Reynolds 531 

Bike Myths We Wish Would Die:

How about the myth that people who use big words and argue on forums are actually intelligent.

livedarklions

​​​You understand that I only posted the AI stuff because another guy said that his doing the same thing proved everyone else wrong? Point is that AI can be manipulated to give you whatever result you want.

PeteHski

Your Google source was garbage.

jon c. 

Maybe they just have no desire to participate in a system that fields such weak and incompetent candidates. Elections offering no choice but humans can't possibly end well.

elcruxio

Is there something I'm missing? I think of standing as compressive force and there's none of that in spokes.

livedarklions

Considering that you ignored the whole pointing out a similarity between otherwise dissimilar things part of the definition, you obviously didn't post the definition for any legitimate reason. I was going to post that HTupolev had actually correctly posted that your analogy didn't work because the supposed similarity (y'know, the part that makes it an analogy rather than just a comparison) wasn't at all similar, but I see he beat me to it, and said it far better than I could have. Either you didn't actually read the definition yourself, or you were being disingenuous. Or maybe you really don't know what an analogy is.

The "I have other things to do" is not something I took exception to. It's the car wreck nonsense, where you denigrated the people you have been yammering at endlessly. PeteHski didn't say anything resembling your crack about the car wreck, and I notice you don't refer to the car wreck thing at all in this refutation of me. So, let's figure it out--according to you, it's not mean when you tell a bunch of people that they are a car wreck, but it's mean when I do it to you? Stop being a hypocrite.

Oh, btw, you've posted way too much on this stupid topic for anyone to believe you really do have other stuff to do.

smd4

Did you want to see some? They ride great, especially at 140 psi. Pretty fast too, but I heard that mountain bike tires were the fastest in the world because of their size and squishiness.

3alarmer 

...so rotating mass was never a topic in the car world, back in the '50's and '60's ? OK. If you really want to argue about that simple statement (the origin of the concept as coming from the road bike contingent), you'll need to start another thread. Do me a favor and start it in the road forum, so it can take on a life of its own.

3alarmer 

...do you understand that my comment referenced the "like" it got, and who provided it ?
You appear to be fully involved in this "discussion" now, and considering the fact that you came late to the party, I guess you have nothing else to do.

smd4

Isn’t Pete British? He probably has zero knowledge of American cars from the 50s and 60s.

3alarmer 

....do you think it might pass your analysis as a simple statement of how in two very different contexts, smaller quantities can be ignored ? I would reference some quote from the history of how early mathematicians first came to the idea, but livedarklions will just be offended that I called your attention to such an obvious and well known point. So that's out. Once more, I have not, and did not, propose this as some sort of "solution" to the problem of ignoring small quantities in road bike wheel performance. And to suggest that I have done so is, at the very least, misleading.

I'm not offended by your insistence on mathematical exactitude, just puzzled as to why, in this case, an offhand loose analogy to ignoring small quantities triggers it.

3alarmer 

...good point. When you run Lucas electrical systems, things often stop rotating in a hurry.

HTupolev

I mean, that's certainly something that a person can say. It seems like a comparison that confuses the issue, rather than explains it, though.


I'm actually genuinely unsure of which quote you'd point to. The first thing that comes to mind might be something like Euler's comment about infinitely small quantities, but it wouldn't address my objection. Or is there something more Euclidean and geometric that you'd go for? There's a lot of vibrant proto-calculus there, but I'm admittedly not very familiar with that realm of mathematics.

I don't think I suggested that.

I don't think I'm insisting on much mathematical exactitude.

//============================

...Maybe the problem here is that we're talking around each other. Frankly it's not totally clear to me what you were visualizing when you suggested your plot with two lines. What two specific cases are the two lines representing, and what are the axes?

3alarmer 

\

...given the simplified expression of the weight added to the frame of the bicycle increasing at a value of 1, while the corresponding same weight added to the wheels increases at a value of 1.85. in terms of required force for acceleration. (AFAIK, this was the last time anyone here agreed on much, and it was only briefly), It seems like a simple graph of two divergent lines on a simple positive x,y axis is adequate to represent this idea. One line has a run of 1 and a rise of 1 (weight added to the frame). The other has a run of 1 and a rise of 1.85 (weight added to the wheels.)

At the lower end, most of the existing competition road wheelsets appear somewhere. Farther along, are heavier wheels currently available, like 29er wheels with fat tires. Even farther along are older bike wheels, still hanging around, but usually only appearing on older bikes from the 1950's, some of which have steel wheel rims. Somewhere on the graph of these two lines is a point where the distance between them becomes so noticeable that it becomes undeniable. I don't know where that point is.

But I do have some idea that the reason all those competition road wheels are within the small range in which they sit, is because the makers of them have some idea about how few would be used, were they to exceed that practical limit.

3alarmer 

...when I scroll up, I get this. I like the "stop being a hypocrite" part. But that's just me.


...I guess I have never seen you on a tear before livedarklions . I don't normally hang out here in general much. I know that any advice I give you to chill, and take a few deep breaths, will only further incur your righteous wrath. But really, I can assure you I am not worth all this indignation.

Jeff Neese

I think my AI is smarter than yours.

Q: Is there any case to be made for allowing dogs to vote in the United States?

A:No, there is no case to be made for allowing dogs to vote in the United States.

Voting is a right and responsibility that is reserved for human citizens who are able to understand and make informed decisions about the candidates and issues at hand. Dogs, as much as we love them, lack the cognitive abilities to comprehend and participate in the voting process.

Furthermore, allowing animals to vote would open up a whole host of logistical and ethical issues. For example, how would we determine which dogs are eligible to vote? How would we ensure that their votes are not influenced by their owners or other external factors? It would also raise questions about the value and representation of animal interests in society.

In short, while we cherish our furry companions, they are not eligible to participate in the democratic process. Voting is a privilege reserved for human citizens who are able to understand and make informed decisions.

mschwett 

rotflmao

Carbonfiberboy 

Thanks for repeating that quote. It's been driving me nuts trying to remember where that came from. The google, not my memory, provided the answer. It was Jobst Brandt in his great book, The Bicycle Wheel. He based the unusual statement on the fact that only the bottom spokes noticeably change tension as the wheel goes around. He said that well, they are compressed, which technically is not true, they just suffer a slight change in tension. But he was a stubborn guy and wouldn't take it back. He was also wrong about exactly what happens down there. On a trad shallow rim, the bottom spoke or two do have a slight loss in tension. However to keep the wheel balanced, the spokes on either side of the detensioned spokes have a slightly increased tension.

Here's some more on that from 2018: Jobst Brandt "The Bicycle Wheel"

Eric F 

I guess if you think feeling every ripple, crack, and pebble under your tire is a great ride, you’re right. Yet - if you are right - the mechanics who put together the bikes for the fastest and highest paid racers in the world are choosing to handicap their riders with wider tires at lower pressures. Why would they do that?

terrymorse 

“THE WHEEL STANDS ON ITS SPOKES
Of course the wheel is not supported by the bottom spokes only. Without the rest of the spokes, the bottom ones would have no tension. Standing, in this case, means that the spokes at the bottom are the ones that change stress; they are being shortened and respond structurally as rigid columns. They are rigid as long as they remain tensioned.”

— Brandt, J., The Bicycle Wheel

Eric F 

Does this mean both “standing” and “hanging” is happening? That would make a lot of sense to me (a contractor, not an engineer).

tomato coupe

It’s amazing how many errors there are in one paragraph.

PeteHski

It's irrelevant. We are discussing bike myths, where rotating mass has no more or less significance than static mass. If you think rotating mass is more critical, then that's your delusion.

PeteHski

This is just a pointless ramble which has nothing to do with the actual myth that I proposed.

PeteHski

This is true.

Rotational inertia is often discussed in motorsport, which is why I'm familiar with it. In the bike world its importance is often grossly overstated (Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Jeff Neese) and hence the popular myth surrounding it.