rec.bicycles.tech - FAQ?

[Cychlo-path]

Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as my
general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've like others
been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob, daft or previously
commonly asked questions (see my question below perhaps??).

While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for answering my
question it's always been my feeling that what is read online can either be
inaccurate (with obvious exceptions e.g. sheldons site) or that personal
views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove more useful and
so post here anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is
unecessarily bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
changing technologies and views.

It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
to octalink for example.

I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

 

[[email protected]]

Keironk writes:

> Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
> my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
> like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
> daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
> perhaps??).

> While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
> answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
> online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
> e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
> trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
> anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
> bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.

> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
> create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
> basis to account for changing technologies and views.

Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

Have not been antiquated by any developments.

> It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
> regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
> beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
> views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
> throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.

They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.

> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
> relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
> and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?

Jobst Brandt

 

[Cychlo-path]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Keironk writes:
>
> > Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
> > my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
> > like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
> > daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
> > perhaps??).
>
> > While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
> > answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
> > online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
> > e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
> > trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
> > anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
> > bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.
>
> > Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
> > create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
> > basis to account for changing technologies and views.
>
> Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
> glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.
>

New products are often released, all right they're often similar to existing
models but the slight differences seem to be the points that are often
addressed in the group.


> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
> http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
>

ahuh, ... this kinda thing aside tho; this covers the more major topics.


> Have not been antiquated by any developments.
>
> > It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
> > regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
> > beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
> > views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
> > throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.
>
> They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
> expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
> components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.
>

Notice from my original post

---snip

...personal views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove
more useful...

snip--

If all i wanted was epirical lab data then i'd be happy with the
manufacturer spiel, the human factor is the whole point; a range of tests.
Obviously any faq would have to be objectively moderated to cover the range
of views while emphasising the majority finding.


> > I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
> > relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
> > and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?
>
> So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?

What's your beef Brandt? You elect officials to run all aspects of your
country in supposedly free elections when in actual fact they're, largely,
still born in to the position, do you suppose these numpties actually know
anything about the areas in which they work? What about managers generally?
They manage people not the work. I'm happy to help or step aside, it was
just an idea, i don't own it.

You clearly have a low opinion of everyone else and a massively inflated
opinion of yourself. Stick it all your ****.

 

[jim beam]

Cychlo-path wrote:
> Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as my
> general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've like others
> been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob, daft or previously
> commonly asked questions (see my question below perhaps??).
>
> While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for answering my
> question it's always been my feeling that what is read online can either be
> inaccurate (with obvious exceptions e.g. sheldons site) or that personal
> views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove more useful and
> so post here anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is
> unecessarily bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.
>
> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
> FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
> changing technologies and views.
>
> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
> innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
> function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
> recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
> to octalink for example.
>
> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
> speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
> Anyone else interested in this collaboration?
>
>
potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
"faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
written on the tablets of stone.

 

[ddog]

On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
> is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
> "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
> is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
> written on the tablets of stone.- Hide quoted text -

Jim,

That may be because everything else is related based on his reasoning
in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle web we
weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol

But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
relationships every time a new revelation is observed. Kind of like
editing a constantly changing English language dictionary, in complex
relationships of course. I don't know how Sheldon keeps up with all he
has created.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 4, 10:08 am, "Cychlo-path" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Keironk writes:
>
> > > Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as
> > > my general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've
> > > like others been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob,
> > > daft or previously commonly asked questions (see my question below
> > > perhaps??).
>
> > > While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for
> > > answering my question it's always been my feeling that what is read
> > > online can either be inaccurate (with obvious exceptions
> > > e.g. sheldons site) or that personal views of those you begin to
> > > trust in an online context prove more useful and so post here
> > > anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is unecessarily
> > > bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.
>
> > > Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to
> > > create a FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly
> > > basis to account for changing technologies and views.
>
> > Don't fool yourself, technology in bicycling does not move but with
> > glacial speed. You haven't missed a thing.
>
> New products are often released, all right they're often similar to existing
> models but the slight differences seem to be the points that are often
> addressed in the group.
>
> >http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
> >http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html
>
> ahuh, ... this kinda thing aside tho; this covers the more major topics.
>
> > Have not been antiquated by any developments.
>
> > > It's my suggestion that this FAQ largely addresses questions
> > > regarding innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses
> > > beyond their intended function, and the more subjective but accepted
> > > views on the quality of recent componentry; the strength of ISIS
> > > throughout it's range and compared to octalink for example.
>
> > They all have their problems and they have been discussed here. Don't
> > expect a research laboratory to provide credible test results for
> > components, the human factor on bicycles is too large.
>
> Notice from my original post
>
> ---snip
>
> ...personal views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove
> more useful...
>
> snip--
>
> If all i wanted was epirical lab data then i'd be happy with the
> manufacturer spiel, the human factor is the whole point; a range of tests.
> Obviously any faq would have to be objectively moderated to cover the range
> of views while emphasising the majority finding.
>
> > > I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I
> > > relatively speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters
> > > and I.T. admin. Anyone else interested in this collaboration?
>
> > So why are you trying to direct technical research and writing?
>
> What's your beef Brandt? You elect officials to run all aspects of your
> country in supposedly free elections when in actual fact they're, largely,
> still born in to the position, do you suppose these numpties actually know
> anything about the areas in which they work? What about managers generally?
> They manage people not the work. I'm happy to help or step aside, it was
> just an idea, i don't own it.
>
> You clearly have a low opinion of everyone else and a massively inflated
> opinion of yourself. Stick it all your ****.
>
>

"Well, enough about how wonderful I am. I want to give others a chance
to speak; why don't you tell us how wonderful I am." - plausibly
attributed to Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

ddog wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
>> is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
>> "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows. all i know
>> is that he doesn't want anyone else to "update" anything since all is
>> written on the tablets of stone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Jim,
>
> That may be because everything else is related based on his reasoning
> in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle web we
> weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol
>
> But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
> relationships every time a new revelation is observed.

that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can say so.
way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
/more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
downright misleading.

> Kind of like
> editing a constantly changing English language dictionary, in complex
> relationships of course. I don't know how Sheldon keeps up with all he
> has created.

indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes his
seriously and updates accordingly.

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-03-04, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cychlo-path wrote:
[...]
>> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
>> FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
>> changing technologies and views.
>>
>> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
>> innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
>> function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
>> recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
>> to octalink for example.
>>
>> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
>> speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
>> Anyone else interested in this collaboration?
>>
>>
> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
> is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
> "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows.

Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic valves on
Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered "Original
Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the History tab. It
belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.

 

[jim beam]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-03-04, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Cychlo-path wrote:
> [...]
>>> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
>>> FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
>>> changing technologies and views.
>>>
>>> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
>>> innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
>>> function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
>>> recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
>>> to octalink for example.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
>>> speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
>>> Anyone else interested in this collaboration?
>>>
>>>
>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the problem
>> is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct mistakes in his
>> "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why? who knows.
>
> Jobst did write some very interesting stuff about desmodromic valves on
> Wikipedia. It got reverted (because it was considered "Original
> Research"), but you can still read it if you go to the History tab. It
> belongs on the web somewhere if not Wikipedia.

wow, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt

his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> ddog wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
> >> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
> >> problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
> >> mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
> >> who knows. all i know is that he doesn't want anyone else to
> >> "update" anything since all is written on the tablets of stone.-
> >> Hide quoted text -
> >
> > That may be because everything else is related based on his
> > reasoning in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle
> > web we weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol

If your ddoggerel is superior, then start posting it. When Jobst's
position has been actually disproven by data or better explanations,
he's accepted it and moved on.

> > But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
> > relationships every time a new revelation is observed.
>
> that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can say
> so.

Unfortunately, wikis are also plagued with opinion presented as fact,
bad science, bad research, personal and political agendas, etc. Wikis
are a double edged sword that cut both ways. Wikis are sort of a
persistent Usenet.

> way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
> /more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
> downright misleading.

Ah, the irony.

> > Kind of like editing a constantly changing English language
> > dictionary, in complex relationships of course. I don't know how
> > Sheldon keeps up with all he has created.
>
> indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes his
> seriously and updates accordingly.

And yet:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

 

[A Muzi]

Cychlo-path wrote:
> Reading rec.bicycles.tech for a couple years now, I realise that as my
> general cycle knowledge improves (extremely slowly) that, I've like others
> been guilty of the sin of asking some incredibly noob, daft or previously
> commonly asked questions (see my question below perhaps??).
>
> While I've always suscribed to the proactive use of google for answering my
> question it's always been my feeling that what is read online can either be
> inaccurate (with obvious exceptions e.g. sheldons site) or that personal
> views of those you begin to trust in an online context prove more useful and
> so post here anyway. As such it appears to me that the newsgroup is
> unecessarily bulked out with superflous/repetitive information.
>
> Would anyone be prepared therefore to take the lead in a project to create a
> FAQ for the group which is perhaps updated on a monthly basis to account for
> changing technologies and views.
>
> It's my suggestion that this faq largely addresses questions regarding
> innovative uses of bike parts and equipment i.e. uses beyond their intended
> function, and the more subjective but accepted views on the quality of
> recent componentry; the strength of ISIS throughout it's range and compared
> to octalink for example.
>
> I'm happy to help contribute in whatever way possible but I relatively
> speaking lack technical ability in bicycle.tech matters and I.T. admin.
> Anyone else interested in this collaboration?

You might review this work and report back:
http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/index.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 1:07 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,

[snip]

> The main benefit is that cheaper bikes are better than they
> used to be, until you get to the bottom end
> stuff that you can buy at Target and Wal*Mart.

[snip]

Dear Tim,

On a dare in 2004, I bought a Fury Roadmaster from WalMart for under
$60 and rode it for 1200 miles:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ccc0c851499eebed

The only failure was a flat rear tire, which wasn't bad for a bicycle
sold for teenagers to ride around instead of 195-lb test riders trying
to do 20 mph over eight speed humps in the park.

Three years later, the bike sells for just under $50:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=1977659

Here's an inflation calculator:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Today's $50 was worth $9.58 in 1970.

After adjusting for inflation, I suspect that there wasn't anything
available at the absurdly low prices that our wealthy modern world
offers.

That is, I suspect that a new bicycle cost more than ten bucks in
1970, particularly if it had caliper brakes and derailleurs.

Possibly someone has a link to prices for brand-new bottom-of-the-line
bicycles from around 1970?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ddog wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
>>>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
>>>> problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
>>>> mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
>>>> who knows. all i know is that he doesn't want anyone else to
>>>> "update" anything since all is written on the tablets of stone.-
>>>> Hide quoted text -
>>> That may be because everything else is related based on his
>>> reasoning in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a tangle
>>> web we weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol
>
> If your ddoggerel is superior, then start posting it.

funny. you deny when i point out that you don't understand my r.b.t
contributions. and here we have the reason - you don't read them!

> When Jobst's
> position has been actually disproven by data or better explanations,
> he's accepted it and moved on.

funnier still! jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue,
anodizing, brinelling, deformation, strength of materials, lubrication,
bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make that kind of
statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his dogma or your
defense.

>
>>> But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
>>> relationships every time a new revelation is observed.
>> that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can say
>> so.
>
> Unfortunately, wikis are also plagued with opinion presented as fact,
> bad science, bad research, personal and political agendas, etc.

please, it hurts when i laugh. like you haven't just described r.b.t!

> Wikis
> are a double edged sword that cut both ways. Wikis are sort of a
> persistent Usenet.

get out. wiki's give the opportunity to pool resources. while it's
imperfect, it's a good deal /less/ imperfect than mistaken drivel from a
single source that refuses to correct.

>
>> way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
>> /more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
>> downright misleading.
>
> Ah, the irony.

you think mistakes on engineering fundamentals are ironic? that's
confusing.

>
>>> Kind of like editing a constantly changing English language
>>> dictionary, in complex relationships of course. I don't know how
>>> Sheldon keeps up with all he has created.
>> indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes his
>> seriously and updates accordingly.
>
> And yet:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

are you suggesting that "jobst brandt" is in fact sheldon brown? even
more confusion.

 

[A Muzi]

Tim McNamara wrote:
-snip-
> headsets, cartridge bearing headsets) by simplifying labor and any
> benefit to consumers is incidental. The main benefit is that cheaper
> bikes are better than they used to be, until you get to the bottom end
> stuff that you can buy at Target and Wal*Mart.
-snip-
The very bottom ($39 to $79) is a much better and improving product!
Differences in quality, by any measure and of each piece, frames to
tires, are dramatically better than, say 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. And
cheaper by far.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> ddog wrote:
> >>> On Mar 4, 11:24 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> potentially, yes. and this has been suggested here before. the
> >>>> solution is a bike wiki, which someone actually started, but the
> >>>> problem is participation. brandt for instance, refuses correct
> >>>> mistakes in his "faq's" and won't post to a wiki format. why?
> >>>> who knows. all i know is that he doesn't want anyone else to
> >>>> "update" anything since all is written on the tablets of stone.-
> >>>> Hide quoted text -
> >>> That may be because everything else is related based on his
> >>> reasoning in defense of previous weak conclusions. Oh what a
> >>> tangle web we weave, if first we practice to deceive. lol
> >
> > If your ddoggerel is superior, then start posting it.
>
> funny. you deny when i point out that you don't understand my r.b.t
> contributions. and here we have the reason - you don't read them!

Ummm. WTF are you on about, jim? This is a response to a comment by
ddog quoted in your post. It's got nothing to do with you. Perhaps you
need to brush up on your reading skills, or perhaps you simply need to
realize that it's not all about you.

> > When Jobst's position has been actually disproven by data or better
> > explanations, he's accepted it and moved on.
>
> funnier still! jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue,
> anodizing, brinelling, deformation, strength of materials,
> lubrication, bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make
> that kind of statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his
> dogma or your defense.

Ah, lordy, jim, you do consistently have the wrong end of the stick.
You miss the bloody obvious over and over again: that you fail to prove
your contentions. You make claims, you fail to back them up, you expect
everyone to take what you say as fact without proof, and then you get
all hurt and angry when we don't. If it was only Jobst who blew you
off, then I might have some sympathy for you. But all the engineers in
this newsgroup tell you where you're wrong and you refuse to accept it.
You spin it into some sort of conspiracy of engineers and psychologists
and bike shop owners against ex-metallurgists. You're just paranoid,
jim.

> >>> But in defense, it is hard to constantly edit know 'fact'
> >>> relationships every time a new revelation is observed.
> >> that's the beauty of the wiki format - those that /do/ know can
> >> say so.
> >
> > Unfortunately, wikis are also plagued with opinion presented as
> > fact, bad science, bad research, personal and political agendas,
> > etc.
>
> please, it hurts when i laugh. like you haven't just described
> r.b.t!

That was my point, dude. As I noted in the next sentence. LOL. Have
your minimal English comprehension skills utterly deserted you during
the little break you took from posting?

> > Wikis are a double edged sword that cut both ways. Wikis are sort
> > of a persistent Usenet.
>
> get out. wiki's give the opportunity to pool resources. while it's
> imperfect, it's a good deal /less/ imperfect than mistaken drivel
> from a single source that refuses to correct.

LOL. Which is exactly the problem that wikis replicate. Now, if you
actually proved your contentions then you'd find the outcomes of your
many many argumentive Usenet posts somewhat different.

> >> way it is right now, we have a situation where someone is saying
> >> /more/ than they actually know, to the extent that some of it is
> >> downright misleading.
> >
> > Ah, the irony.
>
> you think mistakes on engineering fundamentals are ironic? that's
> confusing.

No. What's ironic is your incomprehension that you just described
yourself: someone saying more than he actually knows resulting in being
misleading.

> >>> Kind of like editing a constantly changing English language
> >>> dictionary, in complex relationships of course. I don't know how
> >>> Sheldon keeps up with all he has created.
> >> indeed. but with authorship goes responsibility. sheldon takes
> >> his seriously and updates accordingly.
> >
> > And yet:
> >
> > http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
>
> are you suggesting that "jobst brandt" is in fact sheldon brown?
> even more confusion.

You're easily confused today, jim. You might want to check into why
that is. You're extolling the responsibility and accuracy of Sheldon,
and yet here he is, voluntarily hosting and lending his imprimatur to
Jobst's FAQ- who you covertly accuse of being a fraud practically every
time you touch a keyboard to post to r.b.t. The cognitive dissonance is
striking.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> -snip-
> > headsets, cartridge bearing headsets) by simplifying labor and any
> > benefit to consumers is incidental. The main benefit is that cheaper
> > bikes are better than they used to be, until you get to the bottom end
> > stuff that you can buy at Target and Wal*Mart.
> -snip-
> The very bottom ($39 to $79) is a much better and improving product!
> Differences in quality, by any measure and of each piece, frames to
> tires, are dramatically better than, say 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. And
> cheaper by far.

From what I've seen from looking at those bikes in stores and reading
some of the recall notices and such, I'm not sure how true that it. The
Sears Free Spirit cheapos of the 60s and 70s seem better made than the
cheap bikes of today.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> On Mar 4, 1:07 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> [snip]
>
> > The main benefit is that cheaper bikes are better than they used to
> > be, until you get to the bottom end stuff that you can buy at
> > Target and Wal*Mart.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> On a dare in 2004, I bought a Fury Roadmaster from WalMart for under
> $60 and rode it for 1200 miles:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/ccc0c851499eebed

I recall the adventure.

> The only failure was a flat rear tire, which wasn't bad for a bicycle
> sold for teenagers to ride around instead of 195-lb test riders
> trying to do 20 mph over eight speed humps in the park.
>
> Three years later, the bike sells for just under $50:
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=1977659
>
> Here's an inflation calculator:
>
> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
>
> Today's $50 was worth $9.58 in 1970.

There's an interesting perspective from a number of perspectives and not
just the absurdly low prices of cheap bikes.

In 1970, $50 to $100 was pretty much the per-person pay scale for bands
playing in bars. In 2007, the per-person pay scale is about $50 to
$100... or compared to the $1.50 per hour I was paid at my first job in
1973, which is $6.84 per hour now. Minimum wage was $1.60 in 1973, so I
guess my Dad was breaking the law in paying me $0.10 less- but still it
was effectively more than the minimum wage now!

Some right wingers **** and moan about the minimum wage, not recognizing
the screaming deal they are getting. The current minimum wage is a bit
above half of what it was in 1968, when corrected for inflation!

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 1:24 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> wow, check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt
>
> his "original research" there is like his "original research" using a
> dye penetrant test to declare that anodizing causes rim cracking!

Wow. Our favorite Jobst-stalker is certainly demonstrating his
dedication to task!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 7:48 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > jobst hasn't modified his mistakes on fatigue,
> > anodizing, brinelling, deformation, strength of materials,
> > lubrication, bearing seals, [continue long list here], but you make
> > that kind of statement? i don't know which is more ridiculous - his
> > dogma or your defense.
>
> Ah, lordy, jim, you do consistently have the wrong end of the stick.
> You miss the bloody obvious over and over again: that you fail to prove
> your contentions. You make claims, you fail to back them up, you expect
> everyone to take what you say as fact without proof, and then you get
> all hurt and angry when we don't. If it was only Jobst who blew you
> off, then I might have some sympathy for you. But all the engineers in
> this newsgroup tell you where you're wrong and you refuse to accept it.

That is an excellent summary. The way it frequently goes is:
Jobst posts an answer to a question.*
jim beam runs in yelling that Jobst is wrong.
Several engineers assert Jobst is indeed correct, and explain why.
jim beam spews insults.
And later, jim beam chides Jobst for not changing his opinion.

*There's a chance that Jobst should modify his sometimes acerbic
style. I've long suspected that Jobst used that style on jim beam in
some early exchange, offended jim, and triggered jim's obvious
vendetta.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
<snip ****>
> You're easily confused today, jim. You might want to check into why
> that is. You're extolling the responsibility and accuracy of Sheldon,
> and yet here he is, voluntarily hosting and lending his imprimatur to
> Jobst's FAQ- who you covertly accuse of being a fraud practically every
> time you touch a keyboard to post to r.b.t. The cognitive dissonance is
> striking.

while i'm sure he can speak for himself on this issue, sheldon is not
claiming authorship, he's simply hosting. "why" may be the point to
question, but he's prepared to accept things on face value from what i
can see.

/my/ point is that sheldon updates, jobst doesn't. sheldon doesn't tell
us more than he knows, jobst does. but you won't discuss that
distinction because it's not part of the fight, is it.