105 vs ultegra vs dura-ace



threaded said:
But how much time and money do you save by not having to tinker with 105 constantly when compared to the others? It just working saves an awful lot more time I would imagine...
Is there something magical about DA that means it doesn't require any tinkering? I've had a fair bit of tinkering with my Ultegra bike and i wont bring up the broken DA chain i had 10 miles after it was accidentally abused by inept riding skills and took a good 30 minutes to fix roadside.

Anyone looking for a free 200g+ weight saving? Someone pointed out in an earlier thread, going to lavatory before you set out will give you the equivalent upgrade (or better cause mine are big! :eek: ) for free....
 
LeDomestique said:
Did you also show him this other graph?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve
Emperical data collected from the ice core samples also track CO2 levels over the same time period as the graph I referred to you. At odds with your man made cause to global warming, this data shows that the CO2 levels follow temperature rise by several hundred years. Showing that CO2 is a response to higher temperature, not a cause.

Furthermore, mankind has no control over the atmosphere or CO2 levels. Volcano eruptions often spew more CO2 into the atmoshpere in one eruption than mankind in our entire existence. However, if you sleep better at night thinking you're in control of your destiny and that somehow man is in control of the earth, and Al Gore somehow has the answers, then enjoy your illusions.

But remember, right now an asteroid large enough to kill off most of mankind is heading our way and could destroy us any minute. Also, we are way over due for the magnetic poles to reverse causing calamity unforseen, that could happen any minute. Oh, I hope you don't live in California, earthquakes. Tsunamis, I could go on and on, but that would be pointless.

Personally, I'll accept the fact that I woke up this morning with one more day in paradise, I'll try and do the best I can for my family first, my country next and then mankind. Tonight with the grace of the Almighty, I'll get a chance to thank him for the opportunity to do all again tomorrow. He is all that is, all that was, and all that will be. I am his unworthy child.
 
stilesiii said:
Emperical data collected from the ice core samples also track CO2 levels over the same time period as the graph I referred to you. At odds with your man made cause to global warming, this data shows that the CO2 levels follow temperature rise by several hundred years. Showing that CO2 is a response to higher temperature, not a cause.

Furthermore, mankind has no control over the atmosphere or CO2 levels. Volcano eruptions often spew more CO2 into the atmoshpere in one eruption than mankind in our entire existence. However, if you sleep better at night thinking you're in control of your destiny and that somehow man is in control of the earth, and Al Gore somehow has the answers, then enjoy your illusions.

But remember, right now an asteroid large enough to kill off most of mankind is heading our way and could destroy us any minute. Also, we are way over due for the magnetic poles to reverse causing calamity unforseen, that could happen any minute. Oh, I hope you don't live in California, earthquakes. Tsunamis, I could go on and on, but that would be pointless.

Personally, I'll accept the fact that I woke up this morning with one more day in paradise, I'll try and do the best I can for my family first, my country next and then mankind. Tonight with the grace of the Almighty, I'll get a chance to thank him for the opportunity to do all again tomorrow. He is all that is, all that was, and all that will be. I am his unworthy child.

Oh good. Another god freak.
 
threaded said:
But how much time and money do you save by not having to tinker with 105 constantly when compared to the others? It just working saves an awful lot more time I would imagine...
Are you implying that 105 requires less tinkering than Ultegra or DA? I can assure you that this is not so. The process of tuning the indexing is identical.
 
Sir, I can assure everyone that scientists, mathematicians and unemployed former planners from the Soviet Union's Peoples' Bureau of Mechanical Labor Saving Devices have declared that shimaNO 105 componentry requires precisely 4.5 seconds more tinkering than shimaNO DuraAce per every 100 miles of riding.
 
threaded said:
Where do you wish to start? From wikipedia: Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Global warming doesn't fit any of this and is but a method of diverting research funding to a bunch of religious wackos. Which is truly annoying as surely they get enough money from church collections already, apart from stifling real science and advancement.
You are quite right about scientific method. One constructs a hypothesis, and then applies the analysis of empirical data to confirm or reject the hypothesis. In the 1970s or earlier, global warming following CO2 rise was suggested as a hypothesis. Inadequate data were available at the time, but now most scientists in the field consider that enough data has come in to suggest a certain probability that observed temperature rises are due to the CO2 rise, and to extrapolate a probability envelope for ongoing rise. I don't think that anyone plausibly suggests that the CO2 rise is entirely a natural phenomenon, although some of the rise in CO2 may result from the warming.
So you get to choose - do you want to ignore the risk, or insure the world against it? If the hypothesis is wrong, then the effect of the ultimately unnecessary precautions has been projected to be as small as 1 or 2% of the world economy.
Not sure where you've concocted your religious conspiracy theory from.
 
stilesiii said:
Emperical data collected from the ice core samples also track CO2 levels over the same time period as the graph I referred to you. At odds with your man made cause to global warming, this data shows that the CO2 levels follow temperature rise by several hundred years. Showing that CO2 is a response to higher temperature, not a cause.
This time, the CO2 rises seem to have preceded the temperature rise.
 
artemidorus said:
This time, the CO2 rises seem to have preceded the temperature rise.
Maybe, it is very difficult to make assessments of the vast amount of data and variables. History is usually the best predictor of future events, particularly when those events clearly have a cyclical pattern. In any event, attempting to fix a problem not defined and not within your control is folly. I agree we should all do our part to conserve. That is a given and is common sense. But when you live in a instant gratification, if it feels good do it, no moral judgment world, common sense and conservation fall by the wayside.

Remember, if you win the rat race, you're still a rat.:)

And I still say that weight matters. The human body is no different from any other machine, heavier machines are less efficient and require more energy. When you and your bike become one machine, these same principles apply.

Sure a few ounces may not be significant to most of us, but when you are competing at the razors edge of endurance, it may.

BTW, I'm no threat to you Alienator, so no need to insult me. Believe what you wish, but name calling is below me, I would hope that it is below you.
 
stilesiii said:
BTW, I'm no threat to you Alienator, so no need to insult me. Believe what you wish, but name calling is below me, I would hope that it is below you.
You are on a forum mate, nobody is 'above' anything.
 
artemidorus said:
This time, the CO2 rises seem to have preceded the temperature rise.
And what is your point? In the past sometimes the CO2 leads, sometimes it lags the temperature changes.

artemidorus said:
Not sure where you've concocted your religious conspiracy theory from.
From the behavior of the 'climate change' lobby. They fit the general pattern of religious extremists: won't listen, scream you down if you offer an alternative viewpoint, threaten violence if you catch them in a logical fallacy, try to get you fired from your job if you disagree, etc. etc.. One of them, a politician in Germany, actually tried to get a law through to make it an imprisonable offence to speak against 'global warming'.

The scientific consensus is actually that 'climate change' is just some new-age pseudo-science neo-religious cultishness. What you read in the media about 'scientific consensus' is propaganda from these religious nuts, and only those scientists who are independently wealthy, or very brave, dare stand up and point out the wrongness of it all.
 
threaded said:
From the behavior of the 'climate change' lobby. They fit the general pattern of religious extremists: won't listen, scream you down if you offer an alternative viewpoint, threaten violence if you catch them in a logical fallacy, try to get you fired from your job if you disagree, etc. etc.. One of them, a politician in Germany, actually tried to get a law through to make it an imprisonable offence to speak against 'global warming'.
The lobby and the science are two very separate things.
 
threaded said:
The scientific consensus is actually that 'climate change' is just some new-age pseudo-science neo-religious cultishness. What you read in the media about 'scientific consensus' is propaganda from these religious nuts, and only those scientists who are independently wealthy, or very brave, dare stand up and point out the wrongness of it all.
I don't agree. It is clear that the global warming hypothesis cannot currently be disproven. It is also clear that it is not utterly convincingly proven, although my impression is that most of the science suggests that warming is happening and results from the industrial revolution. The key point is whether we should gamble for or against the hypothesis being correct. The consequences of gambling against the hypothesis and being wrong seem much larger than the consequences of gambling for the hypothesis and being wrong.
 
artemidorus said:
I don't agree. It is clear that the global warming hypothesis cannot currently be disproven. It is also clear that it is not utterly convincingly proven, although my impression is that most of the science suggests that warming is happening and results from the industrial revolution. The key point is whether we should gamble for or against the hypothesis being correct. The consequences of gambling against the hypothesis and being wrong seem much larger than the consequences of gambling for the hypothesis and being wrong.
The science suggests the warming started happening well before the industrial revolution began, about 20000 years before. Maybe it was all them cavemen experimenting with fire that brought about out the current warm climate and ended the ice-age. :rolleyes:
 
threaded said:
The science suggests the warming started happening well before the industrial revolution began, about 20000 years before. Maybe it was all them cavemen experimenting with fire that brought about out the current warm climate and ended the ice-age. :rolleyes:
I think that you are confusing the natural global temperature cycle, which noone disputes, with the important question as to whether there has been a man-made perturbation of the cycle, which, while still small in terms of absolute change, appears vastly to exceed, in rate of change, anything that has happened before.
 
artemidorus said:
I think that you are confusing the natural global temperature cycle, which noone disputes, with the important question as to whether there has been a man-made perturbation of the cycle, which, while still small in terms of absolute change, appears vastly to exceed, in rate of change, anything that has happened before.
The current science says that climate changes are always very rapid. Tipping point to tipping point with periods of apparent stability in between. This current change is, if anything, slower than average.

Do you maybe refer to the warming since the mini-ice age 1400-1800? Methinks that preceeded the industrial revolution too.
 
threaded said:
Do you maybe refer to the warming since the mini-ice age 1400-1800? Methinks that preceeded the industrial revolution too.
it's generally accepted that that cooling cycle was a result of the eruption of taupo in nz.

--brett
 
sideshow_bob said:
it's generally accepted that that cooling cycle was a result of the eruption of taupo in nz.

--brett
No it isn't, the last eruption of Taupo was long before, about 200AD. Cause of the Little Ice-Age is considered to be a lowering of solar output and the black death aiding reforestation.
 
threaded said:
The current science says that climate changes are always very rapid. Tipping point to tipping point with periods of apparent stability in between. This current change is, if anything, slower than average.

Do you maybe refer to the warming since the mini-ice age 1400-1800? Methinks that preceeded the industrial revolution too.
Atmospheric CO2 is now higher than it's been in 20 million years. Global mean ocean temperature is now one degree C away from the hottest it's been in one million years, models suggest it will gain that degree in three decades. Coincidence that it's happening at the same time as the industrial revolution? Feeling lucky?
Before you ask, I'm happy to cite the peer-reviewed literature backing these data.
 
artemidorus said:
Atmospheric CO2 is now higher than it's been in 20 million years. Global mean ocean temperature is now one degree C away from the hottest it's been in one million years,

is that mean surface temperature or mean sea temperature. because on a relative scale that 1C is very large in terms of mean ocean temperature, but not very large in the context of mean surface temperature.

just for the record, 1 million years is somewhere between tiny and insignificant in the context of the geological time scale.

i dont really have a position either way. i'd like to see the models and the evidence continue to coalesce, though they are probably starting to tip towards human cause and effect. regardless the precautionary principle is a worthwhile consideration in macro models like global climate.

--brett
 
i stand corrected. i knew i shouldn't have slept through 3 years of undergrad geology class.

--brett