ok, hands up

Jim Beam writes:

http://www.jimbeam.com/jb_web/

> quick survey:

> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

> further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
> erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.

> why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?

I see you have a hard time asking the question. How about starting with:

"Do you feel free to criticize a piece of equipment that you haven't tried."

The answer is yes. You don't have to try everything to form an opinion, especially if you can cite
concrete reasons for that opinion. An example is, using non-pneumatic tires to avoid flats. I have
not tried such tires since the days of riding a tricycle and an American Flyer wagon and have never
used them on a bicycle, yet I feel competent in explaining why you wouldn't want to use them.
Evidence abounds.

Similarly, I can advise against recumbents for general bicycling, for transportation, touring and
riding trails, as I define it from my own experience. This in spite of persistent claims by their
advocates of the recumbent's superiority over conventional bicycles. Evidence abounds.

There are scientific analyses and history to spare us the task of incrementally testing every piece
of equipment that appears on the market. These, together with observation of others who willingly
perform such tests, enable us to make decisions about these things.

I would expect you to understand this since you put yourself forth as a scientific person.
Apparently you are sensitive to posing this question since you have been argumentative here on many
issues. You dodge and weave as you pose the "question" which appears as an only slightly veiled
criticism... backing into the subject.

So my question is: At what school did you pass English, and is your spelling a revolt against what
was taught there?

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

jim beam wrote:

> quick survey:
>
> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

Certainly. I'll always feel free to criticize components which purport to solve non-existent
problems, and are less durable, more expensive, and incompatible with existing standards.

> further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
> erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.
>
> why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?

In many cases I'm sure you could attribute it to what Jobst Brandt calls MAS, or "Male Answer
Syndrome".

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants, today it's open to
anybody who owns hideous clothing. -- Dave Barry

jim beam wrote:
> why do people do it?

I don't know. Why do you use different names in every ng you post to?

Art Harris

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:24:51 GMT, jim beam <[email protected]> may have said:

>quick survey:
>
>hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

Sure. Sometimes, the problems are so obvious that it would be not just a waste of money, but utterly
counterproductive to buy a piece of gear just to confirm that it's ****. Every sale of such an item
would, after all, reward the seller for stocking something that wasn't worth buying. If it *is*
worth buying, it's the seller's job to present a convincing argument in its favor, not the buyer's
responsibility to spend first and discover later...even though that is often what really happens.

>further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
>erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.

If the facts are known and not erroneous, where's the problem? On this one, you'll have to cite
examples to get an opinion, not just generalize.

>why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?

Simplest answer, because they value their own opinions and experiences enough to feel that they have
an argument to support. Example: My own experience with powder coatings has been abysmal, and I make
no bones about the fact that I will not recommend the process for the majority of potential
applications. Others have had different results, and have different opinions in consequence. This
makes neither them nor me globally right or wrong, but it contributes to the information pool that
may allow someone to make an informed decision when both sides are presented.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
: quick survey:

: hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

Like Jobst said, it's easy to form an opinion and my opinions are never wrong!

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi

[email protected] wrote:

> You don't have to try everything to form an opinion, especially if you can cite concrete reasons
> for that opinion.

> An example is, using non-pneumatic tires to avoid flats. I have not tried such tires since the
> days of riding a tricycle and an American Flyer wagon and have never used them on a bicycle, yet I
> feel competent in explaining why you wouldn't want to use them.

> Similarly, I can advise against recumbents for general bicycling, for transportation, touring and
> riding trails, as I define it from my own experience.

Well done! By juxtaposing these two examples you just might convince the casual reader that serious
scientific inquiry and discussion had preceeded your opinion in the latter.

While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a product (e.g. solid tires)
or a concept (e.g. the current industry standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these forums, I
have yet to see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should not ride a
recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to personal preference.

--
Bill Bushnell

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

Heck yeah. Machines are machines, after all. They'd never exist to begin with if they weren't
predicated on fundamental engineering principles. Those priciples are knowable, and it is possible
to build a level of familiarity with them such that one can make good assumptions based on a few
pertinent data.

Bikes being mature technology, there are very few new developments that aren't analogous to other
sound or not-so-sound innovations of times past. Those earlier trials (and errors) are an excellent
guide by which to judge "new" ideas.

Previously unavailable materials don't change all the design guidelines that have come before, they
just introduce some different values into the old formulae.

Chalo Colina

I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for their
machines, but few facts about riding them.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote:
> While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a product (e.g. solid tires)
> or a concept (e.g. the current industry standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these forums,
> I have yet to see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should not ride a
> recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to personal preference.

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> quick survey:
>
> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?
>
> further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
> erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.
>
> why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?
>
> jb
>
It's my opinion that the internet allows anonymous people to feel good about rendering an opinion as
a fact, and not have to back it up or defend it. I think we all like to feel that we're an expert
about something and there are millions of us that like, enjoy, and are passionate about bikes. We
don't know how to say "in my opinion", and "I read an article", and on and so forth. We spew
hearsay, fifth-hand anecdotes and ill-considered opinions as facts that all should believe.There are
less than a handful of people that post here that I would absolutely trust what they say as being
based of facts and expertise. Peter Chisholm and Sheldon Brown are two of them.

"swamprun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for
> their machines, but few facts about riding them.

Actually, you can say that about almost anything you care to name: wheels, disc brakes, 15/16db
spokes, carbon rear triangles, compact frames, Brand X bikes, and on, and on...

Mike (not a recumbent rider)

When I criticize something it's usually pertinent to it's use.

For example, Campagnolo makes great products for the competitive cyclist. but most (if not all)
Campy equipment is second rate for touring purposes (IMHO).

I rarely pass judgement on something I haven't tried myself, though.

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 18:24:51 +0000, jim beam wrote:

> quick survey:
>
> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?

I'll bite.
>
> further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
> erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.

This should be balanced with the "other side". Arguments _for_ a particular material -- especially
something new -- tend to be based on "reviews" in trade pubs like Bicycling. We should keep back
issues, so we could point out how glowing their reviews of Spinnergy Spox wheels or Biopace
chainrings were.

Sorry, but I reserve the right to question the claims of someone marketing the latest multi-thousand
dollar frame without having to go buy the thing first. If the claims are clearly specious, then I
have no compunction. Such an example is the use of carbon seat stays.

> why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?

Why do people waste thousands of dollars on unproven technology based only on the manufacturer's
claims? Bicycles are a very mature technology; any change from the standard is as likely to be
detrimental as it is to be an improvement.

"New" does not necessarily mean "improved". Year after year of clear examples of that in the
marketplace, you think people would learn.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The _`\(,_ | common welfare was my
business; charity, mercy, forbearance, (_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The
dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
--Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

Mike Shaw writes:

>> I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for
>> their machines, but few facts about riding them.

> Actually, you can say that about almost anything you care to name: wheels, disc brakes, 15/16db
> spokes, carbon rear triangles, compact frames, Brand X bikes, and on, and on...

I guess you are shooting yourself in the foot there. We have plenty of folks here who do not BS,
qualify their comments and show evidence to substantiate their claims. We have enough research on
wheels, for instance, to speak with authority on their strengths and weaknesses. Just the same,
as much as 2/3 of the volume in this newsgroup is from defenders of myth and lore, defending old
saws in the presence of logical explanations and scientific measurements. These folks believe
there are no facts, just opinions, and the more people who hold an opinion, the more solid and
proven it becomes.

I speak from long experience of having the content of "the Bicycle Wheel" attacked annually by those
who want to believe in snake oil.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

I have a recumbent and it works for me. Also have 3 old-style bicycles. Each has its place.

My butt says the recumbent has the most comfy seat. Good ventilation, too. Not sure how you can
measure that, but it's true. Sit down on a Rotator sometime and find out for yourself. It wiould be
difficult to do a double-blind test on that one...

I also know from experience that recumbents don't climb as well as old-style bikes. They kick ass on
level ground. Positively wild going down hills. Perhaps you could find a rocket scientist to verify.

Also, the speed issue is why the stinking frogs and Italians banned them from mainstream racing. If
recuments were slow they would been eliminated for practical reasons instead of political reasons.
Again, there ought to be a rocket scientist somewhere who can comment.

Seriously now, was your post a troll, or what?

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:20:45 -0400, "swamprun" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for their
>machines, but few facts about riding them.
>
>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote:
>> While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a product (e.g. solid
>> tires) or a concept (e.g. the current industry standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in these
>> forums, I have yet to see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or should not
>> ride a recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to personal preference.

In article <[email protected]>, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> quick survey:
>
> hands up all those that feel free to criticize a piece of equipment they've never tried. anyone?
>
> further example: criticism of new materials outside the experience of the author and/or based on
> erroneous "facts" is a particularly interesting phenomenon.

It's Middle Aged Male Answer Syndrome. Some people enter middle age earlier than others, and some
stay longer. ;-)

> why do people do it? seriously, i'm genuinely interested by this. any thoughts?

One can criticize the design of a product one has not personally used, for example, if that product
has obvious design problems and one has the necessary knowledge to understand the problems. That's a
fairly small percentage on rec.bikes.*

In article <[email protected]>,
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:

> In many cases I'm sure you could attribute it to what Jobst Brandt calls MAS, or "Male Answer
> Syndrome".

I call it MAMAS (Middle Aged Male Answer Syndrome).

"> Also, the speed issue is why the stinking frogs and Italians banned
> them from mainstream racing.

no good argument ever ends with a racial or cultural slur. alfred klek

"swamprun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for
> their machines, but few facts about riding them.
>

Well, yes... in many cases, switching to recumbent bike allows a dedicated rider to continue riding
a bicycle for many years after the pain of upright riding precludes further cycling. Whether that
pain is caused by maladjustment of the bicycle or improper equipment choices is a subject worthy of
a college course, not a usenet posting.

In many cases, a recumbent is the equivalent of an upright bike. In some areas, they're worse, in
others, better.

Lately, I've been riding a single-speed upright to get me across downtown from the cheap parking to
my job. Next week, I'll be spending 4 to 6 hours a day riding on Cycle Oregon. For that, I'm taking
my favorite recumbent because I want to admire the scenery. Each bike has its place and its purpose.

I currently have 6 bikes- three uprights and three recumbents. They're all used to some degree or
another. Isn't that what cycling is about?

Jeff Wills

You are a typical recumbent zealot. You say the recumbent "kick ass on level ground". Why not
quantify it ? If you were to do a fair comparison of yourself riding on a road bike vs. the
recumbent, what would the speed difference be ? A device called a "speedometer", properly
calibrated, would be what you would use to determine the difference. You would want to take an
average over several rides, over the same course to get a good comparison of the two machines.

Alas, recumbent zealots don't seem to understand how to discuss the topic of velocity in objective
terms. Perhaps they have something to hide.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 03:25:12 +0000, 80s guy wrote:

> I have a recumbent and it works for me. Also have 3 old-style bicycles. Each has its place.
>
> My butt says the recumbent has the most comfy seat. Good ventilation, too. Not sure how you can
> measure that, but it's true. Sit down on a Rotator sometime and find out for yourself. It wiould
> be difficult to do a double-blind test on that one...
>
> I also know from experience that recumbents don't climb as well as old-style bikes. They kick
> ass on level ground. Positively wild going down hills. Perhaps you could find a rocket scientist
> to verify.
>
> Also, the speed issue is why the stinking frogs and Italians banned them from mainstream racing.
> If recuments were slow they would been eliminated for practical reasons instead of political
> reasons. Again, there ought to be a rocket scientist somewhere who can comment.
>
> Seriously now, was your post a troll, or what?
>
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:20:45 -0400, "swamprun" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I have noticed the same thing. The recumbent riders seem to have an almost religious zeal for
>>their machines, but few facts about riding them.
>>
>>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:03:43 +0000, Bill Bushnell wrote:
>>> While there may be sound scientific reasoning behind the criticism of a product (e.g. solid
>>> tires) or a concept (e.g. the current industry standard disk brake fork-mount) discussed in
>>> these forums, I have yet to see similar rigor applied to the discussion of why one should or
>>> should not ride a recumbent. All such discussions I have read boil down to personal preference.