|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On 8/28/2019 10:27 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote: You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? That's extremely naive. Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were dropping, SUVs were rising. But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs. And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes. It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive, massive effort it is. What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest. Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market! But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled -- buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it is, take it or leave it." This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon. I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've always been an ad skeptic. I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like. But the point is, they are told what to like.) Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads: Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there are people that just gotta have it. According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't spend all that money. Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh, and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized wheels if that matters. You really should get one. If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or 28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short distances, and it works fine.) But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm? Because they were stylish and promoted. Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish and promoted. -- - Frank Krygowski Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but that didn't last long. I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though. The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound. -- duane The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better. So, extending the trendline will eventually end up at Medium Italian [me]: 22.5mm tubulars. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 11:50:44 UTC-4, Duane wrote: Snipped I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though. The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound. -- duane The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better. The friend I’m talking about weighs probably 110. But I think her and her husband explore sometimes so may encounter gravel more than me. -- duane I have one of my road bikes shod with Schwalbe CX Pro Cyclo-Cross 30mm knobby tires. It's a very nice ride for those days when I might decided to ride one of the many dirt/gravel roads around here. Sometimes it's nice to have the option to cut my ride short by riding back along a dirt/gravel road rather than having to ride many, many kilometers (miles) to the next paved road that takes me towards my destination. That's yet another example of how needs/wants can vary even with the same bicyclist on different days or different rides. My Tarmac won’t take 25s. I wasn’t interested in anything bigger and I love the tarmac. I had a Bianchi Volpe for touring or gravel or whatever. I gave it to a friend since I wasn’t using it and it’s a bike that should be ridden. I did find that tires can make a HUGE difference in how a bike feels and how it rides. Cheers Tires and wheels. Lots of options. -- duane |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 14:39:15 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2019 10:27 AM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote: You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? That's extremely naive. Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were dropping, SUVs were rising. But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs. And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes. It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive, massive effort it is. What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest. Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market! But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled -- buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it is, take it or leave it." This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon. I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've always been an ad skeptic. I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like. But the point is, they are told what to like.) Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads: Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there are people that just gotta have it. According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't spend all that money. Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh, and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized wheels if that matters. You really should get one. If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or 28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short distances, and it works fine.) But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm? Because they were stylish and promoted. Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish and promoted. -- - Frank Krygowski Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but that didn't last long. I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though. The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound. -- duane The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better. So, extending the trendline will eventually end up at Medium Italian [me]: 22.5mm tubulars. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 They might be a pita to repair but I simple love the feel of the ride my tubular tires and rims give to any of the bicycles I put them on. I'm getting a really good deal on an old bicycle with full Campagnolo Triomphe groupset because the wheels are tubular and the fellow doesn't want tubular wheels and tires. He's even throwing in t he two brand new spare tubular tires he bought but never used. Cheers |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 14:39:15 UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2019 10:27 AM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote: Tom Kunich wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote: You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? That's extremely naive. Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were dropping, SUVs were rising. But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs. And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes. It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive, massive effort it is. What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest. Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market! But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled -- buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it is, take it or leave it." This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon. I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've always been an ad skeptic. I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like. But the point is, they are told what to like.) Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads: Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there are people that just gotta have it. According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't spend all that money. Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh, and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized wheels if that matters. You really should get one. If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or 28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short distances, and it works fine.) But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm? Because they were stylish and promoted. Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish and promoted. -- - Frank Krygowski Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but that didn't last long. I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though. The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound. -- duane The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better. So, extending the trendline will eventually end up at Medium Italian [me]: 22.5mm tubulars. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 A lightwieght Fixie with tubular wheels and tires gives a SUPERB ride! Cheers |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:38:37 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 2:54:45 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon *seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent *than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But *even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part *interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less *than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya? In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their ability and to each according to their needs". -- Cheers, John B. Cute. No. History. -- Cheers, John B. No, I meant you. Not Marx. Who gets to define “needs”? Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy" are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you. -- Cheers, Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find nifty quotes? I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who gets to define “needs”?" Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others" -- Which is not needs. Cheers, John B. duane John live3s in a foreign country so that he can live upper class. Then he tells us that socialism which he himself doesn't practice is intellectual. Nope :-) I live in a foreign country because I prefer to live in this particular country. As for socialism (how did that get into the conversation?) it is usually just a method of insulating the proletariat from their own shortcomings. On one hand we have those like Frank who retired with what is apparently a reasonable income and then we have others who brag about their $4,000 bicycle and, at the same time, bemoan the cost of groceries. -- Cheers, John B. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:29:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon *seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent *than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But *even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part *interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less *than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya? In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their ability and to each according to their needs". -- Cheers, John B. Cute. No. History. -- Cheers, John B. No, I meant you. Not Marx. Who gets to define ?needs?? Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy" are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you. -- Cheers, Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find nifty quotes? I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who gets to define ?needs??" Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others" -- Which is not needs. Cheers, John B. I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy. needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise 1. require as useful, just, or proper 2. have need of This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner 3. have or feel a need for always needs friends and money need ~ noun uncommon 1. a condition requiring relief she satisfied his need for affection; 2. anything that is necessary but lacking he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply his wants 3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives purpose and direction to behavior 4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the homeless Got it? -- Cheers, John B. And you just pointed out before that needy means being poor enough to require help from others. If you don’t see the difference I give up. Google something else. And if you don’t want a CF road bike, don’t buy one. I don’t need one but I want one and I’m not so needy that I can’t afford one. It is obvious that in today's U.S. "needy" is no longer a matter of life and death - but largely a matter of the individual's emotions or imagination as I read that: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...overty-america Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries ) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. -- Cheers, John B. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:49:22 -0500, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2019 7:29 AM, Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping. You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon  seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent  than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But  even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part  interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less  than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations. All cranks for square taper BBs for example. If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya? In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their ability and to each according to their needs". -- Cheers, John B. Cute. No. History. -- Cheers, John B. No, I meant you. Not Marx. Who gets to define “needs”? Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy" are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you. -- Cheers, Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find nifty quotes? I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who gets to define “needs”?" Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others" -- Which is not needs. Cheers, John B. I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy. needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise 1. require as useful, just, or proper 2. have need of This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner 3. have or feel a need for always needs friends and money need ~ noun uncommon 1. a condition requiring relief she satisfied his need for affection; 2. anything that is necessary but lacking he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply his wants 3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives purpose and direction to behavior 4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the homeless Got it? -- Cheers, John B. And you just pointed out before that needy means being poor enough to require help from others. If you don’t see the difference I give up. Google something else. And if you don’t want a CF road bike, don’t buy one. I don’t need one but I want one and I’m not so needy that I can’t afford one. "needs" help from others is a character flaw not an income level. :-) As I wrote in another post, some own a 10 year old car and seem to live quite comfortably while others brag about their $4,000 bicycle an bemoan the cost of groceries :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 12:29:54 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part Â*interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya? In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their ability and to each according to their needs". -- Cheers, John B. Cute. No. History. -- Cheers, John B. No, I meant you. Not Marx. Who gets to define ?needs?? Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy" are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you. -- Cheers, Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find nifty quotes? I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who gets to define ?needs??" Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others" -- Which is not needs. Cheers, John B. I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy. needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise 1. require as useful, just, or proper 2. have need of This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner 3. have or feel a need for always needs friends and money need ~ noun uncommon 1. a condition requiring relief she satisfied his need for affection; 2. anything that is necessary but lacking he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply his wants 3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives purpose and direction to behavior 4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the homeless Got it? -- Cheers, John B. And you just pointed out before that needy means being poor enough to require help from others. If you donÂ’t see the difference I give up. Google something else. And if you donÂ’t want a CF road bike, donÂ’t buy one. I donÂ’t need one but I want one and IÂ’m not so needy that I canÂ’t afford one. It is obvious that in today's U.S. "needy" is no longer a matter of life and death - but largely a matter of the individual's emotions or imagination as I read that: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and...overty-america Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries ) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. -- Cheers, John B. More googling. Not sure what your point is so I’m done. -- duane |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
Ford actually made his own market. He gave his workers a raise to the unheard of heights of $5/day and then they could afford to buy a Ford.
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: Ford actually made his own market. He gave his workers a raise to the unheard of heights of $5/day and then they could afford to buy a Ford. Yes, in 1914 Ford announced that Ford Motorcar workers would be paid $5,00 a day, about double what others in the business were paying. In addition he reduced the work day from 9 hours to 8 hours. I read part of an article written by Edward Peter Garrett who not only researched Ford's actions but apparently also had several meetings with Ford. From the article it appeared that assemble line work was extremely tedious. By January of 1914, the Ford continuous-motion system reduced the time to build a car from 12 and a half hours to 93 minutes. But the pace and repetitiveness of the jobs was so demanding, many workers found themselves unable to withstand it for eight hours a day, no matter how much they were paid. So Ford apparently figured "pay good money, get good help". And it worked. -- Cheers, John B. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shimano Carbon Wheelset | Brian Meahan | Marketplace | 0 | May 12th 06 04:55 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset + More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 16th 05 09:30 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 15th 05 10:24 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 14th 05 10:39 PM |
WTT: Zip 303 All Carbon Tubular Wheelset & Lots more | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | August 23rd 05 11:09 AM |