"brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
> 2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
> with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying.
>
> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.

Say no more....

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:18 -0400, "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
>> 2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
>> with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying.
>>
>> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
>
>Say no more....

Let's not get too smug, dood.

Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool jersey
wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick through his
helmet chin strap.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>
,
Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sep 11, 6:43 am, Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> <huge snip>
>
> > > (D. Taylor) For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a markeitng
> > > ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> > > missing the boat. And the point.
> >
> > Maybe, but not here. This is a tech forum where we discuss the merits of
> > things on a functional level. The poseur/Luddite categorization is
> > simplistic and a distorted view of the participants. I admit it's hard
> > not to comment on the irony of fat guys obsessed with shaving a pound or
> > two off their bikes and paying handsomely for it, but that's not where
> > the bulk of these threads have focused.
>
> But it is accurate to say that we love our Chicken Little scenarios --
> disc brakes and wheel ejection, for example. Now it is CF -- which
> seems odd to me because we have had mass market CF frames for 20 years
> and no epidemic of failures. I'm no expert on this, so I'll keep my
> mouth mostly shut.

All the front disc brake ruckus was on the part of
those who denied there is a brake reaction force
directed on the axle in the direction of the downward
facing fork tips.

>
> I would ignore the ruckus if it weren't for one thing: it has become
> clear to me over the last ten years that I cannot expect parts or
> frames to last like they used to. I broke a set of Al bars after
> about a year of riding -- Cinelli OEM **** on my Cannondale cross
> bike. That was a hair-raising commute. Now, my 70's Cinelli bars --
> you could use those for a framing hammer. I don't know what to expect
> from products anymore, and the one-season warranties don't make me
> feel much better. Now throw in the RBT Chicken Little scenarios, and
> I am quivering in fear at the LBS when I buy anything other than a
> patch kit. Now, don't tell me Rema patch kits are failing
> catastrophically!

--
Michael Press

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:09:33 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, Doug, but "newer is better" != intelligence. For that
> >matter, the formula "newer != progress" is also true. That CF has
> >significant drawbacks in this application just seems to escape your
> >notice.
>
> It did not. While we're on the subject, did my post above escape
> your notice?:
>
>

I am not saying - and don't quote me out of context - that
> marketing ploys are nonexistent and that tons of useless, inefficient
> overpriced junk are not consumed daily with verve by a gullible
> public.
>
> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
> quite beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
> electronic.
>
> Carbon fiber is here to stay, and as a frame and fork material, it is
> purely and simply the state of the art. Lighter, stronger, stiffer -
> you get what you pay for.
>
> For every gullible poseur sucked into wasting money on a marketing
> ploy, there is an equal number of nostalgic, Luddite retrogrouches
> missing the boat. And the point.

Yes, I read that post the first time you posted it. So what? It does
not demonstrate an understanding that CF has significant drawbacks-
quite the opposite in fact, given your insistence that it is "state of
the art" which is generally used to mean "superior to all other
options." All it demonstrates is a slavish devotion to the "newer =
better" mindset. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding about the
importance of "lighter, stronger, stiffer" or even what the middle and
latter two of that triumvirate mean in this context.

> There are those cyclists who legitimately not only want, but require
> the state of the art. They are called racers. I used to be one (and
> the older I get, the better I used to be . My observations of
> that group as well as cohorts who still ride damn hard a few days a
> week, old age notwithstanding, shows that:
>
> All carbon fiber forks are ubiquitous. Lighter, stronger, stiffer.
> And it was a scant 2 or 3 years ago the retros cautioned against
> carbon steerers.

Yup. That's because they have been known to fail catastrophically.

> Almost as ubiquitous are carbon cranks, handlebars, and seatposts.

Three other components that can get you killed if they fail
catastrophically.

> The Campy guys/girls have carbon brake calipers, shifters and rear
> derailleurs.,
>
> Carbon frames will take over in another season or two as aluminum and
> titanium ones are retired to rain bikes (steel is already gone).
> Right now I'd say it's about 50-50.

More fantasy waffle. "Steel is gone." LOL! It's gone out of the Trek,
Cannondale and Specialized lines. But lots and lots of high quality top
end steel bikes are still sold every year, too. You're cherry picking
to try to "prove" your point.

> A sub 17 lb. bike can be built for the price an 18 or 19 lb bike cost
> 2 or 3 years ago. 15 and 16 lb bikes abound because strong and
> stiff and light enough carbon frames are available if you have the
> bucks to get into that range, and want or "need" to.

I suppose the lighter bike and the lighter wallet make up for the 50
spare pounds of blubber I see around the middles of most guys I see on
CF bikes. Oddly enough, I don't see most greyhound-thin bike racers on
CF bikes around here.

> Deny it, ignore it, resist it all you want. It's progress to me.
> It's my hobby. I ride road and off road, long slow distance and
> hammerfest.; I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
> 2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd
> does with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and
> buying. And both the road and the woods don't have green fees.
>
> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.

The industry does indeed love guys like you. On that we agree.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:18 -0400, "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every 2 or 3
> >> years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
> >> with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying.
> >>
> >> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
> >
> >Say no more....
>
> Let's not get too smug, dood.
>
> Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool
> jersey wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick through
> his helmet chin strap.

And you're just a gullible, arrogant toerag. Does that make us even?
LOL!

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:20:44 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> Let's not get too smug, dood.
>>
>> Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool
>> jersey wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick through
>> his helmet chin strap.
>
>And you're just a gullible, arrogant toerag. Does that make us even?

If it makes you feel better, sure.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:18:55 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:


>> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
>
>The industry does indeed love guys like you. On that we agree.

I'm just being honest. Being a loyal and typical member of my
generation (baby boomer) I have spent tons of cash upgrading the
following equipment regularly at various intervals over the past many,
many years:

Alpine skis and boots (approx. every 2 years)

Cross country skis and boots, skate and classic (approx. every 3
years)

Mountain bike (approx. every 4 years)

Road bike (approx. every 4 years)

Inline speed boots and frames: don't get me started. The sport has
evolved from 84 mm standard wheels to 110 mm over 4 years
(84-88-90-100-110). Which means the really competitive racers (not
me) have had to switch boots from 165 mm spacing to 175 mm spacing (@
$500 minimum per pair), frames to fit (@ $250 minimum per pair), and
wheels to fit ($6 - $12 per X 8) once a year for the past 3!

Ice speed skating blades, long track and short track (approx every 4
years).

I quit windsurfing 10 years ago, thank god.

But, I just took up freaking golf! But it was my wife's idea, so I'm
ok on that one.

Now, if you do any of these sports and are not just a fred who
dabbles, but actually pays attention to technique and proficiency, you
will find that the technology continually evolves to the benefit of
the sport and the participants. Sometimes dramatically (shaped alpine
skis and clap long track speed skating blades are classic examples -
they completely changed the respective sports). Yes, there is b.s.
bling to sort through. And only a poseur dumps good equipment just to
buy the latest fad. You generally use your current stuff either until
it legitimately wears out or legitimately becomes obsolete. Then you
find out what is currently on the market and you upgrade.

Why would you tread water or go backwards?

It makes no sense.

Get real and stop being sanctimonious.

 

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:48:18 -0400, "Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> I like to buy new parts; I like to build new bikes every
>>> 2 or 3 years, and I bet don't spend any more than the golf crowd does
>>> with their $400 apiece golf clubs they keep replacing and buying.
>>>
>>> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
>>
>>Say no more....
>
> Let's not get too smug, dood.
>
> Remember that from where I'm coming from your just another wool jersey
> wearing Fred on a steel clunker with his beard stick through his
> helmet chin strap.

You're looking at the guy next to me. I'm the clean-shaven one with the Ti
cross frame.

No need to say any more, "dood".......

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-09-11, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> !Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:11:32 -0700, in rec.bicycles.tech jim beam
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> My gripe with extensive use of CF in any product lies in its
>>>>>>> manufacture. CF is typically produced from polyacrylonitrile from
>>>>>>> which the volatile chemicals are evaporated. This waste is highly
>>>>>>> toxic and, in many cases, is simply flared or dissipated... for this
>>>>>>> reason, most of the actual fiber is imported from countries with
>>> [...]
>>>> i'm not so sure about that. yes, there's energy involved in cf
>>>> production, and energy/resources in the resin, but i'm far from
>>>> convinced it exceeds that necessary to produce steel, then refine and
>>>> process. aluminum and titanium are /way/ in excess of that for steel.
>>> They use a lot of energy but see the original point about toxic waste,
>>> which IMO is a more pressing concern than CO2 or energy.
>>> Of all the steel and aluminium produced how much goes into bike frames
>>> anyway? I've probably consumed more of each of those materials in the
>>> form of soda cans in my lifetime.
>>> [...]
>>>>> Sometimes, when I go in a cycle shop, I feel like an animal rights
>>>>> activist in a fur shop... I want to take a sledge hammer and start
>>>>> slashing. We utterly disregard anything except our fetish bicycles...
>>>>> and, frankly, CF amounts to a fetish, a fad that only overfed people
>>>>> can afford.
>>>> i think you've just hit the nail on the head - in a strange kind of way.
>>>> all the bile and hatred cfrp [or anything fancy] seems to engender
>>>> here has nothing to do with mechanical properties, it's all about the
>>>> price tag and the fat bald middle-aged farts associated with it. if
>>>> "have-nots" can't afford something, they "hate" it to ameliorate their
>>>> personal feelings of inadequacy, then hang out on news groups. they
>>>> need therapy. or to just buy the freakin' stuff, then eat beans and
>>>> rice to pay for it. there's /nothing/ in the bike world that even
>>>> /begins/ to compare to planes, cars or even motorcycles when it comes to
>>>> the cost of a mid-life crisis. get a second job if need be.
>>> I suspect they can afford these CF bikes but there's a certain pride
>>> (and deserved respect) that comes from keeping a good old steel bike
>>> going for 35 years or riding 300,000 miles.
>> but some of those old steel bikes are a shimmy nightmare because they
>> use skinny tube that's not torsionally stiff.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? I rode skinny tubed steel bikes
> for a long time. I still ride a steel bike along with a Ti bike.
> Still no shimmy problems.

what size do you ride? i ride 60cm-64cm, and the larger they are with
old fashioned tube, the worse they are. modern dish wheels don't help
either.


>
> Andres
>
> /much/ better to go with
>> a modern frame with big tube and therefore much better torsional stiffness.
>>
>
>>> With that may come a sneaking repressed desire to try one of the new
>>> gleaming CF machines. This may be the true source of the retrogrouchism.
>>> My advice is buy the new bike but keep the old one anyway.
>> yeah, hang if on the wall of the den as art. rust-proof it first. then
>> ride the new one.
>
>

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>>> electronic.
>>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
>>> driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
>>> other mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics,
>>> not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts
>>> the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>>
>> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
>> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
>> roughly contemporaneous.
>
> How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
> Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost none
> even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same discrete
> components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30 years ago.
>
>
>> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
>> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
>> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
>> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
>> rbt retrogrouches.
>
> No need to get insulting.
>
how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to hell
with accuracy.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>
>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>
>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>
> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.

so what is underinformed misinformation that is intended to scare?


>
>> after all, if it's such a dangerous material, where are the failures?
>
> Didn't you have a fork failure?

yes i did, a kestrel. it started cracking. still got me home though.
and guess what, i don't ride kestrel any more. /and/ i test my forks
with nakashima's squeeze test.


>
>> why don't they outnumber failures for other materials?
>
> I never had a fork failure.

outside of kestrel, neither have i. and the wheel-smashing incident i
had over a year ago would almost certainly have bent a steel fork. the
look carbon fork i have on that bike didn't blink and has been ridden
most days ever since.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 10:24 pm, Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:18:55 -0500, Tim McNamara
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
>
> >The industry does indeed love guys like you. On that we agree.
>
> I'm just being honest. Being a loyal and typical member of my
> generation (baby boomer) I have spent tons of cash upgrading the
> following equipment regularly at various intervals over the past many,
> many years:
>
> Alpine skis and boots (approx. every 2 years)
>
> Cross country skis and boots, skate and classic (approx. every 3
> years)
>
> Mountain bike (approx. every 4 years)
>
> Road bike (approx. every 4 years)
>
> Inline speed boots and frames: don't get me started. ...
>
> Ice speed skating blades, long track and short track (approx every 4
> years).
>
> I quit windsurfing 10 years ago, thank god.
>
> But, I just took up freaking golf! But it was my wife's idea, so I'm
> ok on that one.
>
> Now, if you do any of these sports and are not just a fred who
> dabbles, but actually pays attention to technique and proficiency, you
> will find that the technology continually evolves to the benefit of
> the sport and the participants. Sometimes dramatically (shaped alpine
> skis and clap long track speed skating blades are classic examples -
> they completely changed the respective sports). Yes, there is b.s.
> bling to sort through. And only a poseur dumps good equipment just to
> buy the latest fad. You generally use your current stuff either until
> it legitimately wears out or legitimately becomes obsolete. Then you
> find out what is currently on the market and you upgrade.
>
> Why would you tread water or go backwards?
>
> It makes no sense.
>
> Get real and stop being sanctimonious.

??? It makes no sense to focus on something other than expensive
equipment for minuscule gains??

IMO, your post brags about the most illogical excesses. What do you
get out of a half-percent increase in your inline skating speed, or
your ice skating speed, or your bike speed? Who on earth could care
about such a thing - other than, perhaps, a roller derby queen or a
pro racer? At the end of your life, will your epitaph be "I spent
$60,000 total to delay my declining performance by a couple percent"?

Geez! Use the money to learn something about the world, or benefit
your city, or experience a different culture, or support a charity, or
somehow make your society better. "Whoever dies with the most toys
wins" was a joke, you know! They don't give monuments to people who
blow the most money on toys!

I hope you're at least donating your old equipment to some needy
kids. Just be sure they know that the equipment isn't important,
please.

Oh, and BTW - you characterize those who reject conspicuous (and
silly) consumption as "Freds who dabble." That's at least as shallow
as the rest of your post.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm just being honest. Being a loyal and typical member of my
> generation (baby boomer)

As if there are club rules for this generation...

> I have spent tons of cash upgrading the
> following equipment regularly at various intervals over the past many,
> many years:

snip Americonsumer details - was there a point to all that, besides you
having spenditis?

> You generally use your current stuff either until
> it legitimately wears out or legitimately becomes obsolete.

Obsolescence does not necessarily equate to less useful, nor less effective.

> Then you
> find out what is currently on the market and you upgrade.

Obsolescence does not necessarily equate to less useful, nor less effective.

Fashion, on the other hand.....

> Why would you tread water or go backwards?
>
> It makes no sense.

You're right, it doesn't make sense. So tell us the part you skipped - how
CF is a step forward IN BICYCLES, and how ignoring the extensive experience
and knowledge from the aerospace industry in proper designing,
manufacturing, handling, testing, inspection and damage assessment of CF
components can be ignored because "no one is being killed left and right".
It will also be good to know how metals have become "obsolete" for bicycles.

> Get real and stop being sanctimonious.

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be quite
>>>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>>>> electronic.
>>>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
>>>> driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
>>>> other mature technologies like autos has been driven by electronics,
>>>> not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture which impacts
>>>> the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>>>
>>> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
>>> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
>>> roughly contemporaneous.
>>
>> How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
>> Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost none
>> even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same
>> discrete components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30
>> years ago.
>>
>>
>>> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
>>> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
>>> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
>>> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
>>> rbt retrogrouches.
>>
>> No need to get insulting.
>>
> how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to hell
> with accuracy.

How about not posting unless you have something to say?

 

[Peter Cole]

jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>>
>>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>>
>>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>>
>> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.
>
> so what is underinformed misinformation that is intended to scare?
>
>
>>
>>> after all, if it's such a dangerous material, where are the failures?
>>
>> Didn't you have a fork failure?
>
> yes i did, a kestrel. it started cracking. still got me home though.
> and guess what, i don't ride kestrel any more. /and/ i test my forks
> with nakashima's squeeze test.
>
>
>>
>>> why don't they outnumber failures for other materials?
>>
>> I never had a fork failure.
>
> outside of kestrel, neither have i. and the wheel-smashing incident i
> had over a year ago would almost certainly have bent a steel fork. the
> look carbon fork i have on that bike didn't blink and has been ridden
> most days ever since.

So, what's that, only a 50% failure rate?

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I read the thread, it's beam theorizing supported by Jacoubowsky's
>>>>>> experience in favor of carbon fiber as a bicycle material vs. the
>>>>>> entire rest of rbt, who, like yourself, appear to be stubborn
>>>>>> retrogrouches in a serious state of denial.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an overstatement. The benefits of CF are obvious, the
>>>>> drawbacks not quite so obvious.
>>>>
>>>> but they sure are frequently overstated!!! it's part of that "can't
>>>> afford it so i'm going to hate it and poison the well for its users"
>>>> mentality that seems to be so endemic.
>>>
>>> "Can't afford it"? C'mon. "Poison the well"? Sheesh.
>>
>> so what is underinformed misinformation that is intended to scare?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> after all, if it's such a dangerous material, where are the failures?
>>>
>>> Didn't you have a fork failure?
>>
>> yes i did, a kestrel. it started cracking. still got me home though.
>> and guess what, i don't ride kestrel any more. /and/ i test my forks
>> with nakashima's squeeze test.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> why don't they outnumber failures for other materials?
>>>
>>> I never had a fork failure.
>>
>> outside of kestrel, neither have i. and the wheel-smashing incident i
>> had over a year ago would almost certainly have bent a steel fork.
>> the look carbon fork i have on that bike didn't blink and has been
>> ridden most days ever since.
>
> So, what's that, only a 50% failure rate?

what an incredibly twisted mind you have. no, it's 100% for kestrel -
and i was foolish enough to try another thinking it was a one-off event,
and that replacement started cracking too. all the others i have or
have tried - merlin, bianchi, look, brc, reynolds, nashbar, nashbar and
nashbar, have all been perfect.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:43:23 -0400, Peter Cole
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But I am saying that life goes on and evolving technology can be
>>>>>> quite
>>>>>> beneficial in the bicycle world as it is, for example, on the
>>>>>> electronic.
>>>>> Electronics is a very special case, being both relatively new and
>>>>> driven by non-linearities like Moore's law. Much of the progress in
>>>>> other mature technologies like autos has been driven by
>>>>> electronics, not bikes to any extent, except in robotic manufacture
>>>>> which impacts the high-end less than mid & low-end.
>>>>
>>>> I said "electronics," not personal computers. The invention of, for
>>>> example, the radio, and the rear wheel chain driven bicycle were
>>>> roughly contemporaneous.
>>>
>>> How much "evolution" has there been in non solid state electronics?
>>> Outside of large scale integrated circuits, there has been almost
>>> none even in solid state electronics. I commonly see the exact same
>>> discrete components in current consumer goods that I designed with 30
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The evolution of bicycles may not follow
>>>> Moore's law, but it is still evolution. Which is fairly plain to
>>>> anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature whose and head in not
>>>> buried in the sand or up their posterior. Apparently not, however, to
>>>> rbt retrogrouches.
>>>
>>> No need to get insulting.
>>>
>> how about getting real? /you/ argue just for the sake of it - to hell
>> with accuracy.
>
> How about not posting unless you have something to say?

how about not being a *****? your stupid comment on "100% failure rate"
for forks is /typical/ peter cole doing /exactly/ as above.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:


>
>Oh, and BTW - you characterize those who reject conspicuous (and
>silly) consumption as "Freds who dabble." That's at least as shallow
>as the rest of your post.

I'll chalk you up as to being a fred who dabbles and doesn't get it.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:18:55 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >> The industry loves guys like me and we love the industry.
> >
> >The industry does indeed love guys like you. On that we agree.
>
> I'm just being honest. Being a loyal and typical member of my
> generation (baby boomer) I have spent tons of cash upgrading the
> following equipment regularly at various intervals over the past
> many, many years:

<snip woeful tale of typical excess>

> Now, if you do any of these sports and are not just a fred who
> dabbles, but actually pays attention to technique and proficiency,
> you will find that the technology continually evolves to the benefit
> of the sport and the participants. Sometimes dramatically (shaped
> alpine skis and clap long track speed skating blades are classic
> examples - they completely changed the respective sports). Yes,
> there is b.s. bling to sort through. And only a poseur dumps good
> equipment just to buy the latest fad. You generally use your current
> stuff either until it legitimately wears out or legitimately becomes
> obsolete. Then you find out what is currently on the market and you
> upgrade.

LOL! You have confused "proficiency" with "having the latest toys."
While some developments do provide significant benefit (waisted alpine
skis and annoying clacky skates are indeed two examples; you didn't
mention big giant head tennis rackets but they are another), the vast
majority create tiny differences that are only utile when in competition
between maximized athletes separated by thousandths of a second.

Given the number of guys on CF frames I pass on every ride on my 11 year
old steel bike- and I'm nowhere near being in the shape I was back when
I raced- it's pretty clear that the bike doesn't make the rider. The
guys who pass me are generally on titanium or aluminum bikes, some on
steel and a few on CF. That may vary by locale, of course.

> Why would you tread water or go backwards?
>
> It makes no sense.
>
> Get real and stop being sanctimonious.

Just after you stop your conspicuous consumption.

"Tread water or go backwards?" "It makes no sense?" You're the one
being sanctimonious, Doug. Sheesh. I ride the bike I ride because it
is the best suited for the type of riding I do. The "state of the art"
that you extoll provide such tiny benefits as to be immeasurable without
a stopwatch that goes to .001. For 1% of bike riders there is a useful
benefit. For a slightly greater number, the "state of the art" is worth
something at the coffee shop.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:45:27 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Oh, and BTW - you characterize those who reject conspicuous (and
> >silly) consumption as "Freds who dabble." That's at least as
> >shallow as the rest of your post.
>
> I'll chalk you up as to being a fred who dabbles and doesn't get it.

ROTFL! You have told us all we need to know!