Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued

Jambo who? said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone with neither name or email address writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the
rude style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I
hope that those who have something to offer omit self righteous
name calling and four letter words. Such posts generally cancel
opinions expressed and degrade the level of discourse to trash.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
your own space.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
discussion groups with impunity. There's something to be said for
fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
protagonist can understand.

I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education. It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of
one presentation over another.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone with neither name or email address writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
degrade the level of discourse to trash.

Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.

Quoted message said:

Jambo "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to
do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
impunity. There's

Jambo "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote

Quoted message said:

something to be said for fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only
one language a protagonsit can understand.

Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Jambo who? writes:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
> your own space.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
discussion groups with impunity.

There's something to be said for
fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
protagonist can understand.

I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education.

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
derailleurs.

Quoted message said:

It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
presentation over another.

If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
charitably thought he was just a troll.

Quoted message said:

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
opponent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
impunity.

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

Ben C said:

Quoted message said:

Jambo who? writes:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>> your own space.

Quoted message said:

> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception

Quoted message said:

> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
> discussion groups with impunity.
>
> There's something to be said for
> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
> protagonist can understand.

I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education.

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them.

True. Pig-wrestling; you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.

Ben C said:

Quoted message said:

Jambo who? writes:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>> your own space.
> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
> discussion groups with impunity.
>
> There's something to be said for
> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
> protagonist can understand.

I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education.

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
derailleurs.

Quoted message said:

It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
presentation over another.

If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
charitably thought he was just a troll.

You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been
largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole
brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile
thread".

"jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG,
including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is
towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way)
lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who.

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
sketch.

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
> opponent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
discussion groups with impunity.

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
sketch.

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
> opponent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
discussion groups with impunity.

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
sketch.

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
> <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>> opponent.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
> discussion groups with impunity.

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

Quoted message said:

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
"manufacturing defect."

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

Tim McNamara said:

As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
failures to make me very concerned.

Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels
which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. Which
just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and
myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less
than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people,
the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. Who have the
temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state
of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?

"Ben C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

"Growing accustomed to see"? Funny, you may have noticed beamboy's bluster
decreasing since his bluffs have been called. Accordingly, his reap
followed suit.

Quoted message said:

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
derailleurs.

I don't see how pushing back on a fraudster bully that is beamboy can deter
other people from posting, unless they in fact support the former. Wouldn't
it make more sense that this fraudster bully who try to suppress real
knowledge contradictory to his, is the real annoyance?

Quoted message said:

If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

If only the fraudster bully would read this and learn....

Quoted message said:

Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Not if there is a point to be made, that fraudulent claims to qualifications
and the bleating of poor understanding of basic science and scientific
methodologies cannot be disguised with bluster, technomumble, and personal
insults. Is this not a technical newsgroup?

Quoted message said:

Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
charitably thought he was just a troll.

Your interpretations are your own....

Peter Cole said:

Ben C said:

email hidden said:

Jambo who? writes:

[...]

Quoted message said:

>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>> your own space.
>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>
>> There's something to be said for
>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>> protagonist can understand.
I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education.

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
derailleurs.

Quoted message said:

It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
presentation over another.

If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
charitably thought he was just a troll.

You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been
largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole
brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile
thread".

"jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG,
including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is
towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way)
lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who.

says the guy that's sore because he gets called on his [censored]...

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
failures to make me very concerned.

Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels
which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago.

Sigh. Disc brakes have nothing to do with carbon fiber frames. Hence, why
do you think your arguments in disc brakes will apply to carbon fiber
frames?

Quoted message said:

Which
just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and
myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less
than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people,
the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world.

Wow, congratulations to yourself and beamboy. I suppose James' experience
of disc brakes, his compilation of stories from people with similar
experiences, and the fact that the big fork makers like Magura, Fox,
Marzocchi, (and other custom companies like Thick Bikes and Wily Cycles) all
now orient their disc tabbed fork dropouts forward, are all just retrogrouch
sulkings. And no, please don't resuscitate this issue, it's been beaten to
death.

Quoted message said:

Who have the
temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state
of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?

You just keep going on with your issues, it's as if you really need to
convince yourself or be vindicated in your beliefs by others! You don't
need to say anymore, we got your number....

-snip carbon downtube. in two-

damyth said:

I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
"manufacturing defect."

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

I was among the first to reply to the OP and, based on my experience,
advised him to seek competent counsel. That's all.

I maintained, and still do, that given a couple of photos and a
paragraph, versus the stakes involved, I certainly was not competent to
advise. Nor do I think any of us here could advise with certainty.
Speculation is fine when recognized as such and I found some of the
discussion elucidating. (it's easy to overlook the pissy
attention-seeking 8 year olds and their provocative/ vile comments)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what the
difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
recommendations between CF and metal frames.

Quoted message said:

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality that
people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break like
glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of people
getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages ever. Very
few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber components, we can all
look to the aerospace industry for experience. The fact that there are a
lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs compared to metals is a
recognition of CF characteristics. In fact, aircraft manufacturers do want
to use CF on their planes, BUT they recognise its testing, handling and
inspection requirements AND the consequences of failing to do so.

Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can
sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that), but
only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of their
products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor technical
backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only have their own,
somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down, just fact) to either
support or repudiate manufacturer claims.

Quoted message said:

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference is
on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations between
CF and metal frames.

"A Muzi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes.

What can I say, it's not the "technical" arguments that are the point, it's
the delivery system example - and sometimes showing someone a mirror is all
one can do.

Quoted message said:

I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
"manufacturing defect."

I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what
theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell,
there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the
original photo and description that started this thread even happened in the
first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else to
say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an
extraordinarily low standard of proof.

Quoted message said:

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material
that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different from
any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible
frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or
inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the
fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes
intentionally.

And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison
our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not
everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy discussion
about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with different
standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think
that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something
anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably
including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our standards)
in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. That's
just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company than
a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't
spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech
tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher.

Quoted message said:

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I
doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a near
certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even
likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something
defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium
bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about
carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't
seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed process,
because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many variables.
Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the welds.
Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or somebody
screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were a
good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds.

All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a material
to build a bicycle.

And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures.
Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were just
as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure imaginable,
although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give
absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when
descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much
safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles over
the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare.

So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? I
take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not
concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm
concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a
blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending me
into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality equipment
failing is insignificant in comparison.

Quoted message said:

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

Why?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next
week
coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet
another
thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python
"witch"
sketch.

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Peter Cole" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

> "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:...
>> <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>> replying
>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>>> opponent.

Quoted message said:

>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>> discussion groups with impunity.

Quoted message said:

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

Quoted message said:

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
"manufacturing defect."

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
recommendations between CF and metal frames.

I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic
answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I sell.
Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences
between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual,
as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon
fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find
the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such
instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that,
personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged steel &
aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have
already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these
frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to
look them over (after a crash or impact).

It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat at
odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final
link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the
product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I observe
and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved with
the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to see
& hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures),
and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & evolve.
Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do you
think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and sometimes
not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. It's
interesting what you can find that way.

But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I,
personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike
after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for
different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or titanium.
But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real
world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the [censored]
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
recommendations between CF and metal frames.

Quoted message said:

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality
that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break
like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of
people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages
ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber
components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The
fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs
compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact,
aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they
recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the
consequences of failing to do so.

Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can
sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that),
but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of
their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor
technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only
have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down,
just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims.

Quoted message said:

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference
is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations
between CF and metal frames.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING
SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES!

Jeez, I hope you've got X-No-Archive headers enabled :-)