be excused the same publicity-crime? The German 'Stiftung Warentest' has shown how ludicrous testing becomes if the tester is honest but refuses to collaborate with industry experts: if you don't know what is meaningful to test, you can stop testing immediately. So, according to you, Chris Juden and Olaf Schulz are "honest but...don't know what is meaningful to test". No, they know how to test, and they do test. They (at least Andreas Oehler and Olaf Schulz) do regularly discuss their ideas. Implying that Oehler is leading them around by the nose is quite a bit further than I went, Rolf. It's also a lot further than I went. my opinion stops very sharply at where the methodology and personnel of these tests is unprofessional and unseemly, with the unseemliness being in my book by far the greater sin. This is where we differ: Being unprofessional means not to build the best test rig that you can think of. Being unseemly means staying in close contact with the manufacturer of equipment to be tested. Given that there is one person who knows a lot more about testing drag on bicycle dynamoes than the rest of the world, I can either be unprofessional by not talking to him or unseemly by talking to him. Given the choice between unprofessional and unseemly, being unprofessional is by far the greater sin. The last time these suspect tests came up, the German excuse was that a small *German" magazine was too poor to own the equipment to conduct the tests, to which the answer was that no test at all is better than a test so dominated by one *local* manufacturer by its input of equipment and personnel. This time round, the test rigs were build by Olaf Schulz, and still you're not happy. In that case, why are they on the test at all, except as window-dressing for Oehler's promotion of his employer's generators? Which, I remind you, is what I said in the first instance. Chris Juden as 'technical editor' of the CTC is the author responsible for chosing what tests to write, how and with whom to execute the tests and how to present the result. Olaf Schulz (whose main expertise in bicycles is with testing lights rather than hubs) had built the test rig and executed the majority of the tests. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:12:19 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/3/2015 12:23 PM, wrote: 'allows ungodly bright LED and Halogen low-beams.' that said, here's the receptionist http://i.imgur.com/moegwjN.jpgE Hey I know that image. Storyville, New Orleans. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 oo oo oo oo cugnot find a French whore holding a lantern or flashlight. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
generators for dummies
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:06:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 2:12:19 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote: On 3/3/2015 12:23 PM, wrote: 'allows ungodly bright LED and Halogen low-beams.' that said, here's the receptionist http://i.imgur.com/moegwjN.jpgE Hey I know that image. Storyville, New Orleans. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 oo oo oo oo cugnot find a French whore holding a lantern or flashlight. .................... cmon AJ read thru the material here's Berto A http://hackaday.com/2013/04/23/rattl...le/#more-97721 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
KILL FILE FOR DUMMIES | datakoll | Techniques | 0 | July 5th 12 06:52 PM |
Hub generators: Yes or no? | [email protected] | Techniques | 73 | January 24th 11 11:58 PM |
Opera for Dummies | Ted van de Weteringe | Racing | 0 | February 24th 08 05:26 PM |
radar generators? | Rich | UK | 4 | March 17th 05 08:07 PM |
Index shifting for dummies | janet k | Techniques | 10 | May 22nd 04 04:38 AM |