# Fifty Plus (50+) - (N-1)+(N+1)=Net 0

Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.

View Full Version : (N-1)+(N+1)=Net 0

SaiKaiTai
12-09-08, 06:41 PM
Farewell Gary Fisher, old friend
Hello Jamis, new friend :D

robtown
12-09-08, 06:52 PM
or = 2N

Must have pictures. Jamis road bike? I'm building a Jamis Eclipse and built a Jamis Comet this summer.

12-09-08, 07:00 PM
I have several 1/2N's in the garage. Some may eventually become full N's while others will remain 1/2N's indefinitely.

BluesDawg
12-09-08, 07:38 PM
Cool. Let's see the pictures. That would be the Jamis tourer with CX-like geometry, right? Looks like a nice bike

But bad math. Whatever number of bikes you have at any given moment = N

12-09-08, 08:16 PM
Making you immediately ready for N+1.

SaiKaiTai
12-09-08, 08:29 PM
Cool. Let's see the pictures. That would be the Jamis tourer with CX-like geometry, right? Looks like a nice bike

But bad math. Whatever number of bikes you have at any given moment = N

Well, yeah, there is that, isn't there?

Pictures?
All in good time. I just swapped the pedals out and the saddle.
You'll blanch, I know, but I'm trying my B-67 on the bike.
This is my "built for comfort, not for speed" bike so I'm giving it a shot.
And I don't even get to ride it yet.
I actually have to make an appearance at work tomorrow and after we're having our group's xmas dinner.
No night ride, either :(
But, come Thursday :D

And, yep, it's the '08 Jamis Aurora Elite. There's a guy online somewhere who discounts the role of bottom bracket drop in a bike's stability. He thinks the trail is much more important. I dunno but this bike was really solid carving down a pretty sharp drop. I can't wait...

Now, anyone want a Reno? That's next (and on the block now)

BluesDawg
12-09-08, 09:05 PM
I shouldn't have even mentioned the geometry. There are a whole lot of factors affecting how a bike handles and feels and what matters is the net effect - how it all comes together and works for you. From what you have posted on here, you have ridden this bike a few times and it started talking to you from the beginning. I'm betting this bike is going to turn out to be a great addition to your stable and will lead to all sorts of new ways for you to enjoy cycling. Happy trails. :)

SaiKaiTai
12-09-08, 10:02 PM
I shouldn't have even mentioned the geometry. There are a whole lot of factors affecting how a bike handles and feels and what matters is the net effect - how it all comes together and works for you. From what you have posted on here, you have ridden this bike a few times and it started talking to you from the beginning. I'm betting this bike is going to turn out to be a great addition to your stable and will lead to all sorts of new ways for you to enjoy cycling. Happy trails. :)

Oh no, no worries there.
You said nothing that got me second guessing, no offense was taken, etc...
Once I took this baby down that hill, all doubts vanished. I am so excited about this bike's future.
I really kind of see it as the child my Fisher and my LeMond would have had.
The bike I was looking for when I bought my Kaitai but didn't know it.

And believe me, I've done a LOT of reading about bike geometry and how it relates to "feel"
Some of it makes perfect sense and some I might come to understand more later.
I do think I understand why this bike feels the way it does but, then, I've only ridden it for about 10 miles. There's a lot more to learn. Comparing and contrasting with my Giant is going to be interesting.

One thing I do remember now is how much I hate V-brake noodles.

edit: ohhhhh... I see it now. No, when you said:
"But bad math. Whatever number of bikes you have at any given moment = N"

I said:
"Well, yeah, there is that, isn't there?"

As in:
"Yep, you're absolutely right."

12-09-08, 10:07 PM
Congrats. Glad to hear that you completed both transactions.

bkaapcke
12-10-08, 10:32 AM
What, we're gonna have algebra around here? No way, man. bk

stapfam
12-10-08, 11:45 AM
What, we're gonna have algebra around here? No way, man. bk

This isn't Algebra- It is just a simple formulation of requirements where N= the number of bikes have-or need. N+1 just improves the situation. But To lose one bike to gain one that is better required is just common sense. No improvement yet.

Hermes
12-10-08, 12:52 PM
or = 2N

Must have pictures. Jamis road bike? I'm building a Jamis Eclipse and built a Jamis Comet this summer.

I noted the same thing. He ends up with twice the number of bikes with which he started.:roflmao2: This is probably closer to the right answer over the long term.:D

Allegheny Jet
12-10-08, 01:35 PM
Parts that will be used sometime in the future, or to replace existing equipment, are considered "consumable supplies" right? So if the current inventory of "consumable supplies" could be assembled into another bike is that N+1?

SaiKaiTai
12-10-08, 01:38 PM
I noted the same thing. He ends up with twice the number of bikes with which he started.:roflmao2: This is probably closer to the right answer over the long term.:D

How so? I started with a Kaitai, a Reno, and an OCRc2.
Now I have a Reno, an OCRc2, and an Aurora Elite.
Status quo, no?

The Reno is on the block so ultimately (N-2)+(N+1)=2. Perfect.

I'm not really looking to increase my numbers.
What I really want is the right mix

Hermes
12-10-08, 02:12 PM
How so? I started with a Kaitai, a Reno, and an OCRc2.
Now I have a Reno, an OCRc2, and an Aurora Elite.
Status quo, no?

The Reno is on the block so ultimately (N-2)+(N+1)=2. Perfect.

I'm not really looking to increase my numbers.
What I really want is the right mix

Absolutely, however your math seemed a bit fuzzy.:D

SaiKaiTai
12-10-08, 02:34 PM
Absolutely, however your math seemed a bit fuzzy.:D

Ohhhh... I think I see what you mean. Net 0 would be having no bikes which just ain't true (or right, but that's another matter). Instead of Net 0, I should have said Net change 0. D'Oh!

BluesDawg
12-10-08, 02:49 PM
Parts that will be used sometime in the future, or to replace existing equipment, are considered "consumable supplies" right? So if the current inventory of "consumable supplies" could be assembled into another bike is that N+1?

As long as they "could be assembled", it would only be potential N+1. Once they are actually assembled and made into a bike, then you have N+1. At any rate, though, unless that pile of spare parts includes a spare frame, you're going to have a hard time making it into a bike.

Hmm, come to think of it, my spare parts collection does include two MTB frames. :lol:

J.P.
12-10-08, 03:26 PM
To be algebraically correct it would be ((N -1) + 1) = N. However, as others have pointed out (N + 1) isn't really about algebra. After all, as soon as you get (N + 1) that becomes the new (N) which means that (N + 1) = N.

Old School
12-11-08, 03:40 PM
Ohhhh... I think I see what you mean. Net 0 would be having no bikes which just ain't true (or right, but that's another matter). Instead of Net 0, I should have said Net change 0. D'Oh!

Correct-a-mundo! Zero (0) bikes would be a sad state of affairs indeed! :lol: