| |
Main
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:20:20
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: The page I forgot
|
http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:44:21
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 7, 6:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >>> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> >>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
> >>> Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
> >> just like you wanted, right?
>
> > No..discussion group..found the page when 'wandering around' and
> > thought it would promote 'discussion'.
>
> translation: "i was bored so i thought i'd troll."
>
> > Yep, fan of 'designed for the
> > rider and his needs', handbuilt wheels. Yep, get frustrated with the
> > marketing hype and BS I see everyday in all things 'bicycles'..I am
> > surprised how angry the discussion became, so quickly...no I'm not.
whatever..good bye to you.
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:04:50
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 6, 6:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> > Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
>
> just like you wanted, right?
No..discussion group..found the page when 'wandering around' and
thought it would promote 'discussion'. Yep, fan of 'designed for the
rider and his needs', handbuilt wheels. Yep, get frustrated with the
marketing hype and BS I see everyday in all things 'bicycles'..I am
surprised how angry the discussion became, so quickly...no I'm not.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 05:38:27
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>>> Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
>> just like you wanted, right?
>
> No..discussion group..found the page when 'wandering around' and
> thought it would promote 'discussion'.
translation: "i was bored so i thought i'd troll."
> Yep, fan of 'designed for the
> rider and his needs', handbuilt wheels. Yep, get frustrated with the
> marketing hype and BS I see everyday in all things 'bicycles'..I am
> surprised how angry the discussion became, so quickly...no I'm not.
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:32:13
From:
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 6, 6:19 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> ngrin...@aol.com aka Nigel Grinter wrote:
>
> > ...Are a real person or merely a piece of software - the
> > modern equivalent of Monty Python's argument service? If so, every
> > newsgroup should have such software....
>
> Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Dear Tom,
Love it. Wish I'd thought of that.
Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 13:34:26
From:
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 6, 7:38 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> > <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> > Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
>
> just like you wanted, right?
Dear Jim,
Masterful response. I must say I'm hurt that you didn't reply to my
last message, but please don't bother if it means more colorful
language. Are a real person or merely a piece of software - the
modern equivalent of Monty Python's argument service? If so, every
newsgroup should have such software. (Maybe every newsgroup does?)
By the way, I noticed this reply you posted to Tom Sherman:
"more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40
in
shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i buy
locally? ridiculous."
Glad to see you got that troublesome shift key fixed. Now you just
have to learn how to use it.
Cheerily,
Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:19:36
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
ngrinter@aol.com aka Nigel Grinter wrote:
> ...Are a real person or merely a piece of software - the
> modern equivalent of Monty Python's argument service? If so, every
> newsgroup should have such software....
Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:22:01
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 6, 2:07 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
> >http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
I hearby, by the powers invested in me, declare this thread as
officially out of control.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 18:20:43
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com aka Joseph Santaniello wrote:
> On Aug 6, 2:07 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>>
>> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>> Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
>
> I hearby, by the powers invested in me, declare this thread as
> officially out of control.
I was just starting to have fun.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 12:07:25
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 05:38:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote:
>> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> Wow, 51 posts overnight with 2 of the 'big boys' going at it...
>
just like you wanted, right?
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:06:11
From:
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 3:44 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> ngrin...@aol.com wrote:
>
> <snip rehashed drivel>
>
> great contribution nigel - i'm sure i speak for thousands when i say how
> much i appreciate the extensive experience, enlightenment and
> information you've so thoughtfully provided.
>
> and marketing is a total red herring. oval chainwheels, offset axle
> pedals and pneumatic shifting enjoyed the benefits of shimano's
> heavyweight marketing machine, only to die helpless, twitching and alone
> at the side of the road. a bit like artisan wheelbuilders that don't
> recognize what consumers want.
Thanks, Jim. You are too kind when you write of the "extensive
experience, enlightenment and information (I) so thoughtfully
provided". (Could this be sarcasm?) All I did was ask a question
(Sabotage????), make a comment about how the article that provoked
this tedious thread seemed to differ in intent from your curiously
narrow interpretation, and suggest that marketing has led to the
success of pre-built wheels. You neither answered the question nor
did you respond to my take on the nature of the wheel comparison
article. Finally, you "refute" my marketing suggestion by pointing
out that not all marketing efforts are successful. Tough to disagree
with that last one, but is it relevant? And by the way, marketing is
not about recognizing what consumers want, it is about moulding
perceptions/building an image to make your product stand out from the
rest, regardless of its true quality. Granted, you can't successfully
market something that is inherently bad, but no one is suggesting that
factory-built wheels are totally unfit to put on a bicycle. The
debate is over their price, performance and durability as compared to
their less-hyped, handbuilt counterparts.
I knew I should have stayed out of this, but it has been a rather slow
Sunday.
Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:27:25
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:20:20 -0000, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
Always someone gonna hit the half dried road apples with a stick when your out
on a country lane.
Ron
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:09:08
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:51:29 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>> On Aug 5, 4:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
>>>>>>>>>>>> quite rare.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>>>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>>>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
>>>>>>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
>>>>>>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>>>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>>>>>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>>>>>>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
>>>>>>>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
>>>>>>>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
>>>>>>>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>>>>>>> What benefits would I derive?
>>>>>>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>>>>>>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>>>>>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
>>>>>>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
>>>>>>> deficiency.
>>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>>>>>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
>>>>>> well established values for these properties.
>>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
>>>>> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
>>>>> good idea, yes.
>>>>>> Do we really need to
>>>>>> personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
>>>>>> structure?
>>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
>>>>> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
>>>>> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>>>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
>>>>> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
>>>>> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.-
>>>> Ah! The lesson here seems to be: piss your money away on a pair of
>>>> over-priced, over-hyped "boutique" wheels. Then, you will have earned
>>>> the right to call 'em SH**.
>>> /spend/ your money to see if they are, yes. and if they're not, you'd
>>> presumably be honest enough to admit it, right?-
>>
>> So, all the failures I see don't count? I must piss money away to
>> confirm crap as crap?
>>
>
> let me see if i have this straight:
>
> 1. i ride mavic cosmos. i find their bearings are better in the wet,
> they're better in cross winds and they stay perfectly true from the box.
> lbs campy/open pro don't. conclusion - cosmos are crap. is that your
> position?
>
> 2. i ride shimano r540's with only 16 spokes. i find they stay
> perfectly true under my lardy ass out of the box and haven't needed any
> attention other than bearings. lbs wheels need bearing adjustment /and/
> a re-true every few hundred miles. conclusion - r540's are crap. right?
>
> just because they're more expensive? [which they're not.]
Oh brother. Are you being deliberately obtuse? He's saying his judgment is
based on observations of similar wheels owned by others. You've taken the
ridiculous position that only by owning a wheel can one get valid
experience of it, a position that you're not even consistent about, since
you yourself have said in the past that you wouldn't use the Mavic wheels
with aluminum spokes because you've seen people stranded at roadside.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:48:34
From: Gary Young
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:19:55 +0200, Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:46b6304e$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, Tom
> "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>>
>> My use of the word "boutique" was the standard use for this context
>> (rec.bicycles.tech). Is that too hard for a French lawyer to
>> understand?
>
> Who prevaricated and told you I am a French lawyer? Or did you also make
> that up on your own? The context is a distortion, perpetrated to give an
> unseemly "exotic" tenor to the proposition. The failure to recognize
> that it is properly a boutique which caters to individualized taste and
> demand only makes the retro-blowhards self-satisfied, and they (you?)
> deserve none of that.
>
>
Here's how Meriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) defines boutique:
boutique
One entry found for boutique.
Main Entry: bou·tique
Pronunciation: bü-'tEk
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French, shop, probably from Old Occitan botica, ultimately from
Greek apothEkE storehouse -- more at APOTHECARY 1 a : a small fashionable
shop b : a small shop within a large department store 2 : a small company
that offers highly specialized services or products <boutique wineries >
<an independent investment boutique >
Note that a small shop that sells fashionable ready-made items may still
be a boutique. The market for pre-built wheels may be larger than that for
custom-made wheels, but it is much smaller than the market for generic,
unadorned, OEM wheels sold on the vast majority of bicycles. Hence, the
meaning given to "boutique wheel" here on rbt is defensible on linguistic
grounds.
But that's all beside the point because we all -- including you --
understood what Tom meant when he used the phrase boutique wheels.
>>> You also did not exclude racers.
>>
>> Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you want it to say.
>
> Excluding and minimizing aren't the same. Try an English dictionary.
> Prof. Higgins had it right, all along.
>
>>> Rather, you wrote of racing wheels in an inappropriate application.
>>> But you did it lying down. OK, got that too.
>>
>> Being upright takes oxygen away from the brain. ;)
>>
> Only for the weak.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:26:00
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 4:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
> >>>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
> >>>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
> >>>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
> >>>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
> >>>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
> >>>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
> >>>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
> >>>>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
> >>>>>>>>> quite rare.
> >>>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
> >>>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
> >>>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
> >>>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
> >>>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
> >>>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
> >>>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
> >>>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
> >>>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
> >>>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
> >>>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
> >>>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
> >>>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
> >>>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
> >>>>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
> >>>>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
> >>>>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
> >>>>> What benefits would I derive?
> >>>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
> >>>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
> >>>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
> >>>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
> >>>> deficiency.
> >>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
> >>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
> >>> well established values for these properties.
> >> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
> >> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
> >> good idea, yes.
>
> >>> Do we really need to
> >>> personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
> >>> structure?
> >> if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
> >> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
> >> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>
> >>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
> >>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
> >> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
> >> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
> >> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.-
>
> > Ah! The lesson here seems to be: piss your money away on a pair of
> > over-priced, over-hyped "boutique" wheels. Then, you will have earned
> > the right to call 'em SH**.
>
> /spend/ your money to see if they are, yes. and if they're not, you'd
> presumably be honest enough to admit it, right?-
So, all the failures I see don't count? I must piss money away to
confirm crap as crap?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:51:29
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 5, 5:18 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>> On Aug 5, 4:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
>>>>>>>>>>> quite rare.
>>>>>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
>>>>>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
>>>>>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>>>>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>>>>>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
>>>>>>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
>>>>>>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
>>>>>>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>>>>>> What benefits would I derive?
>>>>>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>>>>>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>>>>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
>>>>>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
>>>>>> deficiency.
>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>>>>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
>>>>> well established values for these properties.
>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
>>>> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
>>>> good idea, yes.
>>>>> Do we really need to
>>>>> personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
>>>>> structure?
>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
>>>> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
>>>> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
>>>> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
>>>> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.-
>>> Ah! The lesson here seems to be: piss your money away on a pair of
>>> over-priced, over-hyped "boutique" wheels. Then, you will have earned
>>> the right to call 'em SH**.
>> /spend/ your money to see if they are, yes. and if they're not, you'd
>> presumably be honest enough to admit it, right?-
>
> So, all the failures I see don't count? I must piss money away to
> confirm crap as crap?
>
let me see if i have this straight:
1. i ride mavic cosmos. i find their bearings are better in the wet,
they're better in cross winds and they stay perfectly true from the box.
lbs campy/open pro don't. conclusion - cosmos are crap. is that your
position?
2. i ride shimano r540's with only 16 spokes. i find they stay
perfectly true under my lardy ass out of the box and haven't needed any
attention other than bearings. lbs wheels need bearing adjustment /and/
a re-true every few hundred miles. conclusion - r540's are crap. right?
just because they're more expensive? [which they're not.]
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:30:18
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> ...
> let me see if i have this straight:
>
> 1. i ride mavic cosmos. i find their bearings are better in the wet,
> they're better in cross winds and they stay perfectly true from the box.
> lbs campy/open pro don't. conclusion - cosmos are crap. is that your
> position?
I find the bearing in my wheels with inexpensive Shimano (Deore, STX)
MTB hubs are fine for extended use in the wet (there is a reason I don't
use road hubs).
Crosswinds are not a problem (however, the smaller diameter wheels and
closer overall distance to the ground make comparisons invalid).
These wheels have not required re-truing.
> 2. i ride shimano r540's with only 16 spokes. i find they stay
> perfectly true under my lardy ass out of the box and haven't needed any
> attention other than bearings. lbs wheels need bearing adjustment /and/
> a re-true every few hundred miles. conclusion - r540's are crap. right?
>
> just because they're more expensive? [which they're not.]
The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need bearing
adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:43:59
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
<snip for clarity >
> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need bearing
> adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
at long freakin' last!!!
that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel for
shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by the
resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey builds and
otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few exceptions to this
rule, but they're real rare. your generalizations that because a
handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by extrapolation /all/ good, is utter
bull.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:59:56
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>
> at long freakin' last!!!
>
> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel for
> shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by the
> resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey builds and
> otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few exceptions to this
> rule, but they're real rare. your generalizations that because a
> handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by extrapolation /all/ good, is utter
> bull.
Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts, tension
and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of spokes are
squeezed, followed by final truing.
OR
Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
It ain't that difficult!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:03:30
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>
>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>
>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel for
>> shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by the
>> resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey builds
>> and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few exceptions to
>> this rule, but they're real rare. your generalizations that because a
>> handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by extrapolation /all/ good, is
>> utter bull.
>
> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts, tension
> and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of spokes are
> squeezed, followed by final truing.
>
> OR
>
> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>
> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>
> It ain't that difficult!
>
more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40 in
shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i buy
locally? ridiculous.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:14:10
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>>
>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>>
>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel for
>>> shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by the
>>> resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey builds
>>> and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few exceptions to
>>> this rule, but they're real rare. your generalizations that because
>>> a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by extrapolation /all/ good, is
>>> utter bull.
>>
>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts, tension
>> and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of spokes are
>> squeezed, followed by final truing.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>>
>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>>
>> It ain't that difficult!
>>
>
> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40 in
> shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i buy
> locally? ridiculous.
Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
"boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even ridden
with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
Not at all ridiculous.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:32:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>>>
>>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>>>
>>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel
>>>> for shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by the
>>>> resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey builds
>>>> and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few exceptions to
>>>> this rule, but they're real rare. your generalizations that because
>>>> a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by extrapolation /all/ good, is
>>>> utter bull.
>>>
>>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts,
>>> tension and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of spokes
>>> are squeezed, followed by final truing.
>>>
>>> OR
>>>
>>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>>>
>>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>>>
>>> It ain't that difficult!
>>>
>>
>> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
>> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40 in
>> shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i buy
>> locally? ridiculous.
>
> Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
> fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
> "boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
> easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even ridden
> with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
>
> Not at all ridiculous.
>
forget it. no point. no reason.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 22:14:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>>>>
>>>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel
>>>>> for shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by
>>>>> the resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey
>>>>> builds and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few
>>>>> exceptions to this rule, but they're real rare. your
>>>>> generalizations that because a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are by
>>>>> extrapolation /all/ good, is utter bull.
>>>>
>>>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts,
>>>> tension and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of
>>>> spokes are squeezed, followed by final truing.
>>>>
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>>>>
>>>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>>>>
>>>> It ain't that difficult!
>>>>
>>>
>>> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
>>> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40
>>> in shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i
>>> buy locally? ridiculous.
>>
>> Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
>> fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
>> "boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
>> easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even ridden
>> with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
>>
>> Not at all ridiculous.
>>
>
> forget it. no point. no reason.
Hey, its your money. Just don't expect the rest of us to "buy in".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:26:51
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>>>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel
>>>>>> for shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by
>>>>>> the resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey
>>>>>> builds and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few
>>>>>> exceptions to this rule, but they're real rare. your
>>>>>> generalizations that because a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are
>>>>>> by extrapolation /all/ good, is utter bull.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts,
>>>>> tension and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of
>>>>> spokes are squeezed, followed by final truing.
>>>>>
>>>>> OR
>>>>>
>>>>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> It ain't that difficult!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
>>>> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40
>>>> in shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i
>>>> buy locally? ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
>>> fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
>>> "boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
>>> easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even
>>> ridden with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
>>>
>>> Not at all ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>> forget it. no point. no reason.
>
> Hey, its your money. Just don't expect the rest of us to "buy in".
>
and don't /you/ fucking criticize something you've never fucking used
and are too fucking stubbornly myopic to be objective about!!!
goddamned hypocrite.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 23:06:47
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
>>>>>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel
>>>>>>> for shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by
>>>>>>> the resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey
>>>>>>> builds and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few
>>>>>>> exceptions to this rule, but they're real rare. your
>>>>>>> generalizations that because a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are
>>>>>>> by extrapolation /all/ good, is utter bull.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts,
>>>>>> tension and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of
>>>>>> spokes are squeezed, followed by final truing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OR
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It ain't that difficult!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
>>>>> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40
>>>>> in shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i
>>>>> buy locally? ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
>>>> fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
>>>> "boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
>>>> easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even
>>>> ridden with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
>>>>
>>>> Not at all ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> forget it. no point. no reason.
>>
>> Hey, its your money. Just don't expect the rest of us to "buy in".
>>
>
> and don't /you/ fucking criticize something you've never fucking used
> and are too fucking stubbornly myopic to be objective about!!! goddamned
> hypocrite.
What does sex (fucking) have to do with bicycle wheels?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:11:19
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 4:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > jim beam wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
> >>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
> >>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
> >>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>
> >>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
> >>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>
> >>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
> >>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
> >>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
> >>>>>>> quite rare.
>
> >>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
> >>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>
> >>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
> >>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
> >>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
> >>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>
> >>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
> >>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>
> >>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
> >>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
> >>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>
> >>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>
> >>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
> >>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
> >>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
> >>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
> >>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>
> >>> What benefits would I derive?
>
> >>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
> >>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>
> >> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
> >> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
> >> deficiency.
>
> > By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
> > material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
> > well established values for these properties.
>
> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
> good idea, yes.
>
> > Do we really need to
> > personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
> > structure?
>
> if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>
>
>
> > It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
> > buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>
> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.-
Ah! The lesson here seems to be: piss your money away on a pair of
over-priced, over-hyped "boutique" wheels. Then, you will have earned
the right to call 'em SH**.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 15:18:21
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 5, 4:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
>>>>>>>>> quite rare.
>>>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
>>>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
>>>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>>>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
>>>>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
>>>>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
>>>>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>>>> What benefits would I derive?
>>>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>>>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
>>>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
>>>> deficiency.
>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
>>> well established values for these properties.
>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
>> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
>> good idea, yes.
>>
>>> Do we really need to
>>> personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
>>> structure?
>> if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
>> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
>> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>>
>>
>>
>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
>> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
>> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.-
>
>
> Ah! The lesson here seems to be: piss your money away on a pair of
> over-priced, over-hyped "boutique" wheels. Then, you will have earned
> the right to call 'em SH**.
>
/spend/ your money to see if they are, yes. and if they're not, you'd
presumably be honest enough to admit it, right?
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:20:03
From:
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> 1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
> 2. this guy is bullshitting.
Snip
> bottom line, he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to
> do so on technical grounds, resorts to sabotage. and as if this weren't
> enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical criteria because
> that's the only genuine argument he has.
Snip
> this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
> real threat of success. after all, if pre-built's weren't successful,
> why bother standing in line to complain?
Greetings, Jim. I have nothing to add to the arguments that has not
already been said many many many times on this forum and elsewhere.
(By the way, how do you find enough time to ride your hobby horse and
your bicycle? Perhaps you are a sponsored racer or a man of
independent means? That would explain your use of disposable
wheels.)
A few things in your posting did get my attention, however:
"he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to do so on
technical grounds, resorts to sabotage"
Sabotage???????
and......
"if this weren't enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical
criteria because that's the only genuine argument he has"
I thought the article was an attempt to evaluate wheels from all
aspects, not merely technical ones. For most mortals, price is a
significant consideration, and relating price to performance is the
way rational buying decisions are made. Of course, for the sponsored
racer or man of independent means....... (By the way, the singular
form of criteria is criterion.)
and finally....
"this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
real threat of success"
Does anyone seriously doubt the success of pre-built wheels? But what
kind of success? What old sourpusses like me see is an enormous
MARKETING success. If you had been able to ask riders of earlier
generations if they would pay the (inflation/standard-of-living
adjusted) prices of today I'm pretty sure what the answer would have
been.
Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
P.S. I see you still have that problem with your shift key. Have you
considered taking your computer to Best Buy for their Geek Squad to
take a look?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:44:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
ngrinter@aol.com wrote:
<snip rehashed drivel >
great contribution nigel - i'm sure i speak for thousands when i say how
much i appreciate the extensive experience, enlightenment and
information you've so thoughtfully provided.
and marketing is a total red herring. oval chainwheels, offset axle
pedals and pneumatic shifting enjoyed the benefits of shimano's
heavyweight marketing machine, only to die helpless, twitching and alone
at the side of the road. a bit like artisan wheelbuilders that don't
recognize what consumers want.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:11:04
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 6:20 pm, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<pe...@vecchios.com > wrote:
> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
My favorite wheel inertia page:
http://www.charles.whitaker.name/wheels.html
While I agree the inertia effects are small, and only applicable at
times of acceleration, I think often people underestimate how
important even 1% changes can be.
I keep getting dropped on hills, but if I could increase my power by
only 1% it would mean I could get up a 1km long 5% grade about 4
seconds faster. That could make all the difference, so reducing the
amount of energy wasted spinning up wheels might help.
That said, I don't think boutique wheels is the answer. The only thing
that have going for (some of) them is they look cool. Most of them are
not very aero, most are not very stiff, most are more problematic to
fix when damaged, and most are pretty expensive for what you get in
terms of performance and reliability/strength. But that is no reason
for someone not to get some if they want some!
But back to inertia: with my lightweight wheels which are 1100g
lighter than my regular wheels I notice a very significant difference
in low speed acceleration (which is when it is most noticable so
that's not that strange), but this comes at the expense of a
squirrelly feel. Sometimes rotational inertia is a nice thing to have!
It definitely makes for a more stable ride.
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:42:50
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:04 -0000, joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> That said, I don't think boutique wheels is the answer. The only thing
> that have going for (some of) them is they look cool. Most of them are
> not very aero, most are not very stiff, most are more problematic to
> fix when damaged, and most are pretty expensive for what you get in
> terms of performance and reliability/strength. But that is no reason
> for someone not to get some if they want some!
IMHO the need for proprietary spokes, nipples and tools and their
unrideability when a spoke breaks are the primary reasons to avoid
them, at least on the back.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:37:34
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>
> >http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
> 1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
> 2. this guy is bullshitting.
>
> he says:
> "Both the Dura-Ace and Ksyrium rear wheels went significantly out of
> true during my brief period with them. This is indicative of a poor
> wheel building process and in the case of the Ksyrium, there is simply
> not enough spoke tension to support my hefty 165 pound butt. The
> Dura-Ace wheels exhibited significant rim deformation where the spokes
> enter the rim. The large spoke bending moment here will eventually
> cause a crack to form at this location. Rims should not deform like
> this during the wheel building process."
>
> as the owner [and long term rider] of pre-built mavic and shimano
> wheels, and as someone that weighs considerably more than his measly
> little "165 pound butt", and as someone that's apparently strong enough
> to strip the thread off a fixie hub [:(], i've never experienced these
> alleged problems. my shimano and mavic wheels are stock, straight out
> of the box, and have not been "helped" by spoke tension adjustments. if
> i can't damage my wheels just by riding them, he can't either.
>
> bottom line, he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to
> do so on technical grounds, resorts to sabotage. and as if this weren't
> enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical criteria because
> that's the only genuine argument he has.
>
> anyone that wants to roll their own is free to do so. and anyone lucky
> enough to know a builder that can do a decent job is welcome to use
> them. but competent builders are few and far between. to other riders,
> pre-builts are the way to go.
>
> this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
> real threat of success. after all, if pre-built's weren't successful,
> why bother standing in line to complain?
And all those poor sods stranded by the roadside with a failed
Ksyrium? They shouldn't complain?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:40:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Aug 5, 1:11 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.comwrote:
>>
>>> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>> 1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
>> 2. this guy is bullshitting.
>>
>> he says:
>> "Both the Dura-Ace and Ksyrium rear wheels went significantly out of
>> true during my brief period with them. This is indicative of a poor
>> wheel building process and in the case of the Ksyrium, there is simply
>> not enough spoke tension to support my hefty 165 pound butt. The
>> Dura-Ace wheels exhibited significant rim deformation where the spokes
>> enter the rim. The large spoke bending moment here will eventually
>> cause a crack to form at this location. Rims should not deform like
>> this during the wheel building process."
>>
>> as the owner [and long term rider] of pre-built mavic and shimano
>> wheels, and as someone that weighs considerably more than his measly
>> little "165 pound butt", and as someone that's apparently strong enough
>> to strip the thread off a fixie hub [:(], i've never experienced these
>> alleged problems. my shimano and mavic wheels are stock, straight out
>> of the box, and have not been "helped" by spoke tension adjustments. if
>> i can't damage my wheels just by riding them, he can't either.
>>
>> bottom line, he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to
>> do so on technical grounds, resorts to sabotage. and as if this weren't
>> enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical criteria because
>> that's the only genuine argument he has.
>>
>> anyone that wants to roll their own is free to do so. and anyone lucky
>> enough to know a builder that can do a decent job is welcome to use
>> them. but competent builders are few and far between. to other riders,
>> pre-builts are the way to go.
>>
>> this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
>> real threat of success. after all, if pre-built's weren't successful,
>> why bother standing in line to complain?
>
>
>
> And all those poor sods stranded by the roadside with a failed
> Ksyrium? They shouldn't complain?
>
>
don't use the ones with alloy spokes! i don't.
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:11:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>
1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
2. this guy is bullshitting.
he says:
"Both the Dura-Ace and Ksyrium rear wheels went significantly out of
true during my brief period with them. This is indicative of a poor
wheel building process and in the case of the Ksyrium, there is simply
not enough spoke tension to support my hefty 165 pound butt. The
Dura-Ace wheels exhibited significant rim deformation where the spokes
enter the rim. The large spoke bending moment here will eventually
cause a crack to form at this location. Rims should not deform like
this during the wheel building process."
as the owner [and long term rider] of pre-built mavic and shimano
wheels, and as someone that weighs considerably more than his measly
little "165 pound butt", and as someone that's apparently strong enough
to strip the thread off a fixie hub [:(], i've never experienced these
alleged problems. my shimano and mavic wheels are stock, straight out
of the box, and have not been "helped" by spoke tension adjustments. if
i can't damage my wheels just by riding them, he can't either.
bottom line, he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to
do so on technical grounds, resorts to sabotage. and as if this weren't
enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical criteria because
that's the only genuine argument he has.
anyone that wants to roll their own is free to do so. and anyone lucky
enough to know a builder that can do a decent job is welcome to use
them. but competent builders are few and far between. to other riders,
pre-builts are the way to go.
this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
real threat of success. after all, if pre-built's weren't successful,
why bother standing in line to complain?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:37:46
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:11:34 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> 1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
> 2. this guy is bullshitting.
You only have to read the first couple of sentences to see that it's
going to be pure polemic.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:30:34
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:
>> http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_review.htm
>>
>
>
> 1. you're trolling. must be a slow day.
> 2. this guy is bullshitting.
>
> he says:
> "Both the Dura-Ace and Ksyrium rear wheels went significantly out of
> true during my brief period with them. This is indicative of a poor
> wheel building process and in the case of the Ksyrium, there is simply
> not enough spoke tension to support my hefty 165 pound butt. The
> Dura-Ace wheels exhibited significant rim deformation where the spokes
> enter the rim. The large spoke bending moment here will eventually
> cause a crack to form at this location. Rims should not deform like
> this during the wheel building process."
>
> as the owner [and long term rider] of pre-built mavic and shimano
> wheels, and as someone that weighs considerably more than his measly
> little "165 pound butt", and as someone that's apparently strong enough
> to strip the thread off a fixie hub [:(], i've never experienced these
> alleged problems. my shimano and mavic wheels are stock, straight out
> of the box, and have not been "helped" by spoke tension adjustments. if
> i can't damage my wheels just by riding them, he can't either.
Says the anonymous poster.
> bottom line, he sets out to denigrate pre-builts, and having failed to
> do so on technical grounds, resorts to sabotage. and as if this weren't
> enough, he falls back on price as if it's a technical criteria because
> that's the only genuine argument he has.
>
> anyone that wants to roll their own is free to do so. and anyone lucky
> enough to know a builder that can do a decent job is welcome to use
> them. but competent builders are few and far between. to other riders,
> pre-builts are the way to go.
Hey "jim", ever hear of FedEx, UPS, etc.? They will ship wheels from the
builder's shop right to the customer's door.
> this constant bleating about pre-builts clearly means there must be a
> real threat of success. after all, if pre-built's weren't successful,
> why bother standing in line to complain?
While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have no
financial interest either way.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 11:38:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
<snip for clarity >
> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have no
> financial interest either way.
>
as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
based on experience.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:31:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
jim beam wrote:
> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
> based on experience.
you're a bent rider?
bill "passing on obvious erect rider joke" s.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 13:48:14
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have no
>> financial interest either way.
>>
>
> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
> based on experience.
Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO 571-mm
wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and ISO
451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
with failed "boutique" wheels.
Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels are
so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the extra
money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee shop.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:01:11
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have no
>>> financial interest either way.
>>>
>>
>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>> based on experience.
>
> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO 571-mm
> wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and ISO
> 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
>
> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>
> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels are
> so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the extra
> money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee shop.
>
er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience do
/you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:07:10
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>>>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have
>>>> no financial interest either way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>> based on experience.
>>
>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO 571-mm
>> wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and ISO
>> 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
>>
>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>
>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee shop.
>>
>
> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience do
> /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my (so far
durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price of "boutique"
wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:19:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>>>>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have
>>>>> no financial interest either way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>>> based on experience.
>>>
>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and
>>> ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
>>>
>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
>>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>
>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee shop.
>>>
>>
>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience do
>> /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>
> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my (so far
> durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price of "boutique"
> wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>
that's conjecture, not experience.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 04:14:56
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
On Aug 5, 11:06 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
> > Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
> >>>>>>>> The wheel builder at your LBS is incompetent if the wheels need
> >>>>>>>> bearing adjustment and re-truing every few hundred miles.
>
> >>>>>>> at long freakin' last!!!
>
> >>>>>>> that's the whole point tom. /most/ bike shops can't true a wheel
> >>>>>>> for shit. an out-of-the-box pre-built, i.e. one not "helped" by
> >>>>>>> the resident wheel monkey, /will/ stay true. the crap the monkey
> >>>>>>> builds and otherwise fucks about, won't. there /are/ a few
> >>>>>>> exceptions to this rule, but they're real rare. your
> >>>>>>> generalizations that because a handbuilt /can/ be good, they are
> >>>>>>> by extrapolation /all/ good, is utter bull.
>
> >>>>>> Then buy an inexpensive machine built wheel with decent parts,
> >>>>>> tension and true, do whatever it is that happens when pairs of
> >>>>>> spokes are squeezed, followed by final truing.
>
> >>>>>> OR
>
> >>>>>> Find a decent wheel-builder that sells by mail order.
>
> >>>>>> Both are less expensive than pre-built boutique wheels.
>
> >>>>>> It ain't that difficult!
>
> >>>>> more avoidance of the essential issue - most lbs's DO NOT HAVE HIGH
> >>>>> PROFICIENCY. what's next - are you going to recommend spending $40
> >>>>> in shipping to have peter run his golden spoke key over something i
> >>>>> buy locally? ridiculous.
>
> >>>> Having Peter Chisholm properly prep a machine built wheel that has
> >>>> fundamentally decent components would still cost less than the
> >>>> "boutique" wheels. The end result would also something that could be
> >>>> easily repaired, unlike many of the "boutique" wheels, and even
> >>>> ridden with one or two spokes broken (say from external damage).
>
> >>>> Not at all ridiculous.
>
> >>> forget it. no point. no reason.
>
> >> Hey, its your money. Just don't expect the rest of us to "buy in".
>
> > and don't /you/ fucking criticize something you've never fucking used
> > and are too fucking stubbornly myopic to be objective about!!! goddamned
> > hypocrite.
>
> What does sex (fucking) have to do with bicycle wheels?
>
It's the feeling that you've been screwed that comes about 90 days
after buying a set of Ksyriums......
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:36:32
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>>>> based on experience.
>>>>
>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite
>>>> rare.
>>>>
>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
>>>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>
>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>>>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>>>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee shop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience do
>>> /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>
>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my (so
>> far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price of
>> "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>
>
> that's conjecture, not experience.
With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require any
maintenance (regarding the spokes).
What benefits would I derive?
[1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as it
is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 12:44:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite
>>>>> rare.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>>>>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>>>>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee
>>>>> shop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience do
>>>> /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>
>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my (so
>>> far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price of
>>> "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>
>>
>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>
> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require any
> maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>
> What benefits would I derive?
>
> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as it
> is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>
what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not understand?
repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your deficiency.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:13:14
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
jim beam wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite
>>>>>> rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>
>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my (so
>>>> far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price of
>>>> "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>
>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require any
>> maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>
>> What benefits would I derive?
>>
>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>
>
> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not understand?
> repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your deficiency.
By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
well established values for these properties. Do we really need to
personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
structure?
It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:54:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are
>>>>>>> quite rare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>>
>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a Renn
>>> disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are also so
>>> small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not require
>>> any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>>
>>> What benefits would I derive?
>>>
>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>>
>>
>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
>> deficiency.
>
> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
> well established values for these properties.
well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
good idea, yes.
> Do we really need to
> personally verify the elastic modulus of steel before designing a steel
> structure?
if you want to do a good job, yes. you work with concrete don't you?
how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
>
> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:17:27
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an
>>>>>>>>> opinion based on experience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>>>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO
>>>>>>>> 406-mm and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these
>>>>>>>> are quite rare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>>>>>> cyclists with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique"
>>>>>>>> wheels are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers,
>>>>>>>> spending the extra money serves no purpose other than to impress
>>>>>>>> at the coffee shop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> er, "tom", let's get back to the point - what personal experience
>>>>>>> do /you/ have that qualifies you to have an opinion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My personal experience is that I saved a lot of money getting my
>>>>>> (so far durable) wheels built at a bike shop compared to the price
>>>>>> of "boutique" wheels that would offer no significant advantage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> that's conjecture, not experience.
>>>>
>>>> With lightweight wheel covers [1] I can have wheels that are more
>>>> aerodynamic than any "boutique" wheels short of something like a
>>>> Renn disc. The potential weight savings from "boutique" wheels are
>>>> also so small to be neglible. My conventional spoked wheels do not
>>>> require any maintenance (regarding the spokes).
>>>>
>>>> What benefits would I derive?
>>>>
>>>> [1] Not nearly the crosswind problem for ISO 305 to 451-mm wheels as
>>>> it is for ISO 559 to 622-mm wheels.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what part of "that's conjecture, not experience" do you not
>>> understand? repeating conjecture still doesn't compensate for your
>>> deficiency.
>>
>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there being
>> well established values for these properties.
>
> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be a
> good idea, yes.
>
>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of steel
>> before designing a steel structure?
>
> if you want to do a good job, yes.
Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and money
to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify a property
that has been verified by others thousands of times with consistent results.
> you work with concrete don't you?
> how many bridges have you cast where you don't bother to test every load
> of mix if properties are so easily assumed?
The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the elastic
modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix proportions
but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing conditions. Lets
compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>
> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so how
would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small diameter
wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not significantly
affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of overall weight.
My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so how
could I see improvement here?
So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built wheels
(assuming such wheels were even available with the rim diameters, widths
and mounting arrangements I require)?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 17:33:30
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
<snip for clarity >
>>>
>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there
>>> being well established values for these properties.
>>
>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem to
>> escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it would be
>> a good idea, yes.
>>
>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of steel
>>> before designing a steel structure?
>>
>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>
> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and money
> to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify a property
> that has been verified by others thousands of times with consistent
> results.
eh?
>
>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast where
>> you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties are so easily
>> assumed?
>
> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the elastic
> modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix proportions
> but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing conditions. Lets
> compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something about,
is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually know
something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/ subject to
quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your argument.
_utterly_ ridiculous.
>
>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary parts.
>>
>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
>> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence - you're
>> simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>
> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>
> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so how
> would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>
> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small diameter
> wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>
> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not significantly
> affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of overall weight.
>
> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so how
> could I see improvement here?
>
> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built wheels
> (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim diameters, widths
> and mounting arrangements I require)?
>
no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real and
measurable. red herrings about your own subset of conditions are
irrelevant for the rest of the normal cycling population.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:11:06
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> <snip for clarity>
>
>>>>
>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify basic
>>>> material properties before using them in a design, despite there
>>>> being well established values for these properties.
>>>
>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem
>>> to escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it
>>> would be a good idea, yes.
>>>
>>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of steel
>>>> before designing a steel structure?
>>>
>>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>>
>> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and
>> money to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify a
>> property that has been verified by others thousands of times with
>> consistent results.
>
> eh?
Typically, to determine the elastic modulus of a metal, one performs a
tensile test with both load and strain being measured. To get accurate
readings in the range of interest (i.e. elastic), an extensometer with a
lower overall range is used than would be the case if yield and ultimate
tensile strength determinations were the primary goals. I would have
thought a material scientist would know this.
>>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast
>>> where you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties are so
>>> easily assumed?
>>
>> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the elastic
>> modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix proportions
>> but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing conditions.
>> Lets compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>
> ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
> saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something about,
> is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually know
> something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/ subject to
> quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your argument.
> _utterly_ ridiculous.
Testing the steel for yield, UTS, hardness, ductility, fracture
toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. would be reasonable depending on
the use. Testing for elastic modulus, which hardly varies with alloying
and heat treatment would be silly.
>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary
>>>> parts.
>>>
>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the money
>>> and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence -
>>> you're simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>>
>> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>>
>> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so how
>> would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>>
>> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small diameter
>> wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>>
>> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not significantly
>> affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of overall weight.
>>
>> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so how
>> could I see improvement here?
>>
>> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built
>> wheels (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim
>> diameters, widths and mounting arrangements I require)?
>>
>
> no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real and
> measurable.
What are these MEASURABLE BENEFITS, and how much difference do they make
in real world riding conditions?
> red herrings about your own subset of conditions are
> irrelevant for the rest of the normal cycling population.
Well "jim", you are the one that keeps referring to me in your posts
with the second person pronoun, so why should I not mention why
pre-built wheels are not of benefit to me because my subset of conditions?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 18:58:35
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify
>>>>> basic material properties before using them in a design, despite
>>>>> there being well established values for these properties.
>>>>
>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem
>>>> to escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it
>>>> would be a good idea, yes.
>>>>
>>>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of steel
>>>>> before designing a steel structure?
>>>>
>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>>>
>>> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and
>>> money to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify a
>>> property that has been verified by others thousands of times with
>>> consistent results.
>>
>> eh?
>
> Typically, to determine the elastic modulus of a metal, one performs a
> tensile test with both load and strain being measured. To get accurate
> readings in the range of interest (i.e. elastic), an extensometer with a
> lower overall range is used than would be the case if yield and ultimate
> tensile strength determinations were the primary goals. I would have
> thought a material scientist would know this.
evidently civil engineers don't. and modulus is red herring.
>
>>>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast
>>>> where you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties are
>>>> so easily assumed?
>>>
>>> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the elastic
>>> modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix
>>> proportions but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing
>>> conditions. Lets compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>>
>> ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
>> saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something
>> about, is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually know
>> something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/ subject to
>> quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your argument.
>> _utterly_ ridiculous.
>
> Testing the steel for yield, UTS, hardness, ductility, fracture
> toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. would be reasonable depending on
> the use. Testing for elastic modulus, which hardly varies with alloying
> and heat treatment would be silly.
which is precisely why you were using it as a red herring, wasn't it tom
- i never mentioned modulus.
>
>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary
>>>>> parts.
>>>>
>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the
>>>> money and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence
>>>> - you're simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>>>
>>> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>>>
>>> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so how
>>> would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>>>
>>> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small diameter
>>> wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>>>
>>> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not
>>> significantly affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of
>>> overall weight.
>>>
>>> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so how
>>> could I see improvement here?
>>>
>>> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built
>>> wheels (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim
>>> diameters, widths and mounting arrangements I require)?
>>>
>>
>> no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real and
>> measurable.
>
> What are these MEASURABLE BENEFITS, and how much difference do they make
> in real world riding conditions?
ah, the "real world" cop-out.
>
>> red herrings about your own subset of conditions are irrelevant for
>> the rest of the normal cycling population.
>
> Well "jim", you are the one that keeps referring to me in your posts
> with the second person pronoun, so why should I not mention why
> pre-built wheels are not of benefit to me because my subset of conditions?
stop avoiding the point.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:08:55
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify
>>>>>> basic material properties before using them in a design, despite
>>>>>> there being well established values for these properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy seem
>>>>> to escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then it
>>>>> would be a good idea, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of
>>>>>> steel before designing a steel structure?
>>>>>
>>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>>>>
>>>> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and
>>>> money to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify
>>>> a property that has been verified by others thousands of times with
>>>> consistent results.
>>>
>>> eh?
>>
>> Typically, to determine the elastic modulus of a metal, one performs a
>> tensile test with both load and strain being measured. To get accurate
>> readings in the range of interest (i.e. elastic), an extensometer with
>> a lower overall range is used than would be the case if yield and
>> ultimate tensile strength determinations were the primary goals. I
>> would have thought a material scientist would know this.
>
> evidently civil engineers don't.
Sorry, I was taught that was the proper way to determine elastic modulus
by a MATERIALS SCIENTIST, not an engineer.
> and modulus is red herring.
Hey, you are the one that said you would measure the modulus of steel,
not me.
>>>>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast
>>>>> where you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties are
>>>>> so easily assumed?
>>>>
>>>> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the
>>>> elastic modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix
>>>> proportions but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing
>>>> conditions. Lets compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>>>
>>> ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
>>> saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something
>>> about, is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually
>>> know something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/
>>> subject to quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your
>>> argument. _utterly_ ridiculous.
>>
>> Testing the steel for yield, UTS, hardness, ductility, fracture
>> toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. would be reasonable depending on
>> the use. Testing for elastic modulus, which hardly varies with
>> alloying and heat treatment would be silly.
>
> which is precisely why you were using it as a red herring, wasn't it tom
> - i never mentioned modulus.
Wrong!
I wrote: "Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of
steel before designing a steel structure?"
And "jim beam" responded: "if you want to do a good job, yes."
>>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit by
>>>>>> buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive proprietary
>>>>>> parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the
>>>>> money and test these products. i can therefore say with confidence
>>>>> - you're simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>>>>
>>>> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>>>>
>>>> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so
>>>> how would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>>>>
>>>> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small
>>>> diameter wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>>>>
>>>> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not
>>>> significantly affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of
>>>> overall weight.
>>>>
>>>> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so how
>>>> could I see improvement here?
>>>>
>>>> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built
>>>> wheels (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim
>>>> diameters, widths and mounting arrangements I require)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real and
>>> measurable.
>>
>> What are these MEASURABLE BENEFITS, and how much difference do they
>> make in real world riding conditions?
>
> ah, the "real world" cop-out.
Do you ride in some place other than the "real world"?
If you were an engineer and not a material scientist, you would realize
that spending twice the money for a 1% improvement is not a good choice,
unless that 1% earns you something very valuable (e.g. TdF victory).
>>> red herrings about your own subset of conditions are irrelevant for
>>> the rest of the normal cycling population.
>>
>> Well "jim", you are the one that keeps referring to me in your posts
>> with the second person pronoun, so why should I not mention why
>> pre-built wheels are not of benefit to me because my subset of
>> conditions?
>
> stop avoiding the point.
Hey "jim", I want data showing the percent improvement in various
categories that pre-built "boutique" wheels have over conventional
spoked wheels that justifies the greater cost of the "boutique" wheels.
Can YOU provide these figures?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 19:14:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify
>>>>>>> basic material properties before using them in a design, despite
>>>>>>> there being well established values for these properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy
>>>>>> seem to escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified", then
>>>>>> it would be a good idea, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of
>>>>>>> steel before designing a steel structure?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and
>>>>> money to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to verify
>>>>> a property that has been verified by others thousands of times with
>>>>> consistent results.
>>>>
>>>> eh?
>>>
>>> Typically, to determine the elastic modulus of a metal, one performs
>>> a tensile test with both load and strain being measured. To get
>>> accurate readings in the range of interest (i.e. elastic), an
>>> extensometer with a lower overall range is used than would be the
>>> case if yield and ultimate tensile strength determinations were the
>>> primary goals. I would have thought a material scientist would know
>>> this.
>>
>> evidently civil engineers don't.
>
> Sorry, I was taught that was the proper way to determine elastic modulus
> by a MATERIALS SCIENTIST, not an engineer.
>
>
> > and modulus is red herring.
>
> Hey, you are the one that said you would measure the modulus of steel,
> not me.
>
>>>>>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast
>>>>>> where you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties are
>>>>>> so easily assumed?
>>>>>
>>>>> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the
>>>>> elastic modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix
>>>>> proportions but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and curing
>>>>> conditions. Lets compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>>>>
>>>> ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
>>>> saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something
>>>> about, is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually
>>>> know something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/
>>>> subject to quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your
>>>> argument. _utterly_ ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Testing the steel for yield, UTS, hardness, ductility, fracture
>>> toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. would be reasonable depending
>>> on the use. Testing for elastic modulus, which hardly varies with
>>> alloying and heat treatment would be silly.
>>
>> which is precisely why you were using it as a red herring, wasn't it
>> tom - i never mentioned modulus.
>
> Wrong!
>
> I wrote: "Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of
> steel before designing a steel structure?"
>
> And "jim beam" responded: "if you want to do a good job, yes."
which was b.s. to your red herring!!! jeepers tom.
>
>>>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit
>>>>>>> by buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive
>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the
>>>>>> money and test these products. i can therefore say with
>>>>>> confidence - you're simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>>>>>
>>>>> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so
>>>>> how would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small
>>>>> diameter wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>>>>>
>>>>> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not
>>>>> significantly affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of
>>>>> overall weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so
>>>>> how could I see improvement here?
>>>>>
>>>>> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built
>>>>> wheels (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim
>>>>> diameters, widths and mounting arrangements I require)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real
>>>> and measurable.
>>>
>>> What are these MEASURABLE BENEFITS, and how much difference do they
>>> make in real world riding conditions?
>>
>> ah, the "real world" cop-out.
>
> Do you ride in some place other than the "real world"?
>
> If you were an engineer and not a material scientist, you would realize
> that spending twice the money for a 1% improvement is not a good choice,
> unless that 1% earns you something very valuable (e.g. TdF victory).
ah, so having finally admitted superiority, you seek to trivialize.
ridiculous.
>
>>>> red herrings about your own subset of conditions are irrelevant for
>>>> the rest of the normal cycling population.
>>>
>>> Well "jim", you are the one that keeps referring to me in your posts
>>> with the second person pronoun, so why should I not mention why
>>> pre-built wheels are not of benefit to me because my subset of
>>> conditions?
>>
>> stop avoiding the point.
>
> Hey "jim", I want data showing the percent improvement in various
> categories that pre-built "boutique" wheels have over conventional
> spoked wheels that justifies the greater cost of the "boutique" wheels.
> Can YOU provide these figures?
>
they're in the freakin' article to which this brain damaging thread is
attached!!! holy crap - argue the points, don't just argue.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:24:14
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By "jim beam's" standard, an engineer should go out and verify
>>>>>>>> basic material properties before using them in a design, despite
>>>>>>>> there being well established values for these properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> well, since significant material properties such as anisotropy
>>>>>>> seem to escape those that pass themselves off as "qualified",
>>>>>>> then it would be a good idea, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus of
>>>>>>>> steel before designing a steel structure?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if you want to do a good job, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now "jim beam" is just being silly if he would waste the time and
>>>>>> money to run a tensile test with a low-range extensometer to
>>>>>> verify a property that has been verified by others thousands of
>>>>>> times with consistent results.
>>>>>
>>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>> Typically, to determine the elastic modulus of a metal, one performs
>>>> a tensile test with both load and strain being measured. To get
>>>> accurate readings in the range of interest (i.e. elastic), an
>>>> extensometer with a lower overall range is used than would be the
>>>> case if yield and ultimate tensile strength determinations were the
>>>> primary goals. I would have thought a material scientist would know
>>>> this.
>>>
>>> evidently civil engineers don't.
>>
>> Sorry, I was taught that was the proper way to determine elastic
>> modulus by a MATERIALS SCIENTIST, not an engineer.
>>
>>
>> > and modulus is red herring.
>>
>> Hey, you are the one that said you would measure the modulus of steel,
>> not me.
>>
>>>>>>> you work with concrete don't you? how many bridges have you cast
>>>>>>> where you don't bother to test every load of mix if properties
>>>>>>> are so easily assumed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The final strength of concrete is much more variable than the
>>>>>> elastic modulus of steel, since it depends greatly on not only mix
>>>>>> proportions but ACTUAL water to cement ratio, admixtures and
>>>>>> curing conditions. Lets compare apples to apples, not to oranges.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, now let's compare that to your previous paragraph. what you're
>>>>> saying is that /your/ material, that you actually know something
>>>>> about, is an exception, but that /my/ material, that /i/ actually
>>>>> know something about [and that you apparently don't], is /not/
>>>>> subject to quality variance. iow, ignorance is the basis of your
>>>>> argument. _utterly_ ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Testing the steel for yield, UTS, hardness, ductility, fracture
>>>> toughness, corrosion resistance, etc. would be reasonable depending
>>>> on the use. Testing for elastic modulus, which hardly varies with
>>>> alloying and heat treatment would be silly.
>>>
>>> which is precisely why you were using it as a red herring, wasn't it
>>> tom - i never mentioned modulus.
>>
>> Wrong!
>>
>> I wrote: "Do we really need to personally verify the elastic modulus
>> of steel before designing a steel structure?"
>>
>> And "jim beam" responded: "if you want to do a good job, yes."
>
> which was b.s. to your red herring!!! jeepers tom.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>> It is pure conjecture on "jim beam's" part that I would benefit
>>>>>>>> by buying expensive factory built wheels using expensive
>>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, it's denial on your part tom. i have bothered to spend the
>>>>>>> money and test these products. i can therefore say with
>>>>>>> confidence - you're simply bleating unoriginal underinformed drivel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would I benefit from pre-built wheels?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wheels on my bicycles do not flex enough to rub the brakes, so
>>>>>> how would greater lateral stiffness (if present) benefit me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I pointed out earlier, I can use wheel covers on my small
>>>>>> diameter wheels, which is more aerodynamic than any non-disc wheel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The weight savings of a couple of hundred grams will not
>>>>>> significantly affect my performance, since it is less than 0.5% of
>>>>>> overall weight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My spoked wheels are not breaking spokes or requiring truing, so
>>>>>> how could I see improvement here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what benefits would I get from paying much more for pre-built
>>>>>> wheels (assuming such wheels were even available with the rim
>>>>>> diameters, widths and mounting arrangements I require)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no tom, you're deliberately missing the point. benefits are real
>>>>> and measurable.
>>>>
>>>> What are these MEASURABLE BENEFITS, and how much difference do they
>>>> make in real world riding conditions?
>>>
>>> ah, the "real world" cop-out.
>>
>> Do you ride in some place other than the "real world"?
>>
>> If you were an engineer and not a material scientist, you would
>> realize that spending twice the money for a 1% improvement is not a
>> good choice, unless that 1% earns you something very valuable (e.g.
>> TdF victory).
>
> ah, so having finally admitted superiority, you seek to trivialize.
> ridiculous.
>
>
>>
>>>>> red herrings about your own subset of conditions are irrelevant for
>>>>> the rest of the normal cycling population.
>>>>
>>>> Well "jim", you are the one that keeps referring to me in your posts
>>>> with the second person pronoun, so why should I not mention why
>>>> pre-built wheels are not of benefit to me because my subset of
>>>> conditions?
>>>
>>> stop avoiding the point.
>>
>> Hey "jim", I want data showing the percent improvement in various
>> categories that pre-built "boutique" wheels have over conventional
>> spoked wheels that justifies the greater cost of the "boutique"
>> wheels. Can YOU provide these figures?
>>
>
> they're in the freakin' article to which this brain damaging thread is
> attached!!! holy crap - argue the points, don't just argue.
I fail to see any measurements of actual performance improvement. We
could calculate the improvement from weight reduction, but if the online
calculators are accurate, this is small (for a great increase in price).
The deflection measurements did not indicate a huge improvement (and
does this really matter as long as the brakes do not rub)?
The other "results" were subjective ratings.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 20:59:54
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Dans le message de news:46b60f55$0$16402$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > a réfléchi, et puis
a déclaré :
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> <snip for clarity>
>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have
>>> no financial interest either way.
>>>
>>
>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>> based on experience.
>
> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO 571-mm
> wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and ISO
> 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
>
> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>
> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee
> shop.
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
1 - learn whata a "boutique" means - Mr Chisholm operates a boutique. The
wheels you seem to want to bitch about are factory products.
2 - There are a lot of racers. They may just stop in this forum to read.
3 - You seem to suggest you can tell about lateral flex while en danseuese
from a recumbent? Gotta see that.
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 14:17:09
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Sandy Leurre, Guest of ProXad - France, wrote:
> Dans le message de news:46b60f55$0$16402$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in selling
>>>> shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique" wheels have
>>>> no financial interest either way.
>>>>
>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>> based on experience.
>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO 571-mm
>> wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm and ISO
>> 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite rare.
>>
>> Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright cyclists
>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>
>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee
>> shop.
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
Doesn't micro$oft outlook express 6.00 know what the signature separator is?
> 1 - learn whata a "boutique" means - Mr Chisholm operates a boutique. The
> wheels you seem to want to bitch about are factory products.
I was using it in the common Usenet cycling usage, and further more I
put "boutique" in quotes for just that reason. Please try to keep up.
> 2 - There are a lot of racers. They may just stop in this forum to read.
Racing has always involved greater cost and lower durability for
marginal performance increases. That is why I specifically EXCLUDED
racers from the group who would not see any real benefit from minor
weight and aerodynamic advantages.
> 3 - You seem to suggest you can tell about lateral flex while en danseuese
> from a recumbent? Gotta see that.
When did I say anything about lateral flex?
By the way, my recumbent trike certainly puts considerable lateral loads
on the wheels when cornering, and there is no way in hell that I would
consider using low spoke count "boutique" [1] wheels on it.
[1] Usenet cycling group definition of "boutique".
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 21:44:45
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Dans le message de news:46b6161c$0$13538$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com > a réfléchi, et puis
a déclaré :
> Sandy Leurre, Guest of ProXad - France, wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:46b60f55$0$16402$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> a réfléchi,
>> et puis a déclaré :
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>
>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>>> based on experience.
>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite
>>> rare. Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>> cyclists
>>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>
>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee
>>> shop.
>>> --
>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> Doesn't micro$oft outlook express 6.00 know what the signature
> separator is?
>> 1 - learn whata a "boutique" means - Mr Chisholm operates a
>> boutique. The wheels you seem to want to bitch about are factory
>> products.
>
> I was using it in the common Usenet cycling usage, and further more I
> put "boutique" in quotes for just that reason. Please try to keep up.
>
>> 2 - There are a lot of racers. They may just stop in this forum to
>> read.
>
> Racing has always involved greater cost and lower durability for
> marginal performance increases. That is why I specifically EXCLUDED
> racers from the group who would not see any real benefit from minor
> weight and aerodynamic advantages.
>
>> 3 - You seem to suggest you can tell about lateral flex while en
>> danseuese from a recumbent? Gotta see that.
>
> When did I say anything about lateral flex?
>
> By the way, my recumbent trike certainly puts considerable lateral
> loads on the wheels when cornering, and there is no way in hell that I
> would
> consider using low spoke count "boutique" [1] wheels on it.
>
> [1] Usenet cycling group definition of "boutique".
>
So, I am guessing it's your illiteracy that you would use as a defense. Got
it.
You also did not exclude racers. Rather, you wrote of racing wheels in an
inappropriate application. But you did it lying down. OK, got that too.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:08:55
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Sandy Leurre, Guest of ProXad - France, wrote:
> Dans le message de news:46b6161c$0$13538$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>> Sandy Leurre, Guest of ProXad - France, wrote:
>>> Dans le message de news:46b60f55$0$16402$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> a réfléchi,
>>> et puis a déclaré :
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> <snip for clarity>
>>>>>> While the original poster does have a financial interest in
>>>>>> selling shop-built wheels, many of us who criticize "boutique"
>>>>>> wheels have no financial interest either way.
>>>>>>
>>>>> as a bent rider, i don't see how you could possibly have an opinion
>>>>> based on experience.
>>>> Er "jim", there are some recumbents that use ISO 622-mm and ISO
>>>> 571-mm wheels. There are also some pre-built wheels in ISO 406-mm
>>>> and ISO 451-mm sizes (Aerospoke comes to mind) but these are quite
>>>> rare. Being a recumbent rider does not preclude observing upright
>>>> cyclists
>>>> with failed "boutique" wheels.
>>>>
>>>> Since the performance advantages of most of these "boutique" wheels
>>>> are so small as to be of no importance to non-racers, spending the
>>>> extra money serves no purpose other than to impress at the coffee
>>>> shop.
>>>> --
>>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>>>> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>> Doesn't micro$oft outlook express 6.00 know what the signature
>> separator is?
>>> 1 - learn whata a "boutique" means - Mr Chisholm operates a
>>> boutique. The wheels you seem to want to bitch about are factory
>>> products.
>> I was using it in the common Usenet cycling usage, and further more I
>> put "boutique" in quotes for just that reason. Please try to keep up.
>>
>>> 2 - There are a lot of racers. They may just stop in this forum to
>>> read.
>> Racing has always involved greater cost and lower durability for
>> marginal performance increases. That is why I specifically EXCLUDED
>> racers from the group who would not see any real benefit from minor
>> weight and aerodynamic advantages.
>>
>>> 3 - You seem to suggest you can tell about lateral flex while en
>>> danseuese from a recumbent? Gotta see that.
>> When did I say anything about lateral flex?
>>
>> By the way, my recumbent trike certainly puts considerable lateral
>> loads on the wheels when cornering, and there is no way in hell that I
>> would
>> consider using low spoke count "boutique" [1] wheels on it.
>>
>> [1] Usenet cycling group definition of "boutique".
>>
> So, I am guessing it's your illiteracy that you would use as a defense. Got
> it.
My use of the word "boutique" was the standard use for this context
(rec.bicycles.tech). Is that too hard for a French lawyer to understand?
> You also did not exclude racers.
Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you want it to say.
> Rather, you wrote of racing wheels in an
> inappropriate application. But you did it lying down. OK, got that too.
Being upright takes oxygen away from the brain. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 23:19:55
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Dans le message de news:46b6304e$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > a réfléchi, et puis
a déclaré :
>
> My use of the word "boutique" was the standard use for this context
> (rec.bicycles.tech). Is that too hard for a French lawyer to
> understand?
Who prevaricated and told you I am a French lawyer?
Or did you also make that up on your own?
The context is a distortion, perpetrated to give an unseemly "exotic" tenor
to the proposition. The failure to recognize that it is properly a boutique
which caters to individualized taste and demand only makes the
retro-blowhards self-satisfied, and they (you?) deserve none of that.
>> You also did not exclude racers.
>
> Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you want it to say.
Excluding and minimizing aren't the same.
Try an English dictionary. Prof. Higgins had it right, all along.
>> Rather, you wrote of racing wheels in an
>> inappropriate application. But you did it lying down. OK, got that
>> too.
>
> Being upright takes oxygen away from the brain. ;)
>
Only for the weak.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 16:46:58
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Sandy Leurre, alleged French Lawyer, wrote:
> Dans le message de news:46b6304e$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> a réfléchi, et puis
> a déclaré :
>> My use of the word "boutique" was the standard use for this context
>> (rec.bicycles.tech). Is that too hard for a French lawyer to
>> understand?
>
> Who prevaricated and told you I am a French lawyer?
You did in this post. See
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1ada336cf3f454d7?dmode=source&hl=en >.
> Or did you also make that up on your own?
When you post that you are a lawyer and your signature indicates that
you are in France, what conclusion can we draw?
> The context is a distortion, perpetrated to give an unseemly "exotic" tenor
> to the proposition. The failure to recognize that it is properly a boutique
> which caters to individualized taste and demand only makes the
> retro-blowhards self-satisfied, and they (you?) deserve none of that.
Boo hoo. Somebody's favorite pre-built wheels get criticized?
>>> You also did not exclude racers.
>> Try reading what I actually wrote, not what you want it to say.
>
> Excluding and minimizing aren't the same.
> Try an English dictionary. Prof. Higgins had it right, all along.
>
>>> Rather, you wrote of racing wheels in an
>>> inappropriate application. But you did it lying down. OK, got that
>>> too.
>> Being upright takes oxygen away from the brain. ;)
>>
> Only for the weak.
Try lying down and breathing some oxygen rich air.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 08:32:29
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: The page I forgot
|
Dans le message de news:46b63939$0$16345$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > a réfléchi, et puis
a déclaré :
> Sandy Leurre, alleged French Lawyer, wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:46b6304e$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> a réfléchi,
>> et puis a déclaré :
>>> My use of the word "boutique" was the standard use for this context
>>> (rec.bicycles.tech). Is that too hard for a French lawyer to
>>> understand?
>>
>> Who prevaricated and told you I am a French lawyer?
>
> You did in this post. See
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1ada336cf3f454d7?dmode=source&hl=en>.
>
>> Or did you also make that up on your own?
>
> When you post that you are a lawyer and your signature indicates that
> you are in France, what conclusion can we draw?
Were you invited to infer something? When I wrote from Almaty, did you
think I was a Kazakh lawyer? Why not a French chef - I much prefer working
in the kitchen than in my profession.
>> The context is a distortion, perpetrated to give an unseemly
>> "exotic" tenor to the proposition. The failure to recognize that it
>> is properly a boutique which caters to individualized taste and
>> demand only makes the retro-blowhards self-satisfied, and they
>> (you?) deserve none of that.
>
> Boo hoo. Somebody's favorite pre-built wheels get criticized?
OK, I can see you finally understood the lexical issue, but you speed off
rampant to greater errors in inference.
|
|
