[email protected] wrote:
> Bill who? writes:
>
> > Well, at least you took the time to validate what I said about the
> > general rudeness that is prevalent. Even you could not stay above
> > name calling. To say that rudeness is acceptable in the name of
> > intellectual rigor is very unfortunate, not to mention elitist. It
> > must be wonderful to be so smart. You're welcome to try and spin it
> > any way you want, but it's clear that you feel that the people who
> > believe they are intellectually superior have license to be rude to
> > people that disagree with them. I guess I must have missed the part
> > where Huxley's fiction became reality. And, indirectly, or not, you
> > did call me a fool. If you are going to stoop to insulting me, at
> > least have the guts to come right out and say it.
>
> >> Your original post belies that claim, because you began by
> >> ridiculing and laughing at members of this forum, the so-called
> >> experts, who incidentally in this case are entirely correct.
>
> > I don't recall mentioning anyone specifically in any of my comments.
> > If there are those in this forum that feel that tying and soldering
> > is not useful that's fine. I think it's pretty clear that some
> > people feel that a loose/broken spoke is dangerous and that tying
> > and soldering adds some safety margin that otherwise is not there.
> > When people are so sure that their designs and theories are beyond
> > question that is when to look for a safe refuge. History is full of
> > examples of scientists and engineers who were so sure of their work
> > and then got to see it disproved in disaster. It never ceases to
> > amaze me that the lessons of the Titanic and the Challenger need to
> > be re-learned, over and over. There is always the "indisputable"
> > proof.
>
> The point is that one never hears about the original reason for tying
> spokes as John Starley did when he introduced the cross laced wheel on
> high wheelers in order to tie them. They all rave about how much
> stronger and stiffer the wheel becomes. That is religion, not fact.
>
> What do you mean by
>
> > "There is always the "indisputable" proof.
>
> > Every thing is disputable. Good scientists and engineers welcome
> > opposing opinions and are open minded enough to consider them .
> > I'll bet the guy that pooched the metric/English conversion on the
> > Hubble wished that someone had asked "Hey, Harry, did ya make sure
> > you got those conversions correct?"
>
> Good scientists do not welcome opposing opinions but rather opposing
> proofs of their findings.
The intent of my statement was that good scientists welcome the
critical examination of their work. If you want to call that
"opposing proof", I don't see that any different than opposing
theory/opinion or whatever you want to call it. I understand that
scientific method requires proof in the end, but it starts out as
hypothesis - and what is that but a theory, or opinion. It's
pretty clear from the current (and often recurring) thread on the use
of talcum powder that a lot of the members of the forum, including
those that seem to be long time and respected members, seem to feel
that the difference between proof and opinion is pretty hazy at times.
> There is no supporting evidence for tying
> spokes and has not been either.
So, you are implying that a broken spoke has never ended up trashing a
rear derailleur, or such? And that in such a case tying and
soldering might not have prevented such an occurance? Would you
like to state that this has never occurred?
>It is based on faith.
>
> Jobst Brandt
I have owned your book for many years and have read it many times and I
consider it to be a valuable resource - no question about it.
But, I find your near religious dismissals of tying and soldering (when
it can be used to add a safety margin in the case of broken spokes) and
the use of talcum (when it can be used to ease the installation of the
tube) just a bit narrow minded. I have little doubt that your
claims about tying and soldering with respect to strengthening the
wheel are true. Whether talcum powder has any effect on rolling
resistance, or not, makes no difference to me, although it does seem
that it would be rather difficult to instrument a tube and tire under
pressure and actually observe what's going on under dynamic conditions.
How do you do that? But, I do know from my own experience that
using talcum powder to make installing a tube an easier process does,
in fact, make a very noticeable difference. It seems that many
other people feel the same way, based on many, many postings to support
this.
I am an avid reader of Sheldon Brown. And, I can see that he
obviously respects you enough to link to a lot of your work on his
site. I would hazzard a guess that the two of you are friends.
But, I can clearly remember at least one instance where he states that
he disagrees with your take on a certain issue. Listen to opposing
views with an open mind. How hard is that? I would say that
when pro cyclists tie and solder to prevent broken spokes, and that
when people talc their tubes to make it easier to install them, those
applications are not based on faith, but experience. Faith does not
tell me that the tube is easier to install. Experience does.
Regards,
-- Bill
