Oy, this conversation is frustrating to read. I like Jan's blog but to say that those are "experiments" or "scientific" is not really all that accurate, take for example this page with speed testing for car tires http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/upgradetire/econ/TireUpgradeII.html a study like that probably cost millions to conduct but it is just for industry gurus and race car drivers. it is the same for wind resistance and modeling for cars to test for speed, millions of dollars each year. The thing is Most car drivers like most bike riders just want something round that doesnt wear out too fast, I bet if you asked 10 riders out there what size they were running only half would have any idea and they are happy riding them! I appreciate Jan's observations and his tests for what they are, an expert opinion on a product. If I get I set of tires and I dont like them I am out the cost of shipping to sell them to someone else or at most the cost of the tires, not a big loss in the grand scheme of bike-dom and maybe you get a set you love and use for thousands of miles you never would have used if not for a review on BQ.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:06 PM, ted <ted.ke...@comcast.net> wrote: > Steve, > > I am sorry but I won't spend time culling for quotes with citations. > Clearly "stiffer" and "faster" are objective terms regardless of who > uses them. > From reading the section of Jan's blog referenced at the start of this > thread (the post and associated comments) my impression is that he is > convinced a bike built with the right amount of flexibility is faster > than a stiffer one because of it's greater flexibility (or > equivalently the others greater stiffness), that bikes built with > oversized tubes are usually or almost always too stiff in this > respect, and that a bike that is too stiff is a poor (subjective term > there) performance bike because its excess stiffness makes it slower > than a properly designed (subjective term there) bike with the right > flex. > From posts in this thread I conclude he has demonstrated this effect > experimentally and does not consider it a matter of opinion. > > If I have misconstrued his meaning I certainly regret it. > Please consider anything I have written about what he thinks or writes > retracted. > > On Aug 7, 11:14 am, Steve Palincsar <palin...@his.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 21:42 -0700, ted wrote: > > > Certainly fads or styles or whatever have ebbed and flowed over > > > whether or not a noodly frame is undesirable, or how stiff is stiff > > > enough, or if stiff is harsh and uncomfortable, or whatever, but I > > > think Jan is fairly unique in claiming categorically that the right > > > flex is faster, and enough faster that a stiff bike can't be a good > > > "performance" bike. > > > > Citation, please. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
