The idée fixe of the anti-helmet zealots, the vehicular cyclists, etc

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:02:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:44:44 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:



When I began watching this group back in the early '90s, it was one of the few places you could get technical information. The information was practical and theoretical, and the posters used their own names and the group self-policed. The "Sheldon is a party doll" thread was ground-breaking as the first super-long political rant. It would be ho-hum these days -- lost in the noise of political rants.



Well, we should recognize that the political ranters are not bike people anyway. Someone somehow invited in a gaggle of multi-group-spamming trolls..



Anyway, apart from the group basically cannibalizing itself, there is just less tech to talk about -- you can practically build a bike with a pocket tool these days, assuming you have a press-fit BB.



That's certainly a large part of it. The technology has improved significantly, so there are fewer problems to solve. Most new tech seems to be chasing ever-diminishing benefits. (It's interesting that thanks largely to Jobst, the problem of broken spokes has largely gone away; but thanks to weight-reducing manufacturers, has been replaced by the problem of cracked rims.)



And there are a lot more outlets for information. A lot of tech is also just brand endorsement, e.g. which wheels to buy, or it's very manufacturer specific and apparently too new and not very interesting to this group.



"What brand should I buy?" does have limited appeal. It usually devolves to "Gee, I sure like this!" And people who have long ago settled on reliable equipment don't have much to say about "THIS year's model!!" because they don't need to buy it.



I have a BB30 on my new Cannondale. I'm pretty sure it is press fit, but it has spacers and apparently extraneous parts that are unfamiliar to me.. I look at it and think that one day I'll have to take it apart.



But maybe not!



I will go to YouTube or Park Tool or SRAM (it's a Red crank)and figure it out. Fifteen years ago, I would have gone to this group -- although I would have braced for Jobst cross-examining me on why I bought such a ridiculous piece of technology, etc., etc.



Jobst always was curmudgeonly, but brilliant. He and I corresponded a bit, rather pleasantly, although I thought he was too fond of edge riding.



He had to put up with "jim beam." I wonder how he'd feel about some of the current vitriol.


No offense to Jobst, but the problem of broken spokes was solved mostly by DT. Spokes just got more reliable. Plus, Jobst's stress-relief regimen was accomplished inadvertently by most builders when they side loaded the wheel during building or "corrected" spoke line or bedded the spokes. All of this was done back in the day before the Book, but no one talked about stress-relieving, except maybe relieving the stress of building by having a beer. Jobst explained the science and came up with a simpler squeeze technique, but spoke breakage dropped in great part because people stopped using Stella, Robergel, Alpina, etc. and started using DT.

If not injured, Jobst would have dropped out of this group -- like Sheldon did before he died. The vast technical experience is now somewhere else, or nowhere. Even our garage putterers like Carl Fogel are gone. Damon Rinard went on to design for Cevelo and would certainly laugh at all the CF "danger, danger" talk. http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/19/30-...-damon-rinard/

Andrew, don't go! . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:20:06 -0800 (PST), Jay Beattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:36:39 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:



Not sure why I hang out here except that there are a few like minded

cyclists left here that aren't religious zealots, self appointed experts

or wielders of the sword and shield of righteousness. There are a few

people here that care about riding bikes and sharing knowledge about

riding bikes in spite of these other clowns.



As far as I'm concerned, if you want to joust with the purveyors of the

one true religion then feel free to do so.



Duane, be honest. You were greatly offended that I debated you on the absolute necessity of bike lanes to remove the (supposed) great dangers of bicycling. And you were _extremely_ offended when I rebutted your "It's dangerous _here!_" claims with data indicating cycling in your area was significantly safer than in the U.S. on average. You were so offended that you kill-filed me and never forgave me.



Your problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a "religion" is relevant facts, data and their citations.) Your problem is that my views differ from YOUR "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge riding, and that I've posted data showing your religion to be wrong.

But don't you remember that I rebutted your rebuttal with statistical evidence showing that it was very dangerous in the area where Duane rode but that the cyclists were extraordinarily skilled in avoiding injury, much like Ninja warriors or monks who can dodge bullets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAH_...FADBA8E8A1D02E

You must look beyond the numbers. We are not numbers! (repeat after me). We own the numbers. They do not own us!

-- Jay Beattie.

You may own the numbers but if you believe the youtube film you posted
you are severally handicapped in your mathematics.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12-17-2013, 09:48, Andre Jute wrote:
Out for a ride before the wind rises further and drives the temperature down any more.

Quite cold here, but that's not why I'm walking.
The white stuff is such that wheels are ineffective.

--
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
— Benjamin Franklin

On 12-17-2013, 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Well, we should recognize that the political ranters are not bike people anyway. Someone somehow invited in a gaggle of multi-group-spamming trolls.

Wouldn't be hard to describe you as a political ranter.

--
Wes Groleau

I won't burn your Koran because I don't want you to burn my Bible;
but if you burn my Bible, no one's going to die.
— Robert Rhee

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:01:12 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

No offense to Jobst, but the problem of broken spokes was solved mostly by DT. Spokes just got more reliable. Plus, Jobst's stress-relief regimen was accomplished inadvertently by most builders when they side loaded the wheel during building or "corrected" spoke line or bedded the spokes. All of this was done back in the day before the Book, but no one talked about stress-relieving, except maybe relieving the stress of building by having a beer. Jobst explained the science and came up with a simpler squeeze technique, but spoke breakage dropped in great part because people stopped using Stella, Robergel, Alpina, etc. and started using DT.

I don't doubt the benefit of metallurgical and other processing advances. But as an ME, Jobst's technical explanations were far more specific and correct than what had appeared in print before. And his book on wheelbuilding was not the first. I'd read at least one previous book, and many articles.. The difference was night and day. Before Jobst, it really was myth and lore.

And I believe the knowledge spread. People doing wheel building know things that were not known before Jobst. Also, today we have machine built wheels that are quite reliable. I think it's a mistake to think the designers of those machines are not using the knowledge that Jobst gave us. Engineering knowledge does spread.

If not injured, Jobst would have dropped out of this group -- like Sheldon did before he died. The vast technical experience is now somewhere else, or nowhere.

Oh, it's in lots of places. There's still some here.

Even our garage putterers like Carl Fogel are gone.

And I miss Dear Carl!

Damon Rinard went on to design for Cevelo and would certainly laugh at all the CF "danger, danger" talk. http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/19/30-...-damon-rinard/

But let's also note that Damon Rinard, of all people, would scoff at the road test we discussed a year or two ago, comparing a modern racing bike with one from the 80s, and claiming great differences from aspects other than weight. Rinard is the man who used physics principles to build the Analytic Cycling site. AC is a site respected by Carl Fogel, Jobst and me, and a site that demonstrates that climbing speed depends on little beyond power and total weight. If "responsiveness" and "handling" were important, Rinard would have built those factors in.

Andrew, don't go! . . .

Yes, agreed. And I agree that the average technical level here has decreased, along with the general level of civility. I keep hoping for improvement.

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:14:50 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:

Tablets are useless for colds, fluids are more effective :-)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to kill off the last of a cold, which is a nagging cough. And two nights ago, a good friend recommended Rock & Rye, a sweet 50 proof cordial, infused with citrus and horehound. He said it's "the old folks cough medicine."

And he seems to be right. Works a charm!

- Frank Krygowski

On 17/12/2013 21:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

To respond with reluctance:

Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.

The stem is very briefly interesting - worth a "look at this", but not
much discussion to be had.

The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
"new tech" either.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:24:16 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:14:50 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:

Tablets are useless for colds, fluids are more effective :-)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to kill off the last of a cold, which is a nagging cough. And two nights ago, a good friend recommended Rock & Rye, a sweet 50 proof cordial, infused with citrus and horehound. He said it's "the old folks cough medicine."

And he seems to be right. Works a charm!

- Frank Krygowski

And a little more will give you a good night's sleep too.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:34:02 +0000, Clive George
wrote:

On 17/12/2013 21:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

To respond with reluctance:

Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.

The stem is very briefly interesting - worth a "look at this", but not
much discussion to be had.

The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
"new tech" either.

Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 02:51:27 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

davethedave considered Mon, 16 Dec 2013
23:12:54 +0200 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

Since when do you tell me what I can and cannot say, Scharfie? Just who
do you think you are?

fetches popcorn, gets comfy

reclines chair, puts feet on toasty rack of computers
This could get very good.


Or perhaps build a better kill file :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.