Re: Carbon Fiber Seat Stays = RBT Misinfo

[David Damerell]

Quoting Sandy <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>You seem to be scrupulously avoiding that. We've tried to discuss
>>relatively definite criteria - vertical shock and vibration
>>transmission - but you hint at other unspecified criteria having
>>little or nothing to do with the title of the thread.
>You want vertical shock (Ithought you had settled on "deflection") and
>vibration transmission to define "ride quality" ? OK. It's your religion.

Lying about Frank's views will not do you any good.

It's the "damping carbon fibre" crowd who claim these issues affect ride
quality, by claiming that different frame materials have radically
different properties. We say they don't, and the engineering backs that
up; but neither Frank, nor Guy, nor I, nor anyone else is saying that, for
instance, geometry can't affect ride quality.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Mania, May.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Sandy <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>>>Oh, you don't want to discard the evidence? Good. Let's accept it,
>>>>then, and move on.
>>>Accepted as recollections, not more.
>>Ah, so you want to occupy a sort of weaselly position where you don't
>>really accept it, but you don't quite come out and say so.
>If anyone reading here has a fresh (less than 3 months old) recall of the
>article, and what it says, very specifically, let me in on it.

Weasel weasel weasel. Either you believe it or you don't. What you're just
doing now is smokescreening.

>>>>The magazine reviewers clearly had their reports distorted by
>>>>preconceived notions, since they did not report the same results in
>>>>a blind test. You say that does not happen when one is honest.
>>>>Therefore, you are saying that they are dishonest.
>>>I guess they were lousy reporters - what do you think ?
>>I think you're trying to distract the issue. Your remarks said they
>>were dishonest. Why was that?
>Never wrote or implied that. Not once.

Yes, you did.

I wrote;
"But we know for a fact that rider reports are not reliable; that
there is a very strong effect in terms of preconceived notions."

You wrote; "No, that's not true. Not if it's honest."

These riders obviously suffered a strong effect from preconceived notions,
given that their reports were completely different when those notions were
not permitted to interfere. Therefore, from what you wrote, this was not
honest. Dishonest means not honest.

>>The people involved were regular magazine reviewers; they constantly
>>engaged in non-blind reviews of bikes. That's sort of the point.
>Not the point - not done with the same bikes, perhaps ; not done with the
>same scope of review, perhaps.]

Smokescreen smokescreen. You won't quite come out and say you don't
believe it...

>>>So you're saying that other than geometry and lateral stiffness,
>>>nothing distinguishes frames for ride quality ?
>>I'm saying that seems likely, yes.
>Interesting ...

Well, what other factors do you think are relevant?

>>>Do you think the quote (in another
>>>posting) from Seven (to the effect that vertical compliance can be
>>>modified by selecting different tubes) is inaccurate ?
>>Yes, I think that's completely untrue,

To be clear; I don't think it's untrue that vertical compliance can be
modified. I think the implication - that it can be modified so as to have
significant results - is untrue. It's like saying that the bike can be
painted to vary ride quality. I agree that bikes can be painted different
colours, but...

>>because the difference is
>>between tiny and teeny-tiny in a system with much larger elements of
>>vertical compliance. You only get significant vertical effects from
>>components like suspension, sprung saddles, etc.
>OK, that's how you see it. I can accept that this is your opinion.

No, this is not purely opinion. It is a matter of fact that vertical
deflection of frame tubes is tiny compared to vertical deflection in other
elements in the system such as tyres, but that components such as sprung
saddles offer significant vertical deflection. You cannot sensibly deny
that.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Mania, May.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting Sandy <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a
>>> Sandy wrote:
>>>> So you're saying that other than geometry and lateral stiffness,
>>>> nothing distinguishes frames for ride quality ?
>>> I'm saying that seems likely, yes.
>> Interesting ...
>
> Well, what other factors do you think are relevant?

Possibly weight, for suitable definitions of "ride quality".
I'm also currently agnostic on the difference fork "springiness" can make.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.