sogood said:
You are in the commercial engineering field and I am totally surprised that you don't know what qualifies as worthy in a cost-benefit analysis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-benefit_analysis>. And in this case, it's the performance gain/benefit vs cost. As for the benefit perceived by your wrist that has suffered from multiple fractures, I would say that it is a sensitive joint that has a n=1 +ve benefit. And per your routine argument, this could very well be a placebo effect. Given the lack of supportive and consistent report of benefits, I would say that from a scientific point of view, the benefit could not be concluded, or it's at a very low level that won't make a difference to most rider. Add to that, the price premium of CF, it's not exactly a smart move. High frequency damping? What frequency? Gel tape/gloves would significantly dampen them out to no less degree than a CF bar.
First, who in the hell said I am in commercial engineering? Not me. That's for damned sure. I am a scientist, first and foremost. I have an BS in Physics, along with 3/4 of the work done for a BS in Mech E, and ongoing work on a PhD in Optics. Commercial engineering? You're kidding, right? That's not my bag. Not my bag at all. Almost all of my work has been in the novel application of science to unique needs, be those needs for the space program, special defense projects, astronomy, and etc. Man, the assumptions that people make are stupifying.
Second, you need to read your clever cut and paste a little better. You'll note that it says, straight away, that cost benefit analysis is a calculation of initial and ongoing expenses vs.
expected returns. There isn't squat in there that says anything about what form
expected returns have to take. They can be minimum signal output from a sensor; they can be minimum necessary quality in an optical wavefront; they can be expected monetary returns on the investment;
AND they can be totally intangible qualities. As such, there is no freaking way to categorically define cost vs. benefit analysis for bicycle customers in general. Nada. Zip. Cost benefit for a given customer might have beauty as the only benefit. For another customer, the only benefit might be in how much of a status symbol the part is. Some other cyclist may value low weight. Another may value color. Still yet another might only value how well something fits.
And the beauty of any of the myriad of
expected returns that a bicycle component customer might value can be things that only serve some
psychological desire or need. They may have no real tangible, measurable benefit. Therefore, if something only provides a placebo benefit and that placebo benefit satisfies a particular
expected return and the customer is ok with that, then everything is hunky-dory. It's well known that somethings really have no benefit other than a placebo benefit, but if you open your eyes, you will see that for the human species, the placebo benefit can be
HUGE and have a very real effect on human performance, mood, and etc.
You're right any benefit can be a placebo benefit. I worked for the better part of 6 months to make sure, as best I could, that I kept placebo benefits out of the picture and instead measured benefits according to whether or not a ride over a given routed required pain killers and ice afterwards. That is why I changed one thing at a time and evaluated said changes over a pretty long period of time.
As for whether my benefit could be sensed by another rider? Who gives a damn? I'm the one who rides the bike, not some other guy or gal. And that is true for damn near everyone and their bikes. Do
you buy things according to how they make
others feel?
And then you throw out this beauty:
sogood said:
Add to that, the price premium of CF, it's not exactly a smart move. High frequency damping? What frequency? Gel tape/gloves would significantly dampen them out to no less degree than a CF bar.
Uhm, remember that
expected returns thing? Who the hell do you think you are to evaluate that for someone else?
I've been to a lot of design meetings, critical design reviews, and etc., and I can say, without a doubt, that I've seen people, government agencies, and other entities pay gobs of money for
expected returns that no one else thought were important. Guess what, cupcake, what I thought wasn't important: what the customer wanted and valued
WAS the important thing.