Jobst Brandt vs. Tire Glue

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi,
et puis a déclaré :
> On Aug 3, 9:39 am, "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dans le message
>> denews:[email protected],
>> [email protected] <[email protected]> a
>> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 6:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:59 -0700, [email protected]
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In other words no one on this ng knows the truth, and the only
>>>>> ones who _do_ know what they're talking about are those who tell
>>>>> us that we don't know what we're talking about (although Sandy
>>>>> brings up some stuff that does seem to conflict with the CW
>>>>> here). Criticizing research does not in any way require that you
>>>>> do research or cite other research that addresses the criticisms
>>>>> that you are making. The criticisms stand on their own.
>>
>>>> The research is firm, the speculation you made is not. If you want
>>>> to stick with the speculation, go ahead. In all probablility,
>>>> you're wrong. Not certainly wrong, but almost certainly wrong.
>>
>>> I'm not speculating, I'm crticizing. The research is _not_ firm,
>>> and, as I survey some data I hadn't seen before, it is becoming
>>> apparent that it is all over the place. Some data out there is
>>> showing 5+ watt differences between the best tubulars and
>>> clinchers, while other shows .5 watts or less. And we still don't
>>> know whether the glue could have been adjusted to close that final
>>> tiny gap. Furthermore, latex tubes were used with all the clinchers
>>> that beat the tubulars, so if you're using clinchers with butyl
>>> tubes, your rr is higher than using a top tubular. I would still
>>> like to see the data Sandy is referencing because it apparently
>>> raises further questions about this "firm research".
>>
>>> I don't know how I can be wrong. I'm basically asking questions. If
>>> they were answered and the data still showed definitively that I'm
>>> losing 10-20 watts on the road by using tubulars, I would make the
>>> investment to change to clinchers..
>>
>> Hey guys - you're having an empty conversation. There is NO
>> research that has been referred to. What has been referred to is
>> product testing. Sometimes by a manufacturer, sometimes by a third
>> party, and sometimes, seldom, by an academic.
>>
>> The research is done before manufacture. And decisions, based on
>> research, economics, product feasibility, marketability, all happen
>> before the stuff gets to the stores. So far as I recall, no
>> prototypes or variants were tested. None of them were researched.
>> Product testing. Like finding out if you prefer Mom's brownies to
>> the ones your girlfriend made with herbs.
>
> You're arguing semantics. The "product testing" qualifies as research;
> whether it qualifies as a strict application of the scientific method
> is a different argument. Brownie preference is also research, probably
> under the heading of social science, but maybe could also be applied
> hedonism.

That gives a healthy boost upwards towards anecdotal evidence. Which is
exactly what the product testing (you like research, OK, have it your way)
is, but in an associated sampling. It's not really semantics. It's a
fundamental difference, instrumented more, but not what one should call
research, actually.
--
Sandy
-
Darwinism, born in ideological struggle, has never escaped from an intimate
reciprocal relationship with worldviews exported from and imported into the
science. No one challenges the claim that evolutionary theory has had a wide
effect on social theory. It is a cliché of cultural history that the
explanation of evolution by natural selection served as an ideological
justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the colonial domination of
the lesser breeds without the law

- Richard Lewontin

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, [email protected]
> > wrote:
> >
> > >so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher
> > >than using a top tubular.
> >
> > And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
> > the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
> > Another flaw in the research.
>
> Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
> using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
> those using top tubulars. It's that simple.

But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
clear concordance.

> People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
> themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
> in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
> why he uses butyl tubes.

They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Aug 3, 11:06 am, Joe Riel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] writes:
> > > [...] I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes in their
> > > clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
> > > people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking
> > > about why he uses butyl tubes.
> >
> > It's practical; with butyl tubes you don't have to pump the tires
> > up everyday.
>
> Of course it's practical. But based on the data it could also be
> undercutting his (implied) assertion that his clinchers have better
> rr than my tubulars.

You seem to misunderstand Jobst's conclusions, SSTW. His stated
conclusion was that the tubulars had lower inherent rolling resistance
than the clinchers, but that the hysteresis losses caused by the glue
resulted in higher net rolling resistance. Look at the shape of the
curves from the data and you'll see why that conclusion is actually
fairly obvious.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It's quite simple in retrospect. The winning combination was
> >> generic hardware and bundled software. Companies that tried to
> >> bundle hardware and software (DEC, Apple, Sun) were losers
> >
> > "Losers" is relatively speaking.
>
> Of course I was speaking "relatively".
>
> >> Linux was, and still is, a great choice for applications with
> >> narrow requirements for hardware and software. It solved the easy
> >> (kernel) problem well, but MS solved the hard one. Now that MS has
> >> largely caught up on kernel performance and reliability, it's a
> >> contender in even "narrow" systems.
> >
> > Vista adoption continues to lag, however. Either that means that
> > XP was "good enough" or that there is little confidence that Vista
> > is better.
>
> I think that's the problem. All apps seem to "top out" eventually
> with little impetus for upgrading, that's part of the cycle to
> commodity.
>
> >> Microsoft's strategy was so successful that it gave them a virtual
> >> monopoly, which, in turn, got them into legal heat if they pressed
> >> it too far. It was their brilliance at solving the right problem
> >> at the right time that gave them their market dominance. Figuring
> >> out which problem to focus on *is* marketing, actually solving it
> >> *is* technology. To win as big as they did, MS had to do both
> >> extremely well -- and, perhaps more importantly, they had to
> >> decide what to do not so well.
> >
> > It's a rosy portrait you paint but it's more impressionistic than
> > factual. And Microsoft did develop a monopoly, not through
> > marketing and technical superiority but through monopolistic
> > practices.
>
> Chicken/egg argument. The monopoly gave them the opportunity to abuse
> the market, not the other way around.

This history of the thing is a bit different. Gates et al understood
that the opportunity they had was in the wholesale market and they set
out very deliberately to control that market. Microsoft's sales of
their OSes to the retail market are practically incidental (as the
horrible user experiences of people trying to install the software over
the years has shown).

> The geek POV is that MS foisted a lot of **** with marketing muscle
> and disinformation. The truth is that the geek community clings to
> ancient technology. Developers are their own worst problem. The US
> tech lead is being frittered away with cultish devotion to obsolete
> ****.

Because there are so many superior operating systems coming from China
or India?

> >> > and ballmer's less of a sociopath.
> >>
> >> Less than who? Gates? Yeah, right. The guys who's giving away both
> >> his and Warren Buffet's fortunes to put a significant dent in
> >> suffering around the world. Yup, what a sociopath. We should have
> >> a lot more sociopaths like that.
> >
> > Ballmer seems like more of a sociopath to me. But then that's how
> > people get into those positions. Nice guys don't get there. As
> > far as Saint Bill's setting the world aright, IMHO the end does not
> > justify the means. Other people may think differently.
>
> He was just a wildly successful entrepreneur, like a whole lot of
> others. Technological progress breeds these guys, it's not a bad
> thing, it's not like a speculative bubble or purely financial
> shenanigans, MS worked hard, delivered real value and enjoyed the
> winnings. The best side of capitalism.

LOL. Your religious adoration of these guys notwitstanding, it's all
****. Microsoft has offered second-best technology throughout its
history, ignoring the end user to a huge extent and focusing instead on
controlling file types and access to information (the same goal as
Google but with different strategies) to force user dependence and lock
them into Microsoft products. That's not the best side of capitalism,
it's the worst.

> >> Oh yeah, another thing, despite being a "long hair" and member of
> >> a few "cultural oases", and a user of their products only where I
> >> had to, MS strategy was so obviously right to me that I made a
> >> large investment in them. Since I got in a little late, I only
> >> made 16x. Yeah, they really suck.
> >
> > Monopolism is the right strategy? Your business ethics seem a bit
> > different than mine, I guess.
>
> A really strong/successful business model generates a functional
> monopoly. In the computer business we had IBM, then MS, and now
> Google. When you have a monopoly it's hard not to push it. Push it
> too far, you wind up in court, not enough & you lose share. There is
> the constant threat of the next technology bumping you off, live by
> the sword, etc. Defending position is part of the game.

Defending position through competition (technological development,
price, quality) is the core of a market economy. Microsoft and
increasingly Google are focused on anti-competitive strategies. Just
like other illegal trusts before them, they seek to eliminate the market
forces that can threaten them.

> Ethics? Matter of perspective, I guess. I always thought of Apple as
> unethical. The world needed MS and Google to pull things together. It
> could be done by government agency, but I've much less faith in that.
> When natural monopolies arise I think it's foolish not to invest.

As I said, your ethics are different than mine.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>> That's a pretty broad brush. As for potential for abuse of
> >>>> power, I think Google is in a much more dangerous position than
> >>>> MS ever was.
> >>> Google is very, very, very scary especially since they have
> >>> abandoned their stated value of doing no evil.
> >> Google controls information, I don't think there has ever been a
> >> greater potential for abuse, especially when they're driven at
> >> least as much by profit motive as MS.
> >
> > Oh man, you sure have that right. The situation has gone from good
> > to not so good to bad to worse over the past 10 years. Google has
> > gotten far too big and far too powerful on the simple understanding
> > that controlling access to information is the real source of power.
> > Google in in a position to manipulate almost any aspect of modern
> > life that they choose.
>
> They are a necessary evil.

********.

> There needs to be some sort of central agency to perform the task of
> indexing all that information,

Orwell lives. Centralized power is no better in the private sector than
it is in government- arguably much worse because the private sector is
not accountable to the degree that a democratically elected government
is.

> just as there was a need to virtualize all kinds of disparate
> hardware. We need standards. There are realities that dictate why
> there should be only one Google and only one Ebay. It's a natural
> monopoly.

There are no natural monopolies.

> Just as people misjudge the real accomplishments of MS, they do the
> same with Google. Google has built a distributed super computer of
> staggering proportions to get things to the necessary scale (and
> found a way to pay for it). In solving that correct, and very
> difficult, problems, they've created a natural monopoly and a huge
> barrier to entry for anyone else. I think they're in for a very long
> run. Again, capitalism at its best. They should be fabulously
> wealthy, they've performed a great service to the world.

A "great" service with the potential to strangle the Internet and choke
off freedom and development if such serves the interest of the monopoly.

Somebody's slipped you a double shot of the Kool-Aid, Peter.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> fitted to curves, etc.

Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
{tubulars | clinchers | rain tires | puncture-resistant tires} as if
they were homogeneous.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:23:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 6:14 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:47:33 -0700, [email protected]
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >so if you're using clinchers with butyl tubes, your rr is higher
>> > >than using a top tubular.
>> >
>> > And if you lowered the pressure in the clinchers to 60psi and kept
>> > the tubulars at 110psi, the clinchers would probably be slower too.
>> > Another flaw in the research.
>>
>> Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
>> using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to
>> those using top tubulars. It's that simple.
>
>But it's not that simple, since various bits of research do not provide
>clear concordance.
>
>> People are not generally lowering their tire pressure to make
>> themselves go slower, but I bet a lot of people are using butyl tubes
>> in their clinchers and think they are still assured of better rr than
>> people on tubulars. I seem to remember Jobst himself talking about
>> why he uses butyl tubes.
>
>They hold air better is the reason Jobst gave, IIRC. However, tests
>conducted by Jan Heine at Bicycle Quarterly suggested that latex tubes
>were slower than butyl tubes, which is contrary to lore.

Dear Tim,

Tests conducted by Al Morrison show that Michelin latex tubes reduced
the RR in three different tires when compared to light butyl tubes
from Torelli, Specialized, and Bontrager. Details of testing are at
the top of the pdf. The latex vs. butyl table is about the middle of
the pdf.

Here are condensed results:

Latex vs. Butyl Tube RR Tests

Velo Flex Pave tire, used, ~500 miles
Butyl 0.00376 Torelli Extra Light Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00317 Michelin latex tube

latex tube reduced RR 16%

***

Vittoria Open Corsa EVO CX, used, ~40 miles
Butyl 0.00307 Specialized Turbo Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00261 Michelin latex tube

latex tube reduced RR 15%

***

Schwalbe Ultremo, used
Butyl 0.00335 Bontager SL Butyl Tube
Latex 0.00322 Michelin latex tube

latex tube reduced RR 4%

http://www.biketechreview.com/tires/images/AFM_tire_testing_rev4.pdf

For what it's worth, reducing RR from 0.00307 to 0.00261 for the
defaults on the calculator below reduces the 300-watt 10-km time from
15.7750 minutes to 15.6907 minutes, 0.0843 minutes, or 5.06 seconds

http://austinimage.com/bp/velocityN/velocity.html

Reducing RR from 0.00335 to 0.00322 for the same 300-watt 10-km ride
reduces the time from 15.8268 minutes to 15.8027, 0.0261 minutes, or
1.45 seconds.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:06:11 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>According to one set of data the difference
>between Conti and Mastik One is bigger than the difference between the
>best tubulars and the best clinchers-

Where?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:17:14 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>Are you sure that it's not, at least in some circumstances? Do you
>think the pro teams would publish the fact that they are using shellac
>for TT bikes or anywhere else?

I'm not sure but I look at that stuff kind of stuff online and
(rarely) in person a lot -- have had a pro world champion in my apt,
ridden with pro nat champs, etc. and a couple of my buddies used to
get tons of hand-me-down stuff from arguably the top domestic pro
team. I try to keep my eyes open and never heard nor read about that.
Seen some weird stuff that was not obvious in my day (steel fork on a
team OCLV frame is an example).

I haven't been at a top-level TT though .
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:26:57 -0700, [email protected]
wrote:

>Hardly. It's black and white: according to that research, if you're
>using butyl tubes with a top clincher, you're giving up watts to those
>using top tubulars.

Dude, I'm being sarcastic. I know that.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:07:28 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>>
>> That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
>> specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
>> fitted to curves, etc.
>
>Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
>says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
>tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
>{tubulars | clinchers | rain tires | puncture-resistant tires} as if
>they were homogeneous.

For sure.

What stuck out for me, I think in the measurements by Tour Magazine,
was between tires of the two types that seemed to be the same other
tan being a tubular or a clincher, such as different versions of
VIttorias.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

still me who? wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:45:23 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From the times I have been in the shop, I think Andrew likes bicycles
>> too much [1] to be a really good capitalist.
>
> Your implied definition has more to do with a certain lack of morals
> combined with greed than it does with a romantic attachment to the
> business one is in. I know some CEO's who are passionate about their
> business - yet they are still, as an average, a bunch of greedy
> bastards that will do anything to anyone to boost the bottom line....

I wonder if Andrew would make more money running a more mainstream
TrekSpecializedGiantEtc bike store with a standard inventory, rather
than a store with odd specialty bicycles and a large inventory of
uncommon parts? Such a store, however, would be much LESS interesting to
run (and to shop at).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Peter Cole wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Google controls information, I don't think there has ever been a
>>> greater potential for abuse, especially when they're driven at least
>>> as much by profit motive as MS.
>>
>> Remember them before they discovered the joys of 'evil'?
>
> With great power comes great responsibilities -- and great compromises.

On the other hand, they could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs
if they compromise their search function to favor certain interests. The
case of the old Altavista search engine comes to mind - one of the best
until they changed it to give advertisers the first page of results, at
which point most people stopped using it.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Clive George]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I wonder if Andrew would make more money running a more mainstream
> TrekSpecializedGiantEtc bike store with a standard inventory, rather than
> a store with odd specialty bicycles and a large inventory of uncommon
> parts? Such a store, however, would be much LESS interesting to run (and
> to shop at).

And with that you bring in the whole quality-of-life thing, which annoyingly
for some is important to many people, and worse, isn't necessarily related
to money

cheers,
clive

 

[still me]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:45:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Just as people misjudge the real accomplishments of MS, they do the
>> same with Google. Google has built a distributed super computer of
>> staggering proportions to get things to the necessary scale (and
>> found a way to pay for it). In solving that correct, and very
>> difficult, problems, they've created a natural monopoly and a huge
>> barrier to entry for anyone else. I think they're in for a very long
>> run. Again, capitalism at its best. They should be fabulously
>> wealthy, they've performed a great service to the world.
>
>A "great" service with the potential to strangle the Internet and choke
>off freedom and development if such serves the interest of the monopoly.
>
>Somebody's slipped you a double shot of the Kool-Aid, Peter.

Gotta agree with you there Timmy, he's nuts.

Google hasn't done anything all that amazing. It's investment is not
all that large. Their search tool is not very powerful from a boolean
view point. They just caught on. They deserve whatever they can farm
before someone else catches on better.

Ebay is hated and despised by most of the sellers who use it simply
because of it's dominance. They have terrible support and make
arbitrary decisions that ******** users and sellers concurrently.
There are the example of why monopoly is bad.

MS misjudged? I think their ambition to own the electronic world is
well judged. The want the PC, the server, the set top, the electronic
entertainment world, the game world, the consumer integrated world,
the list goes on. They are the worst example of anti-trust ever.

 

[Clive George]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On the other hand, they could kill the goose that lays the golden eggs if
> they compromise their search function to favor certain interests. The case
> of the old Altavista search engine comes to mind - one of the best until
> they changed it to give advertisers the first page of results, at which
> point most people stopped using it.

What killed it for me was their efforts to turn it into a "portal", which
slowed it down considerably compared to shiny simple google. Of course these
days bandwidth is such that you can get away with putting a lot more on the
front page - but I'm used to google now.

cheers,
clive

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Clive George wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I wonder if Andrew would make more money running a more mainstream
>> TrekSpecializedGiantEtc bike store with a standard inventory, rather
>> than a store with odd specialty bicycles and a large inventory of
>> uncommon parts? Such a store, however, would be much LESS interesting
>> to run (and to shop at).
>
> And with that you bring in the whole quality-of-life thing, which
> annoyingly for some is important to many people, and worse, isn't
> necessarily related to money

The pundits that are allowed on television and in mainstream newspapers
and magazines in the U.S. are the one's that propound that quality of
life in a country is solely determined by economic wealth.

USians are indoctrinated in schools and in the media that they are the
most fortunate people in the world and the U.S. is first and best in
everything. That is why they react to any criticism with a charge of
jealousy or "blame America first" and swallow such silliness as "they
hate us because they hate freedom".

No girlyman concerns about free time, real communities, job security,
worker rights, a social safety net in a time of illness or disability
that those wimpy Europeans favor!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
> >
> > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> > fitted to curves, etc.
>
> Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
> says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
> tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
> {tubulars | clinchers | rain tires | puncture-resistant tires} as if
> they were homogeneous.

Which tubulars? Which clinchers? Which data points belong to which?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> still me who? wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:45:23 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> From the times I have been in the shop, I think Andrew likes
> >> bicycles too much [1] to be a really good capitalist.
> >
> > Your implied definition has more to do with a certain lack of
> > morals combined with greed than it does with a romantic attachment
> > to the business one is in. I know some CEO's who are passionate
> > about their business - yet they are still, as an average, a bunch
> > of greedy bastards that will do anything to anyone to boost the
> > bottom line....
>
> I wonder if Andrew would make more money running a more mainstream
> TrekSpecializedGiantEtc bike store with a standard inventory, rather
> than a store with odd specialty bicycles and a large inventory of
> uncommon parts? Such a store, however, would be much LESS interesting
> to run (and to shop at).

Andrew's shop is exactly the type of bike shop I just love to go into.
You can spend hours wandering around in there discovering things in the
nooks and crannies.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 4, 5:06 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 11:49 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/lecycle.png
>
> > > That chart is rather difficult to interpret, since there is no
> > > specification of what tires were measured, the data points have not been
> > > fitted to curves, etc.
>
> > Really? I thought the moral of the story was pretty evident. What it
> > says to me is that the RR and wet pavement grip of different groups of
> > tires overlap, and that it doesn't make much sense to treat all
> > {tubulars | clinchers | rain tires | puncture-resistant tires} as if
> > they were homogeneous.
>
> Which tubulars? Which clinchers? Which data points belong to which?

You're saying if you knew the names of the tubulars and clinchers, the
distributions wouldn't overlap?