On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 20:05:25 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Jobst Brandt
>>
>> in summary:
>>
>> "frame flex ... is so small ... riding behind the first ... 753 frames
>> showed me a squirrelly line"
>>
>> so is frame flex ignorable or not? [rhetorical] in typical jobstian
>> style, it seems that it's ignorable if it's inconvenient to your argument
>> but relevant & responsible for significant behavior characteristics only
>> if it is convenient - as per the latest shimmy thread.
>>
>Do you have to go after everything that he posts? You better watch out or
>the stalker unit might be at your door soon.
>
Dear Frank,
Jim and Jobst often disagree.
In this case, Jim does seem to be making a worthwhile point.
Jobst began by saying that frame flex is too small to be
addressed:
"Most of this frame flex that gets so much attention is so
small that it is hard to prove anything about it."
But in his very next paragraph Jobst wrote that the effect
of frame flex was so obvious that he could see it at work
from behind another bicyclist:
" . . . riding behind the first Raleigh Reynolds 753 frames
showed me a squirrelly line similar to that of an Alan
aluminum bicycle."
Obviously, if Jobst could see the effect of frame flex while
riding behind someone else, it should be easy to prove
something about it.
To be fair to Jobst, he may have meant to distinguish
between any power losses and the squirrelly handling
problems of rame flex--but instead of making the
distinction, he apparently contradicted himself rather
strikingly.
To be fair to Jim, imagine what Jobst would have written if
anyone else proclaimed that something was "so small that it
is hard to prove anything about it" and then wandered down
memory lane to recall how obvious its effect was?
Carl Fogel