Originally Posted by
FBinNY
And you don't think that's a material consideration?
It becomes material as soon as one crests a hill. If you never do that, it remains theoretical.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
In any case, it's interesting that while you're the most invested in arguing the importance of tread, you're the only one here who hasn't offered the OP any help.
I corrected the erroneous advice that OP received, specifically that bicycles cannot hydroplane.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
Your new here and don't know the players. Some are extremely knowledgeable on bikes, some are engineers, physicists, chemists, or other professionals well credentialed to discuss technical subjects.
I may be new here, but I am not new to bicycles or physics, and I am extremely knowledgeable on both topics. Perhaps you were under the impression that everyone who knows anything about those topics participates here, but I assure you, such is not the case. If you can only argue against my point by attacking me and the age of my account, well, I think we both know what that means. Instead of resorting to ad hominems, why don't you explain how bicycles violate all known laws of physics, and/or why I can provide video evidence supporting my position?
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
You would be well advised to listen more and argue less until you know who's who, and what they know
Again, if you can only judge a position by the author's name, you probably don't understand the topic sufficiently.