Touring/commute shoes

[A Muzi]

-snip because I couldn't sort who wrote what-

The secretive anonymous davidd86 TOP POSTED:
> I tried the MKS platform pedals. They are OK, but the
platform's too
> small. It was like riding on my Speedplay road pedals.
Uncomfortable
> under soft-soled shoes. The Lyotards have more surface
area, and a
> more sensible shape. Plus, the MKS pedals are not
rebuildable, so when
> the bearings go they are sent to the local landfill.
That's insane.
> The Lyotards can be rebuilt many, many times. Plus,
rumor has it that
> the big tabs on the MKS pedals are easily broken off,
given that
> they're made of aluminum. When they break off, it's much
harder to
> flip them up and get into the toe clips. No way this
would ever be an
> issue with the steel Lyotards.
>
> As far as the peened area wearing, no real basis for
judging, but after
> 46 years, my pedals aren't worn in the least in this
regard. The chrome
> is thin or worn through in a couple of places, but that's
about it.


I don't much care for that model MKS either. MKS does top
quality work on other models.

My second set of #23 Berthets ran about eighteen years of
daily use before the tabs wore down fatally. I did get an
extra two years by reforming the stumps. The chrome is worn
through at spots. Bearings are fine, last rebuilt in 1992.

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/LY23_RIP.JPG

The Toutan straps, older than the pedals, are unworn! What
an overbuilt product!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <2ug*[email protected]>,
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Aha, suddenly it's just _American_ cities that need bunny hops. And when
>>>some American posts saying they never do it either, it'll turn out that
>>>it's just the particular city that you live in...
>>_ Why is it nonsense that a bunny hop can get you out of a bad
>>situation?
>>_ You don't NEED clipless pedals to commute, I never said that,
>
>You actually started by implying that bunny hops could be necessary;
>
>"If you're going to ride in a city with traffic being able to
>bunny hop onto a curb in an emergency will save a lot of skin."

_ The word NECCESSARY does not appear in the above statement
either directly or by implication. All it says is that a
bunny hop is useful in an emergency.

>
>That is flagrantly false, since in any city there are very many riders who
>do not bunny hop and evade sticky situations by other mechanisms without
>losing any skin.

_ You don't seem to understand the basic rules of logic, so I see little
point in continuing. There is nothing false about the above
statement. You are assuming that

A implies B

has the same truth value as

B implies A.

_ There is nothing in the above statement that implies the only
way to avoid accidents is a bunny hop. So either you have poor
reading comprehension or you don't understand enough logic to
refute a basic arguement. Since you appear to need some help in
this area, here's what you need to do to disprove that
statement. Prove this one

"Being able to do a bunny hop will never get you out of an
accident."

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQbTQQWTWTAjn5N/lAQHJ6gP/UbkaBN5Sv/eMq+GVXyBsCKGWEZmOAPdN
eTLBWKGhiGkZS6K1/68v1lhxvf+Nk364rYXCKOXpqnTEk0/HXiAmUQNvvDHWohMt
zhB6Tb91svhDHbyIWCcYXBMcOkoryJE3P6O6fH3xjm8IRQq8bPP22imd4ceUf9Hr
EwoBck+ZOZU=
=gr78
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Booker C. Bense wrote:

> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> You actually started by implying that bunny hops could be necessary;
>>
>> "If you're going to ride in a city with traffic being able to
>> bunny hop onto a curb in an emergency will save a lot of skin."
>
> _ The word NECCESSARY does not appear in the above statement
> either directly or by implication. All it says is that a
> bunny hop is useful in an emergency.

You said "being able to ... *will* save a lot of skin".

This implies some skin will be lost if this ability was not present. If no
skin would be lost without the ability, how could the presence of the
ability "save skin"?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Booker C. Bense]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>,
Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>Booker C. Bense wrote:
>
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You actually started by implying that bunny hops could be necessary;
>>>
>>> "If you're going to ride in a city with traffic being able to
>>> bunny hop onto a curb in an emergency will save a lot of skin."
>>
>> _ The word NECCESSARY does not appear in the above statement
>> either directly or by implication. All it says is that a
>> bunny hop is useful in an emergency.
>
>You said "being able to ... *will* save a lot of skin".
>
>This implies some skin will be lost if this ability was not
> present.

_ No it doesn't.

> If no
>skin would be lost without the ability, how could the presence of the
>ability "save skin"?
>

_ This is a logic fallacy. A implies B does not mean B implies
A. Here's a readable primer on the rules of logic. Try again
when you understand them.

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/symbolic_logic.html

_ Booker C. Bense



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQbTXYWTWTAjn5N/lAQH/1wP+OvmhcvSxtKLeF5K/iPk6LmCuEYt2Q7MW
cVtelVEzpm4n8CzRT1OHzos41hwGRoWJdgkWfeKc5UhLCG6SnraasPDenIC83rdG
hEFTvxN3gAFkFFbEZLipLoeogKvYTjiCj/kYZAWHEsZxQaHk6oEHR1LEMtFQpyou
TbtCh9jlhXA=
=Can3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Booker C. Bense wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Booker C. Bense wrote:
>>
>>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You actually started by implying that bunny hops could be necessary;
>>>>
>>>> "If you're going to ride in a city with traffic being able to
>>>> bunny hop onto a curb in an emergency will save a lot of skin."
>>>
>>> _ The word NECCESSARY does not appear in the above statement
>>> either directly or by implication. All it says is that a
>>> bunny hop is useful in an emergency.
>>
>> You said "being able to ... *will* save a lot of skin".
>>
>> This implies some skin will be lost if this ability was not
>> present.
>
> _ No it doesn't.

Let's postulate that I never have and never will get in an accident, and I
do not know how to bunny-hop. Do you still contend that if I learn how to
do this, it "will save a lot of skin"? Clearly it won't -- it will save no
skin, since none would have been lost regardless.

>> If no skin would be lost without the ability, how could the presence of
>> the ability "save skin"?
>
> _ This is a logic fallacy. A implies B does not mean B implies
> A. Here's a readable primer on the rules of logic. Try again
> when you understand them.

I understand them perfectly, but you're misapplying them.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Jim Smith]

Booker C. Bense <[email protected]> writes:

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

> >You said "being able to ... *will* save a lot of skin".
> >
> >This implies some skin will be lost if this ability was not
> > present.
>
> _ No it doesn't.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "will save" is. To me, it
looks like Benjamin is right.

> > If no
> >skin would be lost without the ability, how could the presence of the
> >ability "save skin"?
> >
>
> _ This is a logic fallacy. A implies B does not mean B implies
> A. Here's a readable primer on the rules of logic. Try again
> when you understand them.

I don't think he is claiming this. The statement as written looks to
me much more like: "not B iff A" rather than: "if A, then not B" where
B is "lose skin" and A is "can bunnyhop". Which did you have in mind?
Or was it something completely differant?

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

Jim Smith wrote:

> Booker C. Bense
> <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You said "being able to ... *will* save a lot of skin".
>>>
>>> This implies some skin will be lost if this ability was not
>>> present.
>>
>> _ No it doesn't.
>
> I suppose it depends on what your definition of "will save" is. To me,
> it looks like Benjamin is right.
>
>>> If no
>>> skin would be lost without the ability, how could the presence of the
>>> ability "save skin"?
>>>
>>
>> _ This is a logic fallacy. A implies B does not mean B implies
>> A. Here's a readable primer on the rules of logic. Try again
>> when you understand them.
>
> I don't think he is claiming this. The statement as written looks to
> me much more like: "not B iff A" rather than: "if A, then not B" where
> B is "lose skin" and A is "can bunnyhop".

Precisely. The statement "if A, then not B" would be more like the English
sentence "I bunny hop right now, it will save a lot of skin", where "right
now" is a situation in which maintaining the status quo would involve lost
skin.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

 

[Mike Latondresse]

Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Precisely. The statement "if A, then not B" would be more like
> the English sentence "I bunny hop right now, it will save a lot of
> skin", where "right now" is a situation in which maintaining the
> status quo would involve lost skin.
>
If you add the scenario of a of a muffler sliding toward you on the
road and nowhere to go (as happened to me) that works quite well.