On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:07 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Should've been clearer. I meant, why do they relish pointing out the
insignificance of small savings in weight or aerodynamics, while not
also recognizing that some durability improvements are insignificant
too?

I suppose having a history of running into too many smug, snobby,
self-satisfied roadies who like to criticize and look down on anyone
who dares to be practical as a "Fred" leads to enjoying pointing out
how foolish they are, since none of them are ever going to win any
races of significance. (The really good riders have nothing to prove,
and therefore are much more pleasant and friendly.)

So you're saying that a reaction to a certain type of cyclist leads
you to make proclamations about what is sensible for other cyclists,
*in general* to use. Proclamations that are in contrast to what other
cyclists often choose themselves.

OK. But it seems to me that it would easy for a cyclist who likes
intergrated shifters and has never had problems with his/her wheels,
even though they have less than 36 spokes, to think of you as pretty
smug and snobby yourself. Not snobby about having pricey equipment,
but snobby in saying your approach to equipment is more sensible than
theirs. When it might not be.

And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't
explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than
what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole
front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel
impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************