Paramount

"Knight of Starlight" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for responding to my question. Bruce....I have two questions
for you.
1st...you mentioned the durability of your super light bike. Do you mean
that carbon frames are not as durable as steel or aluminum?

2nd....you mention a frame fromTawain. I was in my local bike shops
today and they sold Trek, Specialized, and Giant. I noticed on all three
brands "Made in Tawain". I was very surprised to see that among such
reputable companies. Is that common for most bikes sold in the USA to me
made there?

I am looking to get a flat bar bike and found one on the internet I like
alot...the Giant CRX 1. Unfortunately, it is not sold in my local bike
shops.

To risk a barrage of flames and focused hate, let me say this. I like the
feel of carbon frames. Me, not anyone else, just me. In 1976 I broke my back
in two places. The harmonic coming up out of many aluminum frames makes my
body uncomfortable. Titanium and steel are better. But, carbon seems to
deaden the road vibration enough where I can ride in comfort.

I have seen aluminum bikes crack, the same for carbon, and steel too. It is
going to be a combination of how you ride, where you ride, how much you
weigh, who made the frame and when, and plain old luck. Even the most
lightweight bikes are still pretty tough. Today, there is so much great
stuff available it is unreal.

I have a 5500. I like it a lot. Over the years there have been a few
problems with them. Trek always took care of the issues and did it well. Is
the 5500 any better than other frames? I don't really know, but as I said,
Trek has done a great job for me.

There are dozens of Taiwan and Mainland carbon bike companies in the Taiwan
Bike Guide each year. Each year at the show we get a new book and the
players have changed. But, there are so many companies that source from
Taiwan and Mainland OEMs it is amazing.

If you're going to get any bike, make sure you are going to get the support
you want from both the dealer and the manufacturer. That is a key issue.
Most of the bigger name companies are pretty good with customer service
issues.

Make sure the shop spends the time to get the bike fit correct. The greatest
machine in the world will never work well for you if the frame sizing and
fit is not on the money.

My personal feeling about carbon frames and forks is they are all going to
break. It is only a matter of when. That said, it could be three weeks, or
it could be 20 years. I'm not so good with the psychic stuff these days...

If I decide to get an OEM frame, I do it with the knowledge that many of
these companies can be tough to deal with on warranties. Usually you have to
ship the frame overseas and wait. Lots of the OEMs start mumbling about two
year warranties right off the bat. If I was to develop a new bike line,
there would have to be a replacement stock built into the business plan. You
can't put customers through that kind of insanity.

Maybe one of the more knowledgeable folks out there can advise us if a
monocoque frame can be adequately repaired.

I have no experience with the flat bar road bike you described. I did see
that the Shimano book shows specific road shifters for them. I assume they
are derived from an MTB design.

Best Regards,

Bruce

Knight of Starlight said:

...
2nd....you mention a frame fromTawain. I was in my local bike shops
today and they sold Trek, Specialized, and Giant. I noticed on all three
brands "Made in Tawain". I was very surprised to see that among such
reputable companies. Is that common for most bikes sold in the USA to me
made there?...

Almost all the cheap bicycle shaped objects (and some better quality
bikes) are now made in mainland [1] China due to the almost free labor.
The Taiwanese now mostly make entry to mid-level bike store quality
bikes, employing modern production equipment and methods, with
relatively well paid workers. In general, Taiwanese bicycles have good
quality TIG welds (done by robots?) and quality powder-coating.

[1] Sorry Jobst.

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

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

DI said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 9:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries
for venom, not wit.

Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?

But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.

- Frank Krygowski

You don't think it would be stupid to stand by a train track and ram
your head into the train just to prove you could get it an inch
closer without a helmet?

Frank's an /intellectual/, DI. We can't be expected to appreciate his
complexity.

Bill "either that or he's just hung-over from his trip" S.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson wrote: {context removed; shock et surprise, n'est-ce pas?}

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So fine, ride without a lid. Who's stoppin' ya?

Quoted message said:

In quite a few jurisdictions, the police would, due to the lies of the
pro-helmet propagandists on the effectiveness of foam hats on
preventing serious injury and death.

So work against MHLs and stop attacking people who merely choose to wear
helmets.

Bill "problem solved; off you go" S.

Bruce Gilbert said:

To risk a barrage of flames and focused hate, let me say this. I like
the feel of carbon frames. Me, not anyone else, just me. In 1976 I
broke my back in two places. The harmonic coming up out of many
aluminum frames makes my body uncomfortable. Titanium and steel are
better. But, carbon seems to deaden the road vibration enough where I
can ride in comfort.

You better study some statistics and population studies! This is rbt!

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> > > > gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> > > > that does it pretty regularly.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
> > > compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
> > > a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
> > > you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
> > > minimize its extra wind resistance.
> >
> > Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
> > that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
> > pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
> > wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
> > don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
> > friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
> > riding time on the discussion.
>
> What kind of friend is that?

Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
much?

Then be their friend.
Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try to give you [censored].
Friends do not let friends get away with being a jerk.

They aren't being jerks about it, Michael.

If you are doing something because you do not want to
deal with what they have to say, something that you
would not do otherwise, then what is going on?

--
Michael Press

DI said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 9:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
"Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
venom, not wit.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?

Quoted message said:

But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

You don't think it would be stupid to stand by a train track and ram your
head into the train just to prove you could get it an inch closer without a
helmet?

Here's the replay, "DI", with more detail.

We frequently hear this argument, or ones just like it: "Ram your
helmeted head into a wall. Then take off the helmet and ram your bare
head into the wall. The second hurts more, so it proves beyond a
doubt that you should always wear a helmet while biking." The post I
was responding to was a very slight variation on that theme.

One (just one) thing that "logic" fails to take into account is that
the helmeted head is a bigger target. There _must_ be near misses of
bare heads that would be converted to serious impacts of a helmet. In
fact, given the evolutionary process, there's a good chance that our
reflexes and muscle strength are _just_ adequate to keep our heads
protected at the size they are naturally.

Again, my teenaged fall (straight backward, on ice) would have very
strongly impacted a helmet, but it barely touched my bare head.
(Well, actually, I wore a stocking cap.) If I'd had a helmet on, it
might have generated a "My helmet saved my life!" story. Another
false one, that is.

But that was a linear impact. Things are likely worse for a
tangential impact. Again, given evolution (...apologies to the non-
believers...), there is probably protective value in our hair and
scalp tissue that easily slides in a grazing impact, even though it's
messy. Styrofoam probably has a much higher coefficient of friction
than hair and scalp tissue, even if the styrofoam is covered with a
0.020" microshell. Furthermore, adding radius to the head adds a
longer lever arm for that grazing impact to give rotational
acceleration to the brain - which is much more damaging than linear
acceleration, due to shearing of internal arteries.

So the linear protective effect of an inch of styrofoam does come with
costs. There are going to be more impacts, both linear and
rotational. And the rotational ones are likely to be more damaging
than before.

Understand, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's been very
seriously proposed as a major explanation for the observed fact, that
strapping helmets on an entire population of cyclists does not reduce
serious head injury rates. It's not the only possible explanation,
but personally, I think it's a likely contributor.

- Frank Krygowski

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

On Jul 7, 3:36 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:08:28 -0700, "[email hidden]"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote:
>What the hell are you talking about? What stronger info are you
>talking about? Once I cracked a helmet in half. had it not been
>there my head would have been the next contact surface. what
>stronger information is there that says that if my helmet wasn't
>there my head would have survived the impact? I passed out and
>woke up in the hospital 4 hours later.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What information is there that the helmet helped? I just don't
understand how the fact that something far weaker than your skull
was damaged demonstrates anything. We could look at leather
helmets or even a bag of jello and the fact that those things would
be destroyed would suggest they help, by your logic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, it's possible it did help. But we hear so many stories like
yours that the only way the majority of them could be true would be
if we were seeing unhelmeted people dying in scores. And we don't.

Quoted message said:

Are you familiar with something called a concussion. It is a serious
blow to the head. It can cause anywhere from unconsciousness to more
severe problems. I never said that the impacts to my helmet prevented
my skull from cracking or exploding. I simply argued that it
prevented more serious damage.

It may have. It may not have. You believe that it did, but belief does
not make things true.

Quoted message said:

the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
protects the brain.

WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This is
one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

Quoted message said:

a helmet is not necessarily designed to prevent the skull from
exploding, as you, articulate types, put it. It adds another lawyer
of protection to the brain. A blow to the head, without cracking your
skull, can still kill you. The fact that there are more cracked
helmets than cracked skulls doesn't mean that the helmets prevented
skulls from cracking. It simply means that they prevented blows to
the head which could have resulted in mild concussions or more severe
and irreparable damage. the fact that you argue that there are so
many cracked helmets implies that people fall on their head while
riding. I think that those who were wearing a helmet and it cracked
were pretty lucky to have been wearing one.

That's a lot of couldas.

Actually, the skull doesn't do any of the things that you list. It
simply holds the organs, muscles, nerves, tendons, etc that allow
those things to happen. The bones have structural function.

Andres

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
protects the brain.

WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This is
one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

I use my skull to keep out the bad ideas.

--
Michael Press

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(about...?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.

Quoted message said:

:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with return
insults. Probably even lost my temper a few times, before realizing with
what I was dealing. Typical brainiac (self-described) quite sure his is the
/only/ correct opinion.

Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
write, you call it pompous. To you, pompous means a
style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
respectfully, and call it pompous. One day you will be
treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
are visited upon you.

--
Michael Press

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
protects the brain.

Quoted message said:

WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This
is one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

Timmy doesn't know his skull from his face?

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

The problem, Bill, is that you see most attempts at logic and
science as being pompous. "How dare that guy try to think
logically?"

Bull. I distinctly recall /many/ encounters with you where you say
"well you refuse to learn" or "those who can't learn from their
betters" or some such [censored]. It's condescending, period.

Quote of one Bill Sornson, from this thread, yesterday, July 6, 2007:

"The AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) refuse to listen to reason. You'll
see."

Yes, I said that to a new poster who is destined to bang his (thankfully
lidded) head against a wall arguing with the likes of you. (Although IIRC
it was someone else who was giving the poor [censored] grief.)

Quoted message said:

So who is condescending? Is that sort of remark forbidden except when
you use it?

It doesn't compare at all to "(I decree that) you lack critical thinking
skills" or your other /personally directed/ insults. This was a generalized
comment. Trust you can discern the difference in degree of offensiveness?
(Oh well it was worth a shot.)

I stupidly began to keep reading, and then remembered what a complete waste
of time it is.

Don't wear a helmet, Frank. I'll continue wearing one (along with about 90%
of the cyclists I see).

I'll give you credit for one thing: you are amazingly verbose on the
subject. Seriously. Unless you're pasting boilerplate, you go ON AND ON
AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND
ON..............................................

BS out

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

(about...?)

Quoted message said:

> I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
> Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
> lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.

Quoted message said:

:-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?

Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with
return insults. Probably even lost my temper a few times, before
realizing with what I was dealing. Typical brainiac
(self-described) quite sure his is the /only/ correct opinion.

Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
write, you call it pompous. To you, pompous means a
style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
respectfully, and call it pompous. One day you will be
treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
are visited upon you.

If you don't consider Frank pompous, then you haven't been paying attention.
Otherwise, nice one! <eg>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted post said:

the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It
simply protects the brain.

WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around.
This is one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

Actually, the skull doesn't do any of the things that you list. It
simply holds the organs, muscles, nerves, tendons, etc that allow
those things to happen. The bones have structural function.

You're splitting frog's hairs here, Andres.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill

Sornson said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>>
>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>>
>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>>
>> A) It's common sense;
>
> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me
> with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
> science.

No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will
be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER
or BUFFER, you see.)

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.

Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table with
no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even stop
wearing a lid! (Maybe.)

Force = mass * acceleration.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim McNamara said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> Michael Press <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > > Michael Warner <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left
> > > > > shoulder. It gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a
> > > > > helmet is one thing that does it pretty regularly.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern
> > > > helmet compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is
> > > > that it's due to a different posture or muscle tension
> > > > when you wear a helmet - you're probably ducking into the
> > > > wind, unconsciously trying to minimize its extra wind
> > > > resistance.
> > >
> > > Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the
> > > lightest that I could find and it's a little better but I
> > > still get more pain than if I don't wear it. And since I
> > > don't see benefit in wearing a helmet and have definite
> > > negative consequences, I often don't wear a helmet. I am
> > > more likely to wear one when riding with friends since they
> > > tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste riding time
> > > on the discussion.
> >
> > What kind of friend is that?
>
> Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning
> and genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these
> tendencies through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine,
> among other sources. Why alienate them over something that
> doesn't inconvenience me all that much?

Then be their friend. Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try
to give you [censored]. Friends do not let friends get away with being
a jerk.

They aren't being jerks about it, Michael.

If you are doing something because you do not want to deal with what
they have to say, something that you would not do otherwise, then
what is going on?

How is it that this is so difficult for you to understand? Are you this
contentious with *your* friends? "What's going on" is that I choose not
to make an issue out of everything with my friends. There are some
things I rate as more important than others.

As I have said before, I often wear a helmet when riding. It makes
important members of my family happier (my mother, my wife, etc.).
Other than aggravating my neck and making sweat run in my eyes on hot
days, it doesn't inconvenience me. I have no expectation that it will
provide me with protection nor that it will cause me harm, but the
feelings of the people I care about are more important to me.

I am much more contentious in these discussions than I am in person,
because it's a "tech" newsgroup. In real life, someone as argumentative
as most of us are here would soon have no friends. I overlook many
foibles in my friends and vice versa, for the sake of those friendships
unless the foible is clearly going to cause harm. I think it likely
that you do the same.

Tim McNamara said:

So difficult that it is not show up under scientific scrutiny.

Recent fall, Timmy? <eg>

Michael Press wrote to me:

Quoted message said:

Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
write, you call it pompous.

Actually, I don't. The only people I recall calling pompous are Frank,
Jobst, Fogey and possibly you. (Although I consider you more of a pedantic
net nanny stick-in-the-mud, which is why your recent foray into HUMOR has
been so refreshing!)

Quoted message said:

To you, pompous means a
style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
respectfully, and call it pompous.

Frank did not address me respectfully. If you knew anything about our
history (and not just the last few days), you'd realize how wrong you are.

Quoted message said:

One day you will be
treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
are visited upon you.

Right back at you, Mr. Judgemental. One can only hope.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
>> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <[email hidden]>, "Bill
>>>> Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>>>
>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>>>
>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>>>
>>> A) It's common sense;
>>
>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me
>> with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
>> science.
>
> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will
> be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER
> or BUFFER, you see.)

Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.

Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table with
no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even stop
wearing a lid! (Maybe.)

Force = mass * acceleration.

"Impact". Not "force". HTH!

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:23:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I haven't got a bowling ball. Maybe we can get Fogel Labs to give it a
try and video the results. Anybody got an old undamaged helmet or two
to send to Carl?

[snip]

Dear Tim,

Fogel Labs has no bowling equipment, but the experiment probably isn't
worth pursuing.

A head inside a helmet is practically guaranteed to fit without
putting spreading pressure on the sides of the helmet.

Heads are longer than they are wide--look at any reasonably
well-fitting stiff hat. (Soft caps simply bend to fit the noggin.)

In contrast, a bowling ball is round. If large enough, it should
easily crack a typical bicycle helmet against the floor by acting as a
blunt wedge.

Most bicycle helmet manufacturers recommend replacing any helmet
dropped on the ground, since they crack easily. Fewer and fewer
bicycle helmets pass even the watered-down recent tests, none of which
ever matched the force of a six-foot rider toppling over sideways
after forgetting to unclip at a stop light.

Curiously, toppling over sideways (as opposed to a free fall drop)
produces a greater acceleration and impact for the end (or head) of
the thing toppling.

(This is why tall chimneys break as they fall. They're not stiff
enough to accelerate the upper part without breaking. Think of a
felexible rod--the end lags behind if you wave it.)

As others have calculated in earlier threads, the far end of a
toppling board hits the ground at 3/2 or 150% of the speed it would
strike if dropped in free fall from the same height.

Since kinetic energy for the same mass increases with the square of
the velocity, this means 9/4 or 225% of the original impact energy of
100%.

An object (such as a severed head in a helmet) dropping free for the 5
feet often mentioned will hit the ground at 17.93 feet per second, or
12.2 mph.

The same object falling over sideways on a pole (closer to how heads
actually hit the ground when bike frames are between legs) will land
at 3/2 that speed, about 27 feet per second, or 18.4 mph.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

Given the flexibility of the human body, actual impacts should be
somewhat less than the rigid-pole example, but still noticeably
greater than free fall.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel