Replacement for rec.bicycles.tech?

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:58:01 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:

On 20/09/12 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:

James wrote:

On 19/09/12 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:

James wrote:

On 19/09/12 01:05, rob perkins wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04:08 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:

Nothing of use. I didn't know that "metalurgy (sic) improved" so

dramatically that there is no longer a need to discuss bicycle tech.

Does anyone know where real discussions are taking place?





Why not ask here anyway?



Seems folks are bored out of their brains so discuss crap to pass the

time between real tech questions. (Sorry for any offense, Frank).



James, in the "What incline can be ridden..." thread, I posted

technical

calculations. You know, mechanical advantage, force ratios, free body

diagram work, etc. You posted a "Here's a hill" link. Which post was

"tech"?

...

Oh, and in the original question of what incline can be ridden, you used

35 instead of 36 in the gear ratio. I guess you're not as sharp as you

think.



Congratulations!



[crap snipped]



One major problem with r.b.tech is that truly technical discussions (as

well as anything that questions Buycycling-style trendiness) now get

labeled "crap." It's all about "gotcha" points, even for the simplest

typos.





--

- Frank Krygowski

Also, now that the rec.bicyle sister groups are so off-topic and spam laden many ask bicycling related questions here rather than wading through all of the crap on those other groups.

Cheers

On 20/09/12 11:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/09/12 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 01:05, rob perkins wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04:08 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
Nothing of use. I didn't know that "metalurgy (sic) improved" so
dramatically that there is no longer a need to discuss bicycle tech.
Does anyone know where real discussions are taking place?


Why not ask here anyway?

Seems folks are bored out of their brains so discuss crap to pass the
time between real tech questions. (Sorry for any offense, Frank).

James, in the "What incline can be ridden..." thread, I posted
technical
calculations. You know, mechanical advantage, force ratios, free body
diagram work, etc. You posted a "Here's a hill" link. Which post was
"tech"?
...
Oh, and in the original question of what incline can be ridden, you
used
35 instead of 36 in the gear ratio. I guess you're not as sharp as you
think.

Congratulations!

[crap snipped]

One major problem with r.b.tech is that truly technical discussions (as
well as anything that questions Buycycling-style trendiness) now get
labeled "crap." It's all about "gotcha" points, even for the simplest
typos.



Yes, your not so "truly technical" discussion that I snipped was laced
with condescending crap as usual, which is why I snipped it and called
it for what it was.

And if you don't like it when someone picks you up for posting what
would be classified as a non tech link by your own standards after
complaining about others who do similar, don't start. There's a lesson
for you there, about not throwing stones when you live in a glass house.

--
JS.

On Sep 19, 7:58*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/09/12 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 01:05, rob perkins wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04:08 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
Nothing of use. I didn't know that "metalurgy (sic) improved" so
dramatically that there is no longer a need to discuss bicycle tech.
Does anyone know where real discussions are taking place?

Why not ask here anyway?

Seems folks are bored out of their brains so discuss crap to pass the
time between real tech questions. (Sorry for any offense, Frank).

James, in the "What incline can be ridden..." thread, I posted
technical
calculations. You know, mechanical advantage, force ratios, free body
diagram work, etc. You posted a "Here's a hill" link. Which post was
"tech"?
...
Oh, and in the original question of what incline can be ridden, you used
35 instead of 36 in the gear ratio. I guess you're not as sharp as you
think.

Congratulations!

[crap snipped]

One major problem with r.b.tech is that truly technical discussions (as
well as anything that questions Buycycling-style trendiness) now get
labeled "crap." *It's all about "gotcha" points, even for the simplest
typos.

--
- Frank Krygowski

No, Frank, it's you and your whole approach that is crap.
Set up all the straw people and arguments you want. It must be lovely
to exist at the fifth grade level.
And speaking of tech, you don't grasp that you weren't even in the
ballpark when guessing the diameter of a nominal 26" (559mm) bicycle
tire.
And while steep climbing has its challenges, no, tipping over
backwards when climbing a slope over 30° is not one of them.
http://teamamp.org/sites/teamamp.dru...MBClimbing.jpg
Anyone a modicum of experience could have told you that.
But, yes, you're welcome for those corrections. No point in dragging
the group down with your errors.

Tech? OK. We'll be sure to remind you when the time comes that "taking
the lane" is not "tech." Nor is "Danger! Danger!"
Nor are your little smarmy faces ":-)" or any of the rest of your
smarminess.
Nor is anything about bicycle helmet laws nor whether helmets (or any
other equipment) are stylish or not.
Bike paths and/or painted bike lanes or lack thereof are not "tech."
It is not "tech" to claim knowledge about something you have no
experience with, especially to make disparaging remarks based upon
some personal agenda.
It is not "tech" to berate others for their opinions simply because
they differ from your obviously limited and close minded
perspective.
It is not "tech" to claim superiority, especially when the content of
your messages so clearly indicates a broad bias and/or lack of
understanding.
It is not "tech" to be promoting an agenda, it's religion.
And your opinion is not "tech." It is of no value to anyone else that
your limited type of riding can be done in Rockports.

In the meantime be prepared to listen. That's a critical part of
"discussion" that you are missing.
And don't whine about "discussion" when you aren't prepared to be a
part of the solution.
Get used to the fact that this is not a group of first graders. If you
can't respect the group members (I mean truly respect them), don't
expect any in return.
There are many here with more experience and knowledge than you,
especially in aspects of cycling that you have admittedly have NO
experience with.
That you are a legend in your own mind is not of much significance. In
fact it seriously detracts from your being able to provide any useful
content.
Recognize that your ubiquitous "there are people who..." method of
supporting a point is truly grade school level.

Frank you come off as a complete asshole (that's the best word for the
concept - deal with it) and reinforce that nearly every time you open
your mouth.
But if you can't make the effort to change that, you will still be
hilarious for both your ignorance and your complete hypocrisy.

DR (yes a pseudonym - get over it)

On Sep 18, 8:49 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:48 pm, Radey Shouman wrote:

rob perkins writes:
In the 90s, r.b.tech was useful. Now it is overrun with trolls and
garbage. Has the core of people who actually want to discuss bike
tech items moved anywhere discernible that is moderated or somehow
free of crap?

The long predicted death of Usenet actually occurred sometime between
then and now. Google had a hand in it.

Which groups are not overrun with trolls and garbage? (serious
question). In my experience r.b.t is one of the few groups with any
continuing relevance, although I don't doubt it has suffered a decline

And there really is less to talk about tech-wise, at least in some
respects. I mean, we don't have to worry about substituting a Swiss
headset for a French or gluing tubulars -- and not all that many
people still build their own wheels. It's more like "what wheels do I
buy," which, technically speaking, is not a technical question.
Whether a hub stands or hangs and half the stuff Jobst wrote about is
really irrelevant, and in fact, if you chose spoke tension based on
his soft-taco approach, you'd go through a lot of rims. But now and
again, we come up with real tech questions -- and they get answered.

Remember the long threads about brinelling headsets? Now its "oh, my
headset sucks. I'll throw in some new sealed angular contact
bearings." Greasing or not greasing tapers and Jobst's pedal collet
fix are all history, although I do wonder why we don't get more Ergo
re-build questions and that sort of stuff -- probably because it's all
on YouTube now.


I have characterized it this way: Ever hang out in the back of a bike
shop? There you go. The world's bike shop backroom.

On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:58:01 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:



yeah the downward turn is THE pattern for average posting discussions....in the NYT OP-ED cartoon.

yawl need go back to the beginning and read early discussions ...

RBT evolved into a general discusssion seperate from RBR...

as the Travel posts which are interesting reading if not directl;y technical or the West Nile which is oiff interest generally...

apparently therapy is OK also...

moderators are opaque sometimes.

"Joy Beeson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:53:53 -0700 (PDT), rob perkins
wrote:

Now it is overrun with trolls and garbage.

The filters I've set in Agent mark quite a few r.b.t. posts read, but
I'd hardly call the place "overrun", and I see discussions of
technical questions every day.

I don't know how to read headers, but I found the word "googlegroups"
in yours. If that's where you're reading, I'd suggest signing up with
Eternal September http://www.eternal-september.org/ . All Ray asks
in return for the service is a working e-mail address where he can
send your password, and the filtering is superb. The resident trolls
remain --only you can decide who you're willing to converse with, so
*those* guys can't be filtered out at the server-- but spam and
garbage rarely make it through.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net




Joy Beeson,
Thanks for the suggestion. I just switched to Eternal September; it's just
fine.
Kerry

James wrote:
On 20/09/12 11:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/09/12 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 01:05, rob perkins wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04:08 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
Nothing of use. I didn't know that "metalurgy (sic) improved" so
dramatically that there is no longer a need to discuss bicycle
tech.
Does anyone know where real discussions are taking place?


Why not ask here anyway?

Seems folks are bored out of their brains so discuss crap to pass
the
time between real tech questions. (Sorry for any offense, Frank).

James, in the "What incline can be ridden..." thread, I posted
technical
calculations. You know, mechanical advantage, force ratios, free body
diagram work, etc. You posted a "Here's a hill" link. Which post was
"tech"?
...
Oh, and in the original question of what incline can be ridden, you
used
35 instead of 36 in the gear ratio. I guess you're not as sharp as you
think.

Congratulations!

[crap snipped]

One major problem with r.b.tech is that truly technical discussions (as
well as anything that questions Buycycling-style trendiness) now get
labeled "crap." It's all about "gotcha" points, even for the simplest
typos.



Yes, your not so "truly technical" discussion that I snipped was laced
with condescending crap as usual...

James, what is it about equations and calculations that you find
condescending?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 21/09/12 12:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/09/12 11:58, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/09/12 01:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 13:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 19/09/12 01:05, rob perkins wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04:08 AM UTC-4, datakoll wrote:
Nothing of use. I didn't know that "metalurgy (sic) improved" so
dramatically that there is no longer a need to discuss bicycle
tech.
Does anyone know where real discussions are taking place?


Why not ask here anyway?

Seems folks are bored out of their brains so discuss crap to pass
the
time between real tech questions. (Sorry for any offense, Frank).

James, in the "What incline can be ridden..." thread, I posted
technical
calculations. You know, mechanical advantage, force ratios, free
body
diagram work, etc. You posted a "Here's a hill" link. Which post was
"tech"?
...
Oh, and in the original question of what incline can be ridden, you
used
35 instead of 36 in the gear ratio. I guess you're not as sharp as
you
think.

Congratulations!

[crap snipped]

One major problem with r.b.tech is that truly technical discussions (as
well as anything that questions Buycycling-style trendiness) now get
labeled "crap." It's all about "gotcha" points, even for the simplest
typos.



Yes, your not so "truly technical" discussion that I snipped was laced
with condescending crap as usual...

James, what is it about equations and calculations that you find
condescending?


Frank,the equations and calculations were interlaced with so much
condescending crap, I couldn't be bothered dissecting the **** from the
clay, so to speak.

Out of 5 paragraphs, you managed one that wasn't condescending and
contained some "tech", and one other that contained condescending crap
with little "tech".

Unless you were trying to fail, you didn't even reach a 50% pass mark!

--
JS

James wrote:
On 21/09/12 12:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:

Yes, your not so "truly technical" discussion that I snipped was laced
with condescending crap as usual...

James, what is it about equations and calculations that you find
condescending?


Frank,the equations and calculations were interlaced with so much
condescending crap, I couldn't be bothered dissecting the **** from the
clay, so to speak.

Out of 5 paragraphs, you managed one that wasn't condescending and
contained some "tech", and one other that contained condescending crap
with little "tech".

Unless you were trying to fail, you didn't even reach a 50% pass mark!

Here's what I wrote. Everything except the final punctuation and
emoticon is what I'd write to any engineering colleague, and none of the
hundreds of engineers I've worked with would judge it to be anything but
good technical discussion.

What on _earth_ can you find offensive in a straightforward technical
calculation like this???

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. Well, to simplify things a bit: If the crank arm's horizontal and
the rider's weight (Wr) is on the forward pedal, the thrust at the
ground (i.e. the pavement's up-the-hill push on the bottom of the rear
tire) would be crank radius / tire radius * 35 / 22, or about 0.8 * Wr

Let's assume a bike weight about 15% of the rider weight, so total
weight is 1.15 * Wr.

Drawing a free body diagram with X axis aligned to the road surface, and
that surface tilted up at an angle theta, and assuming equilibrium in
the X direction, i.e. X components totaling zero, it looks like
0.8 * Wr - 1.15 * Wr * sin(theta) = 0

I get theta to be roughly 45 degrees. IOW, a 100% grade. But yes,
pitching over rearward would be a real problem, if it's anything like a
standard bike.

Complications are, if the crank arm's non-horizontal, which it usually
is, that maximum possible angle would be less. OTOH, a rider can pull
upward on the bars, generating more pedal force than his weight, and
allowing for acceleration during the power phase, to counter
deceleration when cranks are near vertical.

And of course, he can pull up on his rear foot, if he's got the right
equipment!! ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 21, 9:16*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
James wrote:
On 21/09/12 12:55, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:

Yes, your not so "truly technical" discussion that I snipped was laced
with condescending crap as usual...

James, what is it about equations and calculations that you find
condescending?

Frank,the equations and calculations were interlaced with so much
condescending crap, I couldn't be bothered dissecting the **** from the
clay, so to speak.

Out of 5 paragraphs, you managed one that wasn't condescending and
contained some "tech", and one other that contained condescending crap
with little "tech".

Unless you were trying to fail, you didn't even reach a 50% pass mark!

Here's what I wrote. Everything except the final punctuation and
emoticon is what I'd write to any engineering colleague, and none of the
hundreds of engineers I've worked with would judge it to be anything but
good technical discussion.

What on _earth_ can you find offensive in a straightforward technical
calculation like this???

--------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. *Well, to simplify things a bit: *If the crank arm's horizontal and
the rider's weight (Wr) is on the forward pedal, the thrust at the
ground (i.e. the pavement's up-the-hill push on the bottom of the rear
tire) would be crank radius / tire radius * 35 / 22, or about 0.8 * Wr

Let's assume a bike weight about 15% of the rider weight, so total
weight is 1.15 * Wr.

Drawing a free body diagram with X axis aligned to the road surface, and
that surface tilted up at an angle theta, and assuming equilibrium in
the X direction, i.e. X components totaling zero, it looks like
0.8 * Wr - 1.15 * Wr * sin(theta) = 0

I get theta to be roughly 45 degrees. *IOW, a 100% grade. *But yes,
pitching over rearward would be a real problem, if it's anything like a
standard bike.

Complications are, if the crank arm's non-horizontal, which it usually
is, that maximum possible angle would be less. *OTOH, a rider can pull
upward on the bars, generating more pedal force than his weight, and
allowing for acceleration during the power phase, to counter
deceleration when cranks are near vertical.

And of course, he can pull up on his rear foot, if he's got the right
equipment!! ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank, tell us more about about pulling up with the rear foot. Or does
the ";-)" have some sort of "technical" meaning?
You mentioned that a rider "can pull upward on the bars, generating
more pedal force than his weight."
Is that limited to one dimension?
Is pedaling limited to application of force in a single direction?
Also tell how you arrived at the dimensions you chose for wheel size.
Maybe you can give us the make, model and size of tire you chose.
And how did you conclude that "pitching over rearward" was a risk?
That seems to be a poor assumption even based upon your references.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0AHf2l_C7c
(But we love that you justify your position by reference to fictitious
persons with fictitious perspectives)
I can assure you that all my fictitious friends agree with me too!
But don't your engineer colleagues ever ask questions?
If I were one I'd be asking you the same questions.

DR