A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chinese Carbon Wheelset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old August 28th 19, 07:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default 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  
Old August 28th 19, 07:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default 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  
Old August 28th 19, 07:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default 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  
Old August 28th 19, 07:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 12:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 12:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 12:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 01:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 03:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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  
Old August 29th 19, 11:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.