H
Howard Kveck
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 6:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> ONE DOLLAR only pays for the controller.
> >
> > > For an electronic designer you are really struggling badly with the
> > > notion of electronics.
> >
> > For some jerk who doesn't know anything about it you certainly are mouthy. I
> > can buy a half dozen microcontrollers with enough computational power to do
> > that job for a buck each. Right now I'm designing a medical probe that's a
> > throw away after every patient that will have a controller in it.
> >
> > So by all means tell me all about it you nitwit.
>
> You started out saying that electronics were too expensive for high
> end bike equipment, despite the fact that it's already there in power
> meters, HR monitors and cyclometers. When I called you on that you
> fell back to the red herring of the expense of motors and power
> supplies. Now you've back pedaled to the point where you are arguing
> that electronics are so cheap that they're practically disposable.
> That's basically my argument taken to an extreme. And I'm the mouthy
> jerk who doesn't know WTF I'm talking about?
>
> My opinion is that the Mavic Zap/Mektronic suffered from poorly
> designed electronics. It had neither motors nor high power
> requirements, so your red herring is a non sequitur. I'm aware of
> Jobst Brandt's criticisms of the mechanical design, but everything I
> heard about it had to do with electronic failures which should be
> easily correctable. One of my teammates back in the 90's was a bike
> shop owner, Mavic dealer and Zap user. I asked him about the failure
> modes and he agreed that it was all about the electronics. Knowing
> that electronics can be made reliable, I see no obstacle to a Mavic
> Zap equivalent being marketed that is both reliable and economical.
> Others have posted in this thread that the mechanics were good when
> the electronics kept working.
I seem to recall Leonard Zinn mentioning somewhere that there was a guy up in
Colorado who did work on Zaps back in the mid '90s that got them to work pretty
reliably. As I recall it was all electronic work too. By the way, do you have a link
to JB's criticisms or should I JFG it? I'd be interested in what he has to say about
it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 6:01 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > >> ONE DOLLAR only pays for the controller.
> >
> > > For an electronic designer you are really struggling badly with the
> > > notion of electronics.
> >
> > For some jerk who doesn't know anything about it you certainly are mouthy. I
> > can buy a half dozen microcontrollers with enough computational power to do
> > that job for a buck each. Right now I'm designing a medical probe that's a
> > throw away after every patient that will have a controller in it.
> >
> > So by all means tell me all about it you nitwit.
>
> You started out saying that electronics were too expensive for high
> end bike equipment, despite the fact that it's already there in power
> meters, HR monitors and cyclometers. When I called you on that you
> fell back to the red herring of the expense of motors and power
> supplies. Now you've back pedaled to the point where you are arguing
> that electronics are so cheap that they're practically disposable.
> That's basically my argument taken to an extreme. And I'm the mouthy
> jerk who doesn't know WTF I'm talking about?
>
> My opinion is that the Mavic Zap/Mektronic suffered from poorly
> designed electronics. It had neither motors nor high power
> requirements, so your red herring is a non sequitur. I'm aware of
> Jobst Brandt's criticisms of the mechanical design, but everything I
> heard about it had to do with electronic failures which should be
> easily correctable. One of my teammates back in the 90's was a bike
> shop owner, Mavic dealer and Zap user. I asked him about the failure
> modes and he agreed that it was all about the electronics. Knowing
> that electronics can be made reliable, I see no obstacle to a Mavic
> Zap equivalent being marketed that is both reliable and economical.
> Others have posted in this thread that the mechanics were good when
> the electronics kept working.
I seem to recall Leonard Zinn mentioning somewhere that there was a guy up in
Colorado who did work on Zaps back in the mid '90s that got them to work pretty
reliably. As I recall it was all electronic work too. By the way, do you have a link
to JB's criticisms or should I JFG it? I'd be interested in what he has to say about
it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?