Better Braking?

On 2/6/2020 3:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 13:30:09 UTC-5, wrote:
Big snip
Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Lou

I also could tell the difference, if I was able to ride my V-brake bicycle blindfolded, between those V-brakes and the cantilever brakes that were on it especially when riding through wet snow or slush. The V-brakes stop the bicycle in considerably less distance.

I'm curious about the difference in stopping distance. How big is that
difference?

Also, why do you suppose the V-brakes stop the bike in considerably less
distance? For example, is it greater overall mechanical advantage
between lever and calipers? Or is it higher coefficient of friction of
the brake shoes? Or something else?

Personally, I've got bikes with the old standard long arm cantilevers,
low profile cantilevers and V-brakes. I don't perceive any difference
between their stopping distance, except perhaps the tandem. The tandem's
lever feel is also different, since it has the straddle cables set to
give higher mechanical advantage. (The three speed's long arm centerpull
brakes are weaker. Their mechanical advantage is noticeably lower, and I
don't have good quality brake shoes on that bike.)

But I'll note, trying to stop as quickly as possible is extremely,
extremely rare for me. I'm surprised that people test that capacity very
often, at least on the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 8:54:55 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.


When disc brakes came to road bikes/touring bikes TOUR magazin tested them in heavy (on the brakes) conditions: steep downhill with a loaded bike and/or heavy rider. They encountered fading brakes and warped discs and advised not to use discs in these conditions and use. One or two years later they repeated the test and there was improvement but still not good enough according to TOUR magazin and still advised not to use discs in the tested conditions. In the last test 1 or 2 years ago the improvements were such that they could recommend disc brakes but they were still on par in dry conditions but a lot better in wet conditions. I never said that discs are the better brakes in all conditions and situations. Did I mention that non of my road bikes have discs? My cross bike has discs for the obvious reason and my new gravel bike will have discs because that bike will also be used for winter riding when at least the streets are wet 75% of the time and I'm done with the grinding sound on my rims and the tedious job of pry out the aluminum particles out of my brake pads.

Lou

On 2/6/2020 4:18 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 8:54:55 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.


Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.



When disc brakes came to road bikes/touring bikes TOUR magazin tested them in heavy (on the brakes) conditions: steep downhill with a loaded bike and/or heavy rider. They encountered fading brakes and warped discs and advised not to use discs in these conditions and use. One or two years later they repeated the test and there was improvement but still not good enough according to TOUR magazin and still advised not to use discs in the tested conditions. In the last test 1 or 2 years ago the improvements were such that they could recommend disc brakes but they were still on par in dry conditions but a lot better in wet conditions. I never said that discs are the better brakes in all conditions and situations. Did I mention that non of my road bikes have discs? My cross bike has discs for the obvious reason and my new gravel bike will have discs because that bike will also be used for winter riding when at least the streets are wet 75% of the time and I'm done with the grinding sound on my rims and the tedious job of pry out the aluminum particles out of my brake pads.


OK, to me that sounds like a better balanced discussion of brake
characteristics and choices for various conditions.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:51:38 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:05:53 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 11:31:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/5/2020 1:00 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:06:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/4/2020 10:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:11:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 2:49:20 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:12:47 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 2:17:00 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 20:15:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2020 7:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The OE direct mount brakes on my Trek stop well enough but have a slightly different feel than Ultegra dual pivot. Their reason for being is aerodynamics and light weight.

And everyone knows how critical aerodynamics are. Why, just look at how
Shimano AX absolutely transformed everyone's riding experience!

And light weight? Yep, pedaling your 180 pound bike+rider weight up a
hill is a completely different experience than pedaling your 179.9 pound
total bike+rider weight. That extra tenth of a pound absolutely sucks!
Thank God for 0.06% improvements!

But Frank! It's NEW! and everyone knows that NEW is BETTER......
O.K., it might cost a tiny bit more but just think, everyone will be
looking at you with envy (Pssst, he's got one of them there new
things...) and think of the bragging rights... "See, I was riding
along on my $3,000 bike there with the new thing on it..."

You have this weird fascination with price. Nobody I ride with buys anything as a status symbol -- and nobody pays OTC price. My Trek was pro-deal because I do work for the company, and most of my friends are in the industry. And even if I did pay full price for my bike, who cares? Why not have a bike that is fun to ride?

-- Jay Beattie.

Given that I am retired I think that some pre-occupation with prices
might be wise, but more important is the seeming allegation that one
must have an expensive bike to enjoy riding. You ask, "Why not have a
bike that is fun to ride?" and I might reply, "Why not have fun riding
a bike?"
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not saying you have to have an expensive bike to have fun. I'm saying that a stiff 16lb racing bike is a hoot when your racing friends up a climb or to a city limits sign -- or actually racing. You can love your beach-bomber or whatever, but having a bike that takes off when you hit the gas is fun. The price I paid for my Emonda was a blip on the financial radar. I ride with guys who have way more expensive bikes, although none of them paid full price either.

It's also fun having a bike that will bomb down a trail or carry luggage or that you can dump in the racks at work without worry (except for whacking the dyno light). I have a bunch of bikes and all are loved and used. I'm not trying to pry anyone's bike out of their cold dead hands. People can love whatever bike they want, but some bikes are more fun than others. Just like some cars, skis, monkey wrenches and frying pans are more fun than others. I even have a favorite pair of ski poles -- and a favorite dental floss.

-- Jay Beattie.

Strange. I have been using tools since I was a sub-teen and I can't
say that I ever had a favorite wrench, other than saying that the
proper size wrench (to fit the nut) was much to be admired. And while
I was a member of the high school ski team I can't remember having a
favorite pair of skis, or ski poles, other than having one pair for
downhill and another for cross country.

I asked my wife about favorite fry pans and she tells me that one uses
the correct pan for what one is doing and she has been cooking for
something like 60 years...

But perhaps we are disadvantaged in being able to enjoy skiing without
multiple sets of ski poles, or repairing things without a favorite
wrench or my wife without a favorite frying pan - I shall not tell her
that she is disadvantaged though as she already has a room full of
pots and pans and might want to buy even more :-)

O.K., just to get a base-line here, how about gas versus electric cook top? Straight razor versus triple-blade disposable? Flush toilet versus pit toilet? Do you have a favorite version of anything?

And why do you always frame things in a pejorative way, like "you can't enjoy skiing unless you have (gasp) multiple pairs of skis?" I enjoy cycling and skiing, but I enjoy them more when I'm on a certain bike (depending on terrain) or pair of skis (depending on snow). Don't you enjoy sitting in a more comfortable chair -- or is it presumptuous sitting on anything other than a three-leg milking stool? Do the restaurants in Thailand have only one menu item?

I have a favorite Crescent wrench with a nice padded handle that I found on the ground while riding. I have a favorite set of ski poles that are stiff with low swing weight and a generous strap (that broke, waaaah). I was skiing on Sunday, dodging all the dopes trying to get in a few runs before the Superbowl, and totally digging my favorite set of Portlund Ory-gun hand-made skis. https://shop.on3pskis.com/products/2020-jeffrey-108 Don't worry, I didn't pay that much -- but even if I did, so what? I got them at the "factory" years ago when it was about the size of a garage. I would have had fun on my other skis, too, but not as much fun. Some things just work better than others, or they're more fun to use than others. That doesn't mean that life is miserable without them.

But many people _think_ many things work better; or they _think_ they
are better quality. And indeed, they actually enjoy them more because
they _think_ they're better. It's so heartwarming!

But it gets weird when the item in question (like a "fine" wine, or a
"historic" violin, or an "immensely valuable" painting) is in fact quite
ordinary. And yes, that happens all the time.

https://corbettbarr.com/cheap-vs-exp...he-difference/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...nd-sound-check

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...nd-taste-tests

Of course, there are massive amounts of money spent to influence people
to think this way.

And as we see here, skepticism is not treated kindly!

While I can't argue with the expensive versus cheap wine tasting I can
say with all honesty that some wines tastes much better than other
wines. I made home made wine for a number of years and I can assure
you that some of the batches were so awful that I poured them down the
drain and others I was quite proud of :-)

I certainly agree that some tastes better than others. And I, too, have
made wine, and I too have had to dump some of it. But it's been proven
beyond (reasonable) doubt that quality in wine doesn't correlate with
price, as many believe. Interestingly, there was at least one test where
they examined activity in test subjects' brains as they drank different
wines. Tasters brains lit up with more pleasure when they were _told_
the wine they drank was pricey, even though it was the same cheap wine
they'd had before.

Frank, price does not necessarily equate to quality in anything (even
peanut butter) and applying it to only wine is a very one sided
argument as if, for example, you were to taste that stuff that they
used to sell for a dollar, in gallon jugs, with almost any brand sold
in bottles I believe that you would pick the bottles every time :-)
Even though they cost $1.50 :-)

And, I am reasonably sure that your test, mentioned above, was
conducted with people who were nephrites at wine tasting as I read
tests conducted at wine making get together's that show quite the
opposite. Where wines are tasted from unmarked glasses.


I think the best advice I heard regarding wine was to sample many
different wines (irrespective of price) and write down precisely what
you liked or did not like about each - i.e. whether you did or did not
like that a wine was sweet, dry, semi-sweet, smoky, oakey, fruity,
whatever. Then after a while, examine what you wrote. You'd be able to
discern your favorite characteristics, and ask your sommelier (or
grocery stock boy) for wines with those characteristics.

I certainly can't speak for all wine drinkers but my friends, and
myself, do exactly that. One samples various wines and when one finds
one that they like they buy it. And, I can't speak for all wineries,
but the ones here in Thailand all offer the opportunity of sampling
their vintages with the expectation that you will buy what tastes best
to you.

The second best advice I heard was to just buy the wine with the most
interesting graphics on the label, because that was probably as valuable
as an expert's opinion.

I believe that is a very foolish comment as certainly anyone who
drinks wine at all can tell the differences between a "decent" vintage
and a horrible vintage.

John B., write this down. Wine is grapes. That's it. Grapes. If everyone buys the same grapes -- which they do since vineyards sell grapes to anyone who wants them -- then how is it that wine from those grapes will taste different from one winery or another. It wont. And even among grapes from different vineyards grown at different times, the difference is infinitesimal. Basically all grapes are the same and thus all wine is the same, and any perceived difference is just because of marketing -- fancy labels, bottles, commercials produced by Big Grape. You think it tastes "different" or "better," but it doesn't. Stop writing.

Jay, grapes from the same vineyard might be used to produce a $11 bottle of wine and a $96 bottle of wine. Do you propose that people buying the expensive bottles of wine are merely deluded? Or perhaps they have tastes that are different from yours?

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.

That disc failure occurred after three minutes (and nine seconds) of descending at 30mph with an elevation loss of 493 feet in a mile and a half. Wow, that means I'd have brake failure twice just riding into work over the West Hills. Do you think there might be a problem with those brakes?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:16:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/6/2020 3:36 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, 6 February 2020 13:30:09 UTC-5, wrote:
Big snip
Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Lou

I also could tell the difference, if I was able to ride my V-brake bicycle blindfolded, between those V-brakes and the cantilever brakes that were on it especially when riding through wet snow or slush. The V-brakes stop the bicycle in considerably less distance.

I'm curious about the difference in stopping distance. How big is that
difference?

Also, why do you suppose the V-brakes stop the bike in considerably less
distance? For example, is it greater overall mechanical advantage
between lever and calipers? Or is it higher coefficient of friction of
the brake shoes? Or something else?

Personally, I've got bikes with the old standard long arm cantilevers,
low profile cantilevers and V-brakes. I don't perceive any difference
between their stopping distance, except perhaps the tandem. The tandem's
lever feel is also different, since it has the straddle cables set to
give higher mechanical advantage. (The three speed's long arm centerpull
brakes are weaker. Their mechanical advantage is noticeably lower, and I
don't have good quality brake shoes on that bike.)

But I'll note, trying to stop as quickly as possible is extremely,
extremely rare for me. I'm surprised that people test that capacity very
often, at least on the road.

My experience with vee brakes was that with the combination of brakes
and brake levers I was using I could stop either the front or rear
wheel from turning at about 25 mph, on either wet boot dry pavement -
never was brave enough to try it any faster - with very little
pressure on the brake levers. Can "braking" be better than that?

Stopping distance using those brakes would be, it seems to me, more a
matter of the operator rather than of the brakes.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 06:52:07 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 2:11:55 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 15:51:36 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 3:05:53 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 11:31:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/5/2020 1:00 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 22:06:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/4/2020 10:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 5:13:30 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 16:11:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 2:49:20 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 07:12:47 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 2:17:00 AM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 20:15:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/2/2020 7:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The OE direct mount brakes on my Trek stop well enough but have a slightly different feel than Ultegra dual pivot. Their reason for being is aerodynamics and light weight.

And everyone knows how critical aerodynamics are. Why, just look at how
Shimano AX absolutely transformed everyone's riding experience!

And light weight? Yep, pedaling your 180 pound bike+rider weight up a
hill is a completely different experience than pedaling your 179.9 pound
total bike+rider weight. That extra tenth of a pound absolutely sucks!
Thank God for 0.06% improvements!

But Frank! It's NEW! and everyone knows that NEW is BETTER.....
O.K., it might cost a tiny bit more but just think, everyone will be
looking at you with envy (Pssst, he's got one of them there new
things...) and think of the bragging rights... "See, I was riding
along on my $3,000 bike there with the new thing on it..."

You have this weird fascination with price. Nobody I ride with buys anything as a status symbol -- and nobody pays OTC price. My Trek was pro-deal because I do work for the company, and most of my friends are in the industry. And even if I did pay full price for my bike, who cares? Why not have a bike that is fun to ride?

-- Jay Beattie.

Given that I am retired I think that some pre-occupation with prices
might be wise, but more important is the seeming allegation that one
must have an expensive bike to enjoy riding. You ask, "Why not have a
bike that is fun to ride?" and I might reply, "Why not have fun riding
a bike?"
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not saying you have to have an expensive bike to have fun. I'm saying that a stiff 16lb racing bike is a hoot when your racing friends up a climb or to a city limits sign -- or actually racing. You can love your beach-bomber or whatever, but having a bike that takes off when you hit the gas is fun. The price I paid for my Emonda was a blip on the financial radar. I ride with guys who have way more expensive bikes, although none of them paid full price either.

It's also fun having a bike that will bomb down a trail or carry luggage or that you can dump in the racks at work without worry (except for whacking the dyno light). I have a bunch of bikes and all are loved and used. I'm not trying to pry anyone's bike out of their cold dead hands. People can love whatever bike they want, but some bikes are more fun than others. Just like some cars, skis, monkey wrenches and frying pans are more fun than others. I even have a favorite pair of ski poles -- and a favorite dental floss.

-- Jay Beattie.

Strange. I have been using tools since I was a sub-teen and I can't
say that I ever had a favorite wrench, other than saying that the
proper size wrench (to fit the nut) was much to be admired. And while
I was a member of the high school ski team I can't remember having a
favorite pair of skis, or ski poles, other than having one pair for
downhill and another for cross country.

I asked my wife about favorite fry pans and she tells me that one uses
the correct pan for what one is doing and she has been cooking for
something like 60 years...

But perhaps we are disadvantaged in being able to enjoy skiing without
multiple sets of ski poles, or repairing things without a favorite
wrench or my wife without a favorite frying pan - I shall not tell her
that she is disadvantaged though as she already has a room full of
pots and pans and might want to buy even more :-)

O.K., just to get a base-line here, how about gas versus electric cook top? Straight razor versus triple-blade disposable? Flush toilet versus pit toilet? Do you have a favorite version of anything?

And why do you always frame things in a pejorative way, like "you can't enjoy skiing unless you have (gasp) multiple pairs of skis?" I enjoy cycling and skiing, but I enjoy them more when I'm on a certain bike (depending on terrain) or pair of skis (depending on snow). Don't you enjoy sitting in a more comfortable chair -- or is it presumptuous sitting on anything other than a three-leg milking stool? Do the restaurants in Thailand have only one menu item?

I have a favorite Crescent wrench with a nice padded handle that I found on the ground while riding. I have a favorite set of ski poles that are stiff with low swing weight and a generous strap (that broke, waaaah). I was skiing on Sunday, dodging all the dopes trying to get in a few runs before the Superbowl, and totally digging my favorite set of Portlund Ory-gun hand-made skis. https://shop.on3pskis.com/products/2020-jeffrey-108 Don't worry, I didn't pay that much -- but even if I did, so what? I got them at the "factory" years ago when it was about the size of a garage. I would have had fun on my other skis, too, but not as much fun. Some things just work better than others, or they're more fun to use than others. That doesn't mean that life is miserable without them.

But many people _think_ many things work better; or they _think_ they
are better quality. And indeed, they actually enjoy them more because
they _think_ they're better. It's so heartwarming!

But it gets weird when the item in question (like a "fine" wine, or a
"historic" violin, or an "immensely valuable" painting) is in fact quite
ordinary. And yes, that happens all the time.

https://corbettbarr.com/cheap-vs-exp...he-difference/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...nd-sound-check

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...nd-taste-tests

Of course, there are massive amounts of money spent to influence people
to think this way.

And as we see here, skepticism is not treated kindly!

While I can't argue with the expensive versus cheap wine tasting I can
say with all honesty that some wines tastes much better than other
wines. I made home made wine for a number of years and I can assure
you that some of the batches were so awful that I poured them down the
drain and others I was quite proud of :-)

I certainly agree that some tastes better than others. And I, too, have
made wine, and I too have had to dump some of it. But it's been proven
beyond (reasonable) doubt that quality in wine doesn't correlate with
price, as many believe. Interestingly, there was at least one test where
they examined activity in test subjects' brains as they drank different
wines. Tasters brains lit up with more pleasure when they were _told_
the wine they drank was pricey, even though it was the same cheap wine
they'd had before.

Frank, price does not necessarily equate to quality in anything (even
peanut butter) and applying it to only wine is a very one sided
argument as if, for example, you were to taste that stuff that they
used to sell for a dollar, in gallon jugs, with almost any brand sold
in bottles I believe that you would pick the bottles every time :-)
Even though they cost $1.50 :-)

And, I am reasonably sure that your test, mentioned above, was
conducted with people who were nephrites at wine tasting as I read
tests conducted at wine making get together's that show quite the
opposite. Where wines are tasted from unmarked glasses.


I think the best advice I heard regarding wine was to sample many
different wines (irrespective of price) and write down precisely what
you liked or did not like about each - i.e. whether you did or did not
like that a wine was sweet, dry, semi-sweet, smoky, oakey, fruity,
whatever. Then after a while, examine what you wrote. You'd be able to
discern your favorite characteristics, and ask your sommelier (or
grocery stock boy) for wines with those characteristics.

I certainly can't speak for all wine drinkers but my friends, and
myself, do exactly that. One samples various wines and when one finds
one that they like they buy it. And, I can't speak for all wineries,
but the ones here in Thailand all offer the opportunity of sampling
their vintages with the expectation that you will buy what tastes best
to you.

The second best advice I heard was to just buy the wine with the most
interesting graphics on the label, because that was probably as valuable
as an expert's opinion.

I believe that is a very foolish comment as certainly anyone who
drinks wine at all can tell the differences between a "decent" vintage
and a horrible vintage.

John B., write this down. Wine is grapes. That's it. Grapes. If everyone buys the same grapes -- which they do since vineyards sell grapes to anyone who wants them -- then how is it that wine from those grapes will taste different from one winery or another. It wont. And even among grapes from different vineyards grown at different times, the difference is infinitesimal. Basically all grapes are the same and thus all wine is the same, and any perceived difference is just because of marketing -- fancy labels, bottles, commercials produced by Big Grape. You think it tastes "different" or "better," but it doesn't. Stop writing.

-- Jay Beattie.

Unfortunately you don't know what you are talking about!.
https://oureverydaylife.com/types-of...-12210772.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne

There are at least 5,000 varieties of wine grapes (some writers claim
10,000) and all of the major varsities of grapes make wine that tastes
differently. Not to mention that even the yeast used to make the wine
can affect the flavor. In additions many wines - champagne comes to
mind here - are made from a mix of grapes.

Yes some Vineyards sell grapes, but others, and I can think of two
here in Thailand, do not and I suspect that there are many others as
quite simply they have a market for all the wine that they can
produce.

You better stick to bicycles and ski poles as your explanation of the
wine subject is reminiscent of Tom's explanation of the U.S. economy.

Dang John B. You need a humor transplant. You're making my point.

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah.. I see. Deliberate lying is now considered humor... Well, I HAD
wondered. But now that I understand I can see that you elected a great
humorist as a president.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.

That disc failure occurred after three minutes (and nine seconds) of descending at 30mph with an elevation loss of 493 feet in a mile and a half. Wow, that means I'd have brake failure twice just riding into work over the West Hills. Do you think there might be a problem with those brakes?

Yes, a problem I've never had with cantilever brakes.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:15:30 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me.. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.

That disc failure occurred after three minutes (and nine seconds) of descending at 30mph with an elevation loss of 493 feet in a mile and a half. Wow, that means I'd have brake failure twice just riding into work over the West Hills. Do you think there might be a problem with those brakes?

Yes, a problem I've never had with cantilever brakes.

- Frank Krygowski

And not a problem I've had in 15 years of riding road discs, cable and hydraulic. I was unable to stop my canti-equipped touring bike while hauling my son in a Burley trailer in the rain once, and I had trouble stopping a bike with Universal CX brakes once (don't know why they were an issue) -- and I had trouble stopping a front cable discs once because I wore the pads down and didn't spin-in the adjuster (it's automatic on hydro discs). A quick adjustment solved that. I've done 14-15 mile descents (Larch Mountain) on discs with no problems. Like I said, the brakes in that article had problems beyond any inherent in the design. 400-500 feet of descending is nothing. That's half the descending I can do just riding into town over the hills, which I've done on discs many, many times.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, 7 February 2020 10:01:13 UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:15:30 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 5:14:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 11:54:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/6/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 6:42:54 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

We've seen the same thing regarding bicycle equipment. Many of us
remember the blind test of five identical unmarked frames made of
different steel tubing, which the "expert" bike testers couldn't tell
apart despite their years of rhapsodizing about minute changes in ride
quality. People have adamant opinions on the critical responsiveness of
shifting systems where the differences must be measured in hundredths of
a second. And I've known people, and we still have people, who claim a
0.05% weight difference is not only detectable but important.

Now have people fiercely arguing about "better" braking, even in dry
weather, from various brakes, with no clear definition of "better."


Gee Frank I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Still lecturing even when you are retired. Thumbs up.....
Put me on my bike with hydraulic disk brakes or on my bike with single/dual pivot brakes blindfolded in dry conditions and I will tell you with 100% certainty which brakes are on which bike.

Identification isn't the issue. Benefits vs. detriments are the issue -
or should be.

Do you care to address any of the technical points in that Santana
article? https://santanatandem.com/brake-tech/

Are your discs "better" for long fast descents, like this guy's?
https://bikerumor.com/2012/02/14/roa...ill-they-work/
Granted, it's an old article, but there is lots of specific technical
discussion - not all of it correct, of course.

Here, ISTM we could use more tech discussion, more specifics.

That disc failure occurred after three minutes (and nine seconds) of descending at 30mph with an elevation loss of 493 feet in a mile and a half.. Wow, that means I'd have brake failure twice just riding into work over the West Hills. Do you think there might be a problem with those brakes?

Yes, a problem I've never had with cantilever brakes.

- Frank Krygowski

And not a problem I've had in 15 years of riding road discs, cable and hydraulic. I was unable to stop my canti-equipped touring bike while hauling my son in a Burley trailer in the rain once, and I had trouble stopping a bike with Universal CX brakes once (don't know why they were an issue) -- and I had trouble stopping a front cable discs once because I wore the pads down and didn't spin-in the adjuster (it's automatic on hydro discs). A quick adjustment solved that. I've done 14-15 mile descents (Larch Mountain) on discs with no problems. Like I said, the brakes in that article had problems beyond any inherent in the design. 400-500 feet of descending is nothing. That's half the descending I can do just riding into town over the hills, which I've done on discs many, many times.

-- Jay Beattie.

I've said it before that I notice a big difference in the stopping distance of my dropbar snow bike in slop with the V-brakes over what the cantilever brakes did on the same wheels, the same bike and the same conditions. Those cantilever brakes were properly set up too.

If I was buying a new bike I might consider disc brakes provided I positively knew they wouldn't be noisy when not applied. Disc brake noise is something I see posted about a lot on various forums.

Cheers