The idée fixe of the anti-helmet zealots, the vehicular cyclists, etc

I made a detailed list of Krygowski's claims and sneers, and one by one proved that he was ignorant of the components being discussed. His entire answer is more sneers and jeers, which simply reaffirm that he's talking through the back of his neck about a component he has never seen, has never handled, and hasn't even investigated on the net, or he would know that this supercilious crap that he tries to palm us off with is untrue:

P.S. Did anyone here know that handlebars that swivel on the stem make the bike immovable? In all the years of wrenchwork I've done, I'd never noticed that. Just think: Ditch that heavy U-lock! Loosen your threadless stem, and your bike's now theft-proof! ;-)

See, Franki-boy, it is this sort of sneering, jeering, inaccurate response on RBT, spraying misinformation like diseased spittle, that causes me to discuss technical matters elsewhere. I rest my case; you've proved it for me not once but three times. Thanks.

Andre Jute


On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:58:36 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:01:19 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:56:37 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:















You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.







Here's an excellent example from Krygowski of what I mean when I refer to the negativity of the ******s on this forum.







To respond with reluctance:







He isn't reluctant at all. He's found another reason to practice his sneering.







Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem.







No, Franki-boy it doesn't just allow the handlebars to swivel, it uncouples the front wheel from them, making the bicycle unrideable and damn nearly immovable, and definitely a hostile animal. But you've dismissed a useful security device without asking a single question, without discovering what is new about it, with an obiter dictum that it is, sneeringly in your quotation marks, "new tech". And you've condemned it, sneeringly, erroneously, on two counts as "a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem". Elsewhere, after I introduced this and tried it, several experienced and technically proficient cyclists bought the n'lock and were extremely satisfied with the level of security and utility it provides. But you, who've never seen one, who clearly doesn't know what it is or does, claim to know better. You're an opinionated but worthless ******, Franki-boy.







The bike can be carried off more easily.







Crap. If you can move my bike ten paces without it tangling you up and bringing you crashing down, very likely with broken bones and certainly with serious abrasions and bruises (I know because one day I forgot about the n'lock and tried to swing the bike about, and came a cropper), I'll give it to you. It is quite likely that the bike I'm betting is worth more than your house; it is certainly worth much more than your car.







The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.







More knee-jerk sneering. The Chainglider is NOT "a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes". The only person who would say that is, once more, someone who hasn't seen one, hasn't handled one, doesn't know what it does, in short a complete ignoramus. the Chainglider a magnitude superior to the clanking, fragile chain cases you think you know, Franki-boy, and it works on an entirely different principle. It is, in fact, a good reason for commuters to come into the twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first, but, like the unimaginative idiot you are, without knowing what it is, out of stupid prejudice, you pronounce it "of limited interest". Is it starting to dawn on you yet why I don't bother even mentioning these things on RBT? Elsewhere, once more, serious cyclists with vastly more experience than you, fitted Chaingliders after I proved it, and have used it extremely successfully, in particular, considering one of the grounds of you foolish condemnation of the Chainglider, in situations where a Dutch style plastic or metal chain case would be ripped to piece or ripped off or soon wear through.







The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.







Let's take this load of field manure from the back. There are many more than a 100,000 Rohloff gearboxes out there. Only in the ignorant Frank Krygowski's mouth is that "rare exceptions". Nor is a 100,000 installation base "a mere curiosity". These remarks are so ignorant, they really go beyond Krygowski's usual sneering at anyone who doesn't agree with him. (Or he's monstrously insensitive to the meaning of words to the extent that we must wonder if English is his mother tongue.) Still working from the back, we come to "the price is exorbitant". This is what I was saying earlier: it isn't worth mentioning on RBT anything that costs more than a dumpster-dive, because the usual whiners (Daniels, Sherman, Krygowski, etc) will sneer that it is only for plutocrats. But, in this case, it's the same old Krygowski crap: he hasn't put his mind in gear. Everyone who's been paying attention will remember that I was roundly abused by the usual RBT trash (Eaton, Sherman, Bales, etc, even Muzi trying unconvincingly to join in) for rejecting a Waterford frame that they insistently recommended to me, on grounds of lack of breeding and being overpriced. Well, can buy two fully fitted up Rohloff-equipped luxury bikes for the price of one Waterford frame, which is certified by RBT members as good value to the extent that they get hot under the collar about it. A Rohloff gearbox, completely operational on the bike, costs the same as a Dura-Ace installation similarly ready to ride. Franki-boy, once more, hasn't checked the facts. Let's leave the rest of the grudging acknowledgement of fine engineering, with more sneers in the same sentence and the next ("...and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design") for another day. I've had just as much as I can take of Krygowski's knee-jerk snideries without vomiting on the carpet.







It's fine to be interested in such things.







You can shove you permission where it hurts, Franki-boy. You're not talking to your students here. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.







We all have our quirks. But lack of discussion here (let alone lack of rapid adoption) is hardly an indictment of a bike discussion group.







There you go again, Franki-boy. Nobody said anything about "rapid adoption" except you. But now, in your standard mode of dishonest debating tricks, you're trying to make it a test of whether you're right. And yet more sneers: wanting to discuss technical matters rather than your time-wasting politics is now a "quirk". Gee, man, do you think we're all so stupid we don't notice these junior school debating tricks of yours? If you ever wonder why so many hate you, look no further than your constant insults to their intelligence.







- Frank Krygowski







What a pompous, pontificating, ignorant, willfully worthless ****** this Frank Krygowski is. He's the perfect example of why tech has died out on RBT. And the most shameful thing about it is that he claims to be an engineer.







Andre Jute



And that's why I replied only reluctantly. Our Irish maniac's apoplexy may trigger a cardiac event, and I'd feel a little guilty about that.*



P.S. Did anyone here know that handlebars that swivel on the stem make the bike immovable? In all the years of wrenchwork I've done, I'd never noticed that. Just think: Ditch that heavy U-lock! Loosen your threadless stem, and your bike's now theft-proof! ;-)



(* Only a little.)



- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:34:02 AM UTC, Clive George wrote:
On 17/12/2013 21:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:



You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

To respond with reluctance:

Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.

The stem is very briefly interesting - worth a "look at this", but not
much discussion to be had.

That may be true for those who don't grasp the n'lock's USP over carrying a hex key and loosening the stem every time you stop, which is all that poor Krygowski thinks it does. But for cyclists who understand what it does, and how it does it, and what is involved in defeating it (destroying the bike), and above all for cyclists who have their brains in gear well enough to take a systems approach to bicycle security, the n'lock is a huge boon in that it serves as the sole security required 95-99% of the time, depending on your circumstances. (Together with the cable attached inside the handlebar, it serves 99.999% of my needs, but I don't want to perpetrate the Krygowski Error of claiming that because it is true for me, it is necessarily true for everyone else.) But apparently no one else on RBT has the brains to work this out. Or perhaps they like carrying a 4 pound U-lock... I saved over four pounds of mass on my bike when I fitted the n'lock.

The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

Nobody said the Chainglider was new now. I merely used it as an example of tech which when it was new was dismissed here with a sneer, and again now that it is established by Krygowski who apparently has never seen a Chainglider, never handled one, and doesn't know that it works on a different principle to the standard Dutch type chain cases which are held off the chain by brackets. I've been testing chain cases exhaustively since 2002, including the Chainglider since it appeared, and all its variants too. I've been building a maintenance free bike with it, zero chain maintenance. But it isn't worth reporting the experiment here because some petty clown will sneer irrelevantly that:

The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

What value does the fact that you saw it years ago add to the conversation, George? What we want to know is what you did with it that is useful to us.

The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
"new tech" either.

No one said it was new now. But when it was new, it was dismissed on RBT with a sneer by the dumpster divers. There are quite a few Rohloff owners on RBT, but it is rarely discussed because of the interference from the clowns who will almost instantly derail any discussion of the Rohloff into the irrelevance of its initial cost, as Krygowski tries to do in this thread, as Daniels has maliciously done to every Rohloff thread I've ever seen on RBT.

In any event, the only technical matters worth discussing are not "new tech"; that's an irrelevant parameter Krygowski added to give him something to sneer about, and that you've picked up to boost your ego by claiming you knew about it all along.

This irrelevant crap by you and Krygowski has nothing to do with tech and everything to do with personalities.

Andre Jute
Mo' tech is good tech.

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:

Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that

produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.


A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator excuse for not discussing tech:

"If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth discussing."

"If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning it?"

"It costs more than $1.99."

It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to prove my thesis.

Andre Jute

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:20:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:

Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that

produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.


A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator excuse
for not discussing tech:

"If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth discussing."

"If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning it?"

"It costs more than $1.99."

It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to
prove my thesis.

If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't say it on the
internet. A fairly simple rule of etiquette.

You really need to get out more. This kind of ill mannered, vitriolic
spouting would be beaten out of you by the upset denizens of your local
pub if you tried it there.
--
davethedave

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a "religion" is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.


Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

Do you see the religiousness?

(Cool google factoid: If you start typing "i am the wa... " - looking
for that quote from the bible - the autocomplete suggests, "I am the
Walrus" first. I guess the Beatles are *still* more popular than Jesus.)

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:52:46 PM UTC, davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:20:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:



On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:



Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that



produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.





A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator excuse

for not discussing tech:



"If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth discussing."



"If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning it?"



"It costs more than $1.99."



It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to

prove my thesis.



If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't say it on the

internet. A fairly simple rule of etiquette.



You really need to get out more. This kind of ill mannered, vitriolic

spouting would be beaten out of you by the upset denizens of your local

pub if you tried it there.

--

davethedave

Good heavens, some little man I don't know from anywhere is getting so hot under the collar, he's threatening to come beat me up on behalf of another little man, who presumably has more sense. What a reckless little man you are, Davey-boy.

Andre Jute

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:19:00 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:01:12 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:



No offense to Jobst, but the problem of broken spokes was solved mostly by DT. Spokes just got more reliable. Plus, Jobst's stress-relief regimen was accomplished inadvertently by most builders when they side loaded the wheel during building or "corrected" spoke line or bedded the spokes. All of this was done back in the day before the Book, but no one talked about stress-relieving, except maybe relieving the stress of building by having a beer. Jobst explained the science and came up with a simpler squeeze technique, but spoke breakage dropped in great part because people stopped using Stella, Robergel, Alpina, etc. and started using DT.



I don't doubt the benefit of metallurgical and other processing advances. But as an ME, Jobst's technical explanations were far more specific and correct than what had appeared in print before. And his book on wheelbuilding was not the first. I'd read at least one previous book, and many articles. The difference was night and day. Before Jobst, it really was myth and lore.



And I believe the knowledge spread. People doing wheel building know things that were not known before Jobst. Also, today we have machine built wheels that are quite reliable. I think it's a mistake to think the designers of those machines are not using the knowledge that Jobst gave us. Engineering knowledge does spread.



If not injured, Jobst would have dropped out of this group -- like Sheldon did before he died. The vast technical experience is now somewhere else, or nowhere.



Oh, it's in lots of places. There's still some here.



Even our garage putterers like Carl Fogel are gone.



And I miss Dear Carl!



Damon Rinard went on to design for Cevelo and would certainly laugh at all the CF "danger, danger" talk. http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/19/30-...-damon-rinard/



But let's also note that Damon Rinard, of all people, would scoff at the road test we discussed a year or two ago, comparing a modern racing bike with one from the 80s, and claiming great differences from aspects other than weight. Rinard is the man who used physics principles to build the Analytic Cycling site. AC is a site respected by Carl Fogel, Jobst and me, and a site that demonstrates that climbing speed depends on little beyond power and total weight. If "responsiveness" and "handling" were important, Rinard would have built those factors in.

I can't speak for Damon, but I suspect he would agree that frame stiffness, weight and geometry all affect performance. If not, his work would just be building the lightest possible bike. All of those things make my various bikes ride differently, although the greatest difference is weight and tire profile/pressure. The stiffer front end on my new Cannondale does give it a much more positive feel climbing and descending, but at the end of the day, I don't know if I'm doing either that much faster than my CAAD 9 (correcting for continued aging).

The latest "big difference" is new bars on both my CAAD 9 (which got the OEM Cannondale branded bars from my SuperSix) and on my commuter, which got some cheap Performance bars to replace the oxidized and pitted Ritchey bars. Both are relatively conventional bend bars, and I dislike both of them. It is amazing how the bend profile and lever placement can affect comfort. I lived for decades with classic Cinelli round bend bars, and now I hate that design. I'm going to fuss with lever placement some more (which means re-taping and re-taping cables). Maybe I can make them comfortable. My favorite bars are the anatomical bend, flat to FSA bars.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:48:44 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:52:46 PM UTC, davethedave wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:20:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:



On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:



Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that



produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.





A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator
excuse

for not discussing tech:



"If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth
discussing."



"If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning
it?"



"It costs more than $1.99."



It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to

prove my thesis.



If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't say it on the

internet. A fairly simple rule of etiquette.



You really need to get out more. This kind of ill mannered, vitriolic

spouting would be beaten out of you by the upset denizens of your local

pub if you tried it there.


Good heavens, some little man I don't know from anywhere is getting so
hot under the collar, he's threatening to come beat me up on behalf of
another little man, who presumably has more sense. What a reckless
little man you are, Davey-boy.

For a person who makes his living using the English language, your
reading and comprehension skills are surprisingly as lacking as your
manners.
--
davethedave

On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
"religion"
is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
though illegal.

At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
it might be.

All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
treatments.

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

Does one example count? Please?

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
make their life better, they should fight for them.

What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
road.

Do you see the religiousness?

Not really. More self preservation than anything.

--
JS

On 12/18/2013 3:20 PM, James wrote:
On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
"religion"
is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.

Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
though illegal.

At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
it might be.

All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
treatments.

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

Does one example count? Please?

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
make their life better, they should fight for them.

What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
road.

Do you see the religiousness?

Not really. More self preservation than anything.


+1
James, you're a cyclist after my own heart in these things.
Besides which you have actually seen one functional bicycle
facility.

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