Re: The idée fixe of the anti-helmet zealots, the vehicular cyclists, etc

[SMS]

On 12/16/2013 2:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> It is time to reduce Krygowski's belief and policy to its core so that we can examine its fundamental inhumanity.
>
> Krygowski's big idea, embodied in his slogan "Danger! Danger!" is that we should do nothing about avoidable cyclist deaths because to do anything at all to save cyclists from an unnecessary death sends a message to potential cyclists that cycling is dangerous and puts them off, thereby reducing the net benefit of cycling to society.
>
> Krygowski's is an entirely fascist construction, in which the cyclist should sacrifice everything, up to and including his life, for one man's vision of the future. It is irrelevant that this murderous vision comes from the unappetizing control freak Krygowski. What is immoral and despicable about it is that Krygowski, for his personal aggrandizement, wants by inaction and silence to kill cyclists who, but for a little care, would have lived to ride another day.
>
> The humane alternative values each individual cyclist's life equally (compare Krygowski's excuses for his callousness, for instance labeling dead cyclists as "drunks" so that he can exclude them from his grotesque statistical version of reality) and to strive mightily to reduce cycling deaths and injuries on the road to nil. Of course it is an impossible aim, but only by striving towards it will the maximum possible number of cyclist lives be saved.

Jesus, you're obsessed. G-d created Thunderbird filters. Use them like
the rest of us do. If ignorant and obnoxious people bother you then
Usenet is the wrong place to hang out because trying to use facts and
logic to convince them of anything is pointless. Not everything in
nature has a purpose.

[SMS]

On 12/16/2013 7:30 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> If you don't want to help, don't get in my way.

<snip>

In reality, you're the one that's not helping.

Have you heard of the Westboro Baptist Church in the U.S.?

They thrive on the reaction of the public to their antics. When no one
shows up to challenge them they pack up and leave because there's no
publicity. When they showed up at my kids' school the entire student
body ignored them, entering the school through a side entrance so no one
even saw their signs. There was no response. There was no media
coverage. WBC left in utter defeat after ten minutes.

Your crusade against one particular poster achieves nothing. No one
believes anything he posts anyway, you're just giving him a reason to
continue being obnoxious. A great many of us have filtered him out. We
feel sorry for him, but there's nothing that can be done. Usenet is like
that. You feel compelled to continue in this crusade even though the
battle has already been won. And by being vulgar you are the one that
ends up looking bad.

[davethedave]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

> Since when do you tell me what I can and cannot say, Scharfie? Just who
> do you think you are?

<fetches popcorn, gets comfy>
--
davethedave

[James]

<right clicks newsgroup and clicks "Mark Newsgroup Read" and wishes the
cross posting wankers would bugger off>

--
JS

[Joe Riel]

You've got the right. Fortunately I configured my news reader (gnus)
to reject all posts with alt.* in the distribution. I thought
the cross-posting would eventually die out, but it hasn't.

--
Joe Riel

[Joe Riel]

I meant to type: "you've got *that* right. As in, "I agree".

--
Joe Riel

[davethedave]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:26:35 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

> Scharfie's a sideshow, Dave.

No. He is "TORCHY BOY!!!"

You are side show Jute AICMFP.

Now dance for me! Bee-ach! :)

--
davethedave

[James]

O-O-O-Otto, you owe me a p-p-p-p-pound!

--
JS

[Jay Beattie]

On Monday, December 16, 2013 1:26:35 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, December 16, 2013 9:12:54 PM UTC, davethedave wrote:
>

> Scharfie's a sideshow, Dave.

We're all sideshows. About 5% of the posts (even excluding the whacko cross-postings) is about bike tech. We should just re-name the group "rec.oldcurmudgeonswhosometimesdiscussthingsrelatingtobicycles.tech."

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 12/16/2013 2:47 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

> We're all sideshows. About 5% of the posts (even excluding the whacko cross-postings) is about bike tech. We should just re-name the group "rec.oldcurmudgeonswhosometimesdiscussthingsrelatingtobicycles.tech."

Who you callin' old?

[Duane]

+1


--
duane

[Duane]

Yeah I'm tired of adding Eddie Haskell and friends to the kill file. Just
logged in with 50 odd new messages and a dozen after the filter. WTF is
the point of that? Don't we have enough of our own?


--
duane

[sms]

On 12/16/2013 3:51 PM, Duane wrote:

<snip>

> Yeah I'm tired of adding Eddie Haskell and friends to the kill file. Just
> logged in with 50 odd new messages and a dozen after the filter. WTF is
> the point of that? Don't we have enough of our own?

The filters work pretty well for the cross-posters and trolls. I only
have to add one or two new filters per week. Currently at only 43
filters. I've seen groups that are far worse than r.b.t., requiring
hundreds of filter entries.

[Duane]

On my phone I use News Tap Lite so I can filter posters but I don't see how
to filter based on groups like alt.icanthelpbeingadickhead. So yeah I'm
getting a large kill file.
--
duane

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 14:00:33 -0800, Joe Riel <jo...@san.rr.com> wrote:

>James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 17/12/13 08:12, davethedave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since when do you tell me what I can and cannot say, Scharfie? Just who
>>>> do you think you are?
>>>
>>> <fetches popcorn, gets comfy>

Don't forget the helmet. This could get serious.

>> <right clicks newsgroup and clicks "Mark Newsgroup Read" and wishes
>> the cross posting wankers would bugger off>
>
>You've got the right. Fortunately I configured my news reader (gnus)
>to reject all posts with alt.* in the distribution. I thought
>the cross-posting would eventually die out, but it hasn't.

Forte Agent newsreader has a feature where messages cross posted over
a settable number of newsgroups, are automagically deleted or marked
read. I have mine set to 4 or more newsgroups and find that it works
quite well at removing the junk cross postings.
<http://www.forteinc.com/agent/faq.php#BAF8BFCB74FE9B17852571C0000D3065>

Let the blustering, name calling, insults, character assasination,
chest pounding, foaming at the mouth, foot stomping, and fire belching
begin.
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=anger>
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Andre Jute]

This is an entire thread of old guys discussing filtering out other old guys. Soon there will be no one left on RBT who knows what a bicycle is. My spot is reserved on a forum where knowledgeable and interesting cyclists courteously illuminate a wide range of cycling matters, including daily a better class of tech than we've seen on RBT since Sheldon and Jobst moved on. What arrangements have you made?

Andre Jute

On Monday, December 16, 2013 11:51:27 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
> Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, December 16, 2013 1:26:35 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >> On Monday, December 16, 2013 9:12:54 PM UTC, davethedave wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >>>> Since when do you tell me what I can and cannot say, Scharfie? Just who
> >>>> do you think you are?
>
> >>> <fetches popcorn, gets comfy>
>

[Duane]

On 12/17/2013 4:36 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> This is an entire thread of old guys discussing filtering out other old guys. Soon there will be no one left on RBT who knows what a bicycle is. My spot is reserved on a forum where knowledgeable and interesting cyclists courteously illuminate a wide range of cycling matters, including daily a better class of tech than we've seen on RBT since Sheldon and Jobst moved on. What arrangements have you made?
>

Well since you asked, I'm on a couple other forums. One of which is my
bike club's forum where I'm a moderator. Another which was referred to
me by a member of this group but which deals more with touring and less
with the type of riding that I do so I mostly lurk.

As for tech, I have a good relationship with my LBS and tend to take
their advice. I sometime post questions here but mostly to double
check. Admittedly it's difficult to maintain an actual tech related
thread here for very long before it's hijacked but sometime I get my
answers before then.

Not sure why I hang out here except that there are a few like minded
cyclists left here that aren't religious zealots, self appointed experts
or wielders of the sword and shield of righteousness. There are a few
people here that care about riding bikes and sharing knowledge about
riding bikes in spite of these other clowns.

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to joust with the purveyors of the
one true religion then feel free to do so.

[avag...@gmail.com]

> We're all sideshows

*********************

WE'RE PRINT readers, then relatively in either $ or time or both.

The gamers, color print and video riders moved to....color print and video.

Jocks, by and large, doahn read but DO !

Read thru Yellow Jersey....out in the boonies with Goering et al.

Yet 21C component life at this level reduces DIY. Less tinkering.

I have FOUR ! new ideas in 24 hrs.

That's what Beattie does all day then rides thru a grave yard in the rain...

DANO slogs to work thru Portland, environmentally aware fersure.

I'm reviewing Bike Forums....know what ? some invention, lotta dreaming planning.

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW IN THE HELL DO THOSE WOMEN AT TUBUS GET UP THOSE HILLS ??????

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:36:39 PM UTC, Duane wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, if you want to joust with the purveyors of the
> one true religion then feel free to do so.

Everyone else does all the time. Count the posts: most people correspond with Krygowski much more than I do, including Scharfie. It is a sickening hypocrisy for Scharfie (or for that idiot that Scharfie resembles, Rideablot) to tell me to filter Krygowski out.

Out for a ride before the wind rises further and drives the temperature down any more.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

On 12/17/2013 9:48 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:36:39 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, if you want to joust with the purveyors of the
>> one true religion then feel free to do so.
>
> Everyone else does all the time. Count the posts: most people correspond with Krygowski much more than I do, including Scharfie. It is a sickening hypocrisy for Scharfie (or for that idiot that Scharfie resembles, Rideablot) to tell me to filter Krygowski out.
>

I'm guilty of the same though I'm trying to ignore him. I'm not always
successful though. Maybe Ridesalot hasn't had his fill yet.

> Out for a ride before the wind rises further and drives the temperature down any more.

-28C here and frozen snow everywhere.

[Jay Beattie]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:36:10 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> This is an entire thread of old guys discussing filtering out other old guys. Soon there will be no one left on RBT who knows what a bicycle is. My spot is reserved on a forum where knowledgeable and interesting cyclists courteously illuminate a wide range of cycling matters, including daily a better class of tech than we've seen on RBT since Sheldon and Jobst moved on. What arrangements have you made?

When I began watching this group back in the early '90s, it was one of the few places you could get technical information. The information was practical and theoretical, and the posters used their own names and the group self-policed. The "Sheldon is a party doll" thread was ground-breaking as the first super-long political rant. It would be ho-hum these days -- lost in the noise of political rants.

Anyway, apart from the group basically cannibalizing itself, there is just less tech to talk about -- you can practically build a bike with a pocket tool these days, assuming you have a press-fit BB. And there are a lot more outlets for information. A lot of tech is also just brand endorsement, e.g. which wheels to buy, or it's very manufacturer specific and apparently too new and not very interesting to this group.

I have a BB30 on my new Cannondale. I'm pretty sure it is press fit, but it has spacers and apparently extraneous parts that are unfamiliar to me. I look at it and think that one day I'll have to take it apart. I will go to YouTube or Park Tool or SRAM (it's a Red crank)and figure it out. Fifteen years ago, I would have gone to this group -- although I would have braced for Jobst cross-examining me on why I bought such a ridiculous piece of technology, etc., etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:36:39 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
>
> Not sure why I hang out here except that there are a few like minded
> cyclists left here that aren't religious zealots, self appointed experts
> or wielders of the sword and shield of righteousness. There are a few
> people here that care about riding bikes and sharing knowledge about
> riding bikes in spite of these other clowns.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, if you want to joust with the purveyors of the
> one true religion then feel free to do so.

Duane, be honest. You were greatly offended that I debated you on the absolute necessity of bike lanes to remove the (supposed) great dangers of bicycling. And you were _extremely_ offended when I rebutted your "It's dangerous _here!_" claims with data indicating cycling in your area was significantly safer than in the U.S. on average. You were so offended that you kill-filed me and never forgave me.

Your problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a "religion" is relevant facts, data and their citations.) Your problem is that my views differ from YOUR "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge riding, and that I've posted data showing your religion to be wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:44:44 AM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> When I began watching this group back in the early '90s, it was one of the few places you could get technical information. The information was practical and theoretical, and the posters used their own names and the group self-policed. The "Sheldon is a party doll" thread was ground-breaking as the first super-long political rant. It would be ho-hum these days -- lost in the noise of political rants.

Well, we should recognize that the political ranters are not bike people anyway. Someone somehow invited in a gaggle of multi-group-spamming trolls.

> Anyway, apart from the group basically cannibalizing itself, there is just less tech to talk about -- you can practically build a bike with a pocket tool these days, assuming you have a press-fit BB.

That's certainly a large part of it. The technology has improved significantly, so there are fewer problems to solve. Most new tech seems to be chasing ever-diminishing benefits. (It's interesting that thanks largely to Jobst, the problem of broken spokes has largely gone away; but thanks to weight-reducing manufacturers, has been replaced by the problem of cracked rims.)

> And there are a lot more outlets for information. A lot of tech is also just brand endorsement, e.g. which wheels to buy, or it's very manufacturer specific and apparently too new and not very interesting to this group.

"What brand should I buy?" does have limited appeal. It usually devolves to "Gee, I sure like this!" And people who have long ago settled on reliable equipment don't have much to say about "THIS year's model!!" because they don't need to buy it.

> I have a BB30 on my new Cannondale. I'm pretty sure it is press fit, but it has spacers and apparently extraneous parts that are unfamiliar to me. I look at it and think that one day I'll have to take it apart.

But maybe not!

> I will go to YouTube or Park Tool or SRAM (it's a Red crank)and figure it out. Fifteen years ago, I would have gone to this group -- although I would have braced for Jobst cross-examining me on why I bought such a ridiculous piece of technology, etc., etc.

Jobst always was curmudgeonly, but brilliant. He and I corresponded a bit, rather pleasantly, although I thought he was too fond of edge riding.

He had to put up with "jim beam." I wonder how he'd feel about some of the current vitriol.

- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

But don't you remember that I rebutted your rebuttal with statistical evidence showing that it was very dangerous in the area where Duane rode but that the cyclists were extraordinarily skilled in avoiding injury, much like Ninja warriors or monks who can dodge bullets?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAH_6V5h4c&list=PL84FADBA8E8A1D02E

You must look beyond the numbers. We are not numbers! (repeat after me). We own the numbers. They do not own us!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

Jay you do realize that Frank is delusional ...


--
duane

[Andre Jute]

You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

-28C? That's when I stay in bed and my wife brings me my iPad to read under the covers.

Andre Jute
I'm just a little old intellectual. Let the real cyclists go out in that hell.

[Duane]

Well this is probably the first day this year that the bike racks at the
office are empty. And it's not winter yet.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I say old boy, whatever are you smoking or drinking these days?

Cheerio

[Andre Jute]

Mmm. Let's just say that your idea of "winter" and mine are somewhat at variance... I was in Alaska almost annually, doing research for my Iditarod book, for 13 years. I can still feels that cold in my bones. I've done my bit! I deserve to live in a temperate clime.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

Yes well the really sad part is that I am originally from New Orleans
which is near enough to tropical that it's not worth arguing. -28C is
not my idea of inhabitable.

[James]

On 18/12/13 01:48, Andre Jute wrote:

> Out for a ride before the wind rises further and drives the temperature down any more.

It was warm and I ate bugs again yesterday evening. No, not Bugs Bunny,
the insect kind.

I saw plenty of bunnies. I think the introduced diseases are losing the
battle for control.

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

Earlier this year, on a road only a couple of hundred yards from my house as the crow files, I raced a teenage hare. I don't know if saw me as a sporting challenge or was startled by my light and too stupid to escape it, but it gave me a good run for my money until my heart rate monitoring programme started beeping a crazed warning and I had to slow, when it cut away. (Yo, Jay, that's another piece of new tech I haven't reported on: a low-energy bluetooth sender on my chest, which uses my smartphone for a screen and a speaker; works a treaty and saves carrying yet another device.)

Andre Jute

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

To respond with reluctance:

Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.

The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

It's fine to be interested in such things. We all have our quirks. But lack of discussion here (let alone lack of rapid adoption) is hardly an indictment of a bike discussion group.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:56:37 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >
>
> > You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.

Here's an excellent example from Krygowski of what I mean when I refer to the negativity of the wankers on this forum.

> To respond with reluctance:

He isn't reluctant at all. He's found another reason to practice his sneering.

> Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem.

No, Franki-boy it doesn't just allow the handlebars to swivel, it uncouples the front wheel from them, making the bicycle unrideable and damn nearly immovable, and definitely a hostile animal. But you've dismissed a useful security device without asking a single question, without discovering what is new about it, with an obiter dictum that it is, sneeringly in your quotation marks, "new tech". And you've condemned it, sneeringly, erroneously, on two counts as "a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem". Elsewhere, after I introduced this and tried it, several experienced and technically proficient cyclists bought the n'lock and were extremely satisfied with the level of security and utility it provides. But you, who've never seen one, who clearly doesn't know what it is or does, claim to know better. You're an opinionated but worthless wanker, Franki-boy.

>The bike can be carried off more easily.

Crap. If you can move my bike ten paces without it tangling you up and bringing you crashing down, very likely with broken bones and certainly with serious abrasions and bruises (I know because one day I forgot about the n'lock and tried to swing the bike about, and came a cropper), I'll give it to you. It is quite likely that the bike I'm betting is worth more than your house; it is certainly worth much more than your car.

> The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

More knee-jerk sneering. The Chainglider is NOT "a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes". The only person who would say that is, once more, someone who hasn't seen one, hasn't handled one, doesn't know what it does, in short a complete ignoramus. the Chainglider a magnitude superior to the clanking, fragile chain cases you think you know, Franki-boy, and it works on an entirely different principle. It is, in fact, a good reason for commuters to come into the twentieth century, never mind the twenty-first, but, like the unimaginative idiot you are, without knowing what it is, out of stupid prejudice, you pronounce it "of limited interest". Is it starting to dawn on you yet why I don't bother even mentioning these things on RBT? Elsewhere, once more, serious cyclists with vastly more experience than you, fitted Chaingliders after I proved it, and have used it extremely successfully, in particular, considering one of the grounds of you foolish condemnation of the Chainglider, in situations where a Dutch style plastic or metal chain case would be ripped to piece or ripped off or soon wear through.

> The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

Let's take this load of field manure from the back. There are many more than a 100,000 Rohloff gearboxes out there. Only in the ignorant Frank Krygowski's mouth is that "rare exceptions". Nor is a 100,000 installation base "a mere curiosity". These remarks are so ignorant, they really go beyond Krygowski's usual sneering at anyone who doesn't agree with him. (Or he's monstrously insensitive to the meaning of words to the extent that we must wonder if English is his mother tongue.) Still working from the back, we come to "the price is exorbitant". This is what I was saying earlier: it isn't worth mentioning on RBT anything that costs more than a dumpster-dive, because the usual whiners (Daniels, Sherman, Krygowski, etc) will sneer that it is only for plutocrats. But, in this case, it's the same old Krygowski crap: he hasn't put his mind in gear. Everyone who's been paying attention will remember that I was roundly abused by the usual RBT trash (Eaton, Sherman, Bales, etc, even Muzi trying unconvincingly to join in) for rejecting a Waterford frame that they insistently recommended to me, on grounds of lack of breeding and being overpriced. Well, can buy two fully fitted up Rohloff-equipped luxury bikes for the price of one Waterford frame, which is certified by RBT members as good value to the extent that they get hot under the collar about it. A Rohloff gearbox, completely operational on the bike, costs the same as a Dura-Ace installation similarly ready to ride. Franki-boy, once more, hasn't checked the facts. Let's leave the rest of the grudging acknowledgement of fine engineering, with more sneers in the same sentence and the next ("...and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design") for another day. I've had just as much as I can take of Krygowski's knee-jerk snideries without vomiting on the carpet.

> It's fine to be interested in such things.

You can shove you permission where it hurts, Franki-boy. You're not talking to your students here. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.

>We all have our quirks. But lack of discussion here (let alone lack of rapid adoption) is hardly an indictment of a bike discussion group.

There you go again, Franki-boy. Nobody said anything about "rapid adoption" except you. But now, in your standard mode of dishonest debating tricks, you're trying to make it a test of whether you're right. And yet more sneers: wanting to discuss technical matters rather than your time-wasting politics is now a "quirk". Gee, man, do you think we're all so stupid we don't notice these junior school debating tricks of yours? If you ever wonder why so many hate you, look no further than your constant insults to their intelligence.

> - Frank Krygowski

What a pompous, pontificating, ignorant, willfully worthless wanker this Frank Krygowski is. He's the perfect example of why tech has died out on RBT. And the most shameful thing about it is that he claims to be an engineer.

Andre Jute

[Frank Krygowski]

And that's why I replied only reluctantly. Our Irish maniac's apoplexy may trigger a cardiac event, and I'd feel a little guilty about that.*

P.S. Did anyone here know that handlebars that swivel on the stem make the bike immovable? In all the years of wrenchwork I've done, I'd never noticed that. Just think: Ditch that heavy U-lock! Loosen your threadless stem, and your bike's now theft-proof! ;-)

(* Only a little.)

- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

No offense to Jobst, but the problem of broken spokes was solved mostly by DT. Spokes just got more reliable. Plus, Jobst's stress-relief regimen was accomplished inadvertently by most builders when they side loaded the wheel during building or "corrected" spoke line or bedded the spokes. All of this was done back in the day before the Book, but no one talked about stress-relieving, except maybe relieving the stress of building by having a beer. Jobst explained the science and came up with a simpler squeeze technique, but spoke breakage dropped in great part because people stopped using Stella, Robergel, Alpina, etc. and started using DT.

If not injured, Jobst would have dropped out of this group -- like Sheldon did before he died. The vast technical experience is now somewhere else, or nowhere. Even our garage putterers like Carl Fogel are gone. Damon Rinard went on to design for Cevelo and would certainly laugh at all the CF "danger, danger" talk. http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/19/30-minutes-with-damon-rinard/

Andrew, don't go! . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

You may own the numbers but if you believe the youtube film you posted
you are severally handicapped in your mathematics.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-17-2013, 09:48, Andre Jute wrote:
> Out for a ride before the wind rises further and drives the temperature down any more.

Quite cold here, but that's not why I'm walking.
The white stuff is such that wheels are ineffective.

--
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for anything else.
— Benjamin Franklin

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-17-2013, 13:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Well, we should recognize that the political ranters are not bike people anyway. Someone somehow invited in a gaggle of multi-group-spamming trolls.

Wouldn't be hard to describe you as a political ranter.

--
Wes Groleau

I won't burn your Koran because I don't want you to burn my Bible;
but if you burn my Bible, no one's going to die.
— Robert Rhee

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:01:12 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> No offense to Jobst, but the problem of broken spokes was solved mostly by DT. Spokes just got more reliable. Plus, Jobst's stress-relief regimen was accomplished inadvertently by most builders when they side loaded the wheel during building or "corrected" spoke line or bedded the spokes. All of this was done back in the day before the Book, but no one talked about stress-relieving, except maybe relieving the stress of building by having a beer. Jobst explained the science and came up with a simpler squeeze technique, but spoke breakage dropped in great part because people stopped using Stella, Robergel, Alpina, etc. and started using DT.

I don't doubt the benefit of metallurgical and other processing advances. But as an ME, Jobst's technical explanations were far more specific and correct than what had appeared in print before. And his book on wheelbuilding was not the first. I'd read at least one previous book, and many articles. The difference was night and day. Before Jobst, it really was myth and lore.

And I believe the knowledge spread. People doing wheel building know things that were not known before Jobst. Also, today we have machine built wheels that are quite reliable. I think it's a mistake to think the designers of those machines are not using the knowledge that Jobst gave us. Engineering knowledge does spread.

> If not injured, Jobst would have dropped out of this group -- like Sheldon did before he died. The vast technical experience is now somewhere else, or nowhere.

Oh, it's in lots of places. There's still some here.

> Even our garage putterers like Carl Fogel are gone.

And I miss Dear Carl!

> Damon Rinard went on to design for Cevelo and would certainly laugh at all the CF "danger, danger" talk. http://gearpatrol.com/2013/06/19/30-minutes-with-damon-rinard/

But let's also note that Damon Rinard, of all people, would scoff at the road test we discussed a year or two ago, comparing a modern racing bike with one from the 80s, and claiming great differences from aspects other than weight. Rinard is the man who used physics principles to build the Analytic Cycling site. AC is a site respected by Carl Fogel, Jobst and me, and a site that demonstrates that climbing speed depends on little beyond power and total weight. If "responsiveness" and "handling" were important, Rinard would have built those factors in.

> Andrew, don't go! . . .

Yes, agreed. And I agree that the average technical level here has decreased, along with the general level of civility. I keep hoping for improvement.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:14:50 PM UTC-5, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> Tablets are useless for colds, fluids are more effective :-)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to kill off the last of a cold, which is a nagging cough. And two nights ago, a good friend recommended Rock & Rye, a sweet 50 proof cordial, infused with citrus and horehound. He said it's "the old folks cough medicine."

And he seems to be right. Works a charm!

- Frank Krygowski

[Clive George]

On 17/12/2013 21:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>> You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.
>
> To respond with reluctance:
>
> Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.

The stem is very briefly interesting - worth a "look at this", but not
much discussion to be had.

> The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.

The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

> The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.

You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
"new tech" either.

[John B.]

And a little more will give you a good night's sleep too.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 02:51:27 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>davethedave <davedfo...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 16 Dec 2013
>23:12:54 +0200 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:04:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>>> Since when do you tell me what I can and cannot say, Scharfie? Just who
>>> do you think you are?
>>
>><fetches popcorn, gets comfy>
>
><reclines chair, puts feet on toasty rack of computers>
>This could get very good.


Or perhaps build a better kill file :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I made a detailed list of Krygowski's claims and sneers, and one by one proved that he was ignorant of the components being discussed. His entire answer is more sneers and jeers, which simply reaffirm that he's talking through the back of his neck about a component he has never seen, has never handled, and hasn't even investigated on the net, or he would know that this supercilious crap that he tries to palm us off with is untrue:

> P.S. Did anyone here know that handlebars that swivel on the stem make the bike immovable? In all the years of wrenchwork I've done, I'd never noticed that. Just think: Ditch that heavy U-lock! Loosen your threadless stem, and your bike's now theft-proof! ;-)

See, Franki-boy, it is this sort of sneering, jeering, inaccurate response on RBT, spraying misinformation like diseased spittle, that causes me to discuss technical matters elsewhere. I rest my case; you've proved it for me not once but three times. Thanks.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:34:02 AM UTC, Clive George wrote:
> On 17/12/2013 21:56, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:30:08 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> You're right and you're wrong. There IS new tech out there, but, you're right, there's little interest in it on RBT. For instance, the n'lock unlockable stem which makes the bike unrideable with the turn of a removable key, like a car. But when I mentioned it here, I was met with sneers, and so much irrelevant crap from the peanut gallery, it would take me a week to straighten out the misinformation the idiots sprayed like spittle. Same when I first mentioned the Hebie Chainglider. Same with the Rohloff hub gearbox, for that matter, though I wasn't the first to mention that one here. After a while I just got fed up with the clowns and found somewhere else to debut new tech I've bought or been given by manufacturers to try out.
>
> > To respond with reluctance:
>
> > Jute's examples of "new tech" illustrate the situation. Lockable stems have been around for many decades (e.g. Schwinn Phantom); a "locking device" that allows the handlebars to swivel is a minor variation, and provides less security than a standard locking stem. The bike can be carried off more easily.
>
> The stem is very briefly interesting - worth a "look at this", but not
> much discussion to be had.

That may be true for those who don't grasp the n'lock's USP over carrying a hex key and loosening the stem every time you stop, which is all that poor Krygowski thinks it does. But for cyclists who understand what it does, and how it does it, and what is involved in defeating it (destroying the bike), and above all for cyclists who have their brains in gear well enough to take a systems approach to bicycle security, the n'lock is a huge boon in that it serves as the sole security required 95-99% of the time, depending on your circumstances. (Together with the cable attached inside the handlebar, it serves 99.999% of my needs, but I don't want to perpetrate the Krygowski Error of claiming that because it is true for me, it is necessarily true for everyone else.) But apparently no one else on RBT has the brains to work this out. Or perhaps they like carrying a 4 pound U-lock... I saved over four pounds of mass on my bike when I fitted the n'lock.

> > The Chainglider is a minor iteration on chainguards and chaincases long used on bikes with one chainring and one cog (utility bikes worldwide, most 1950s American bikes). It isn't usable on bikes with more than one chainring, which is what almost all of us ride, so it's of limited interest.
>
> The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

Nobody said the Chainglider was new now. I merely used it as an example of tech which when it was new was dismissed here with a sneer, and again now that it is established by Krygowski who apparently has never seen a Chainglider, never handled one, and doesn't know that it works on a different principle to the standard Dutch type chain cases which are held off the chain by brackets. I've been testing chain cases exhaustively since 2002, including the Chainglider since it appeared, and all its variants too. I've been building a maintenance free bike with it, zero chain maintenance. But it isn't worth reporting the experiment here because some petty clown will sneer irrelevantly that:

> The Hebie Chainglider isn't "new tech" - I saw it mentioned years ago.

What value does the fact that you saw it years ago add to the conversation, George? What we want to know is what you did with it that is useful to us.

> > The Rohloff hub is an amazing mechanical achievement, and its design and construction details may be worthy of discussion. But few will have the interest or ability to discuss its internal design. And its price is exorbitant, which means it's a mere curiosity to most. Even hub gear enthusiasts will choose another model, with rare exceptions.
>
> You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
> who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
> Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
> "new tech" either.

No one said it was new now. But when it was new, it was dismissed on RBT with a sneer by the dumpster divers. There are quite a few Rohloff owners on RBT, but it is rarely discussed because of the interference from the clowns who will almost instantly derail any discussion of the Rohloff into the irrelevance of its initial cost, as Krygowski tries to do in this thread, as Daniels has maliciously done to every Rohloff thread I've ever seen on RBT.

In any event, the only technical matters worth discussing are not "new tech"; that's an irrelevant parameter Krygowski added to give him something to sneer about, and that you've picked up to boost your ego by claiming you knew about it all along.

This irrelevant crap by you and Krygowski has nothing to do with tech and everything to do with personalities.

Andre Jute
Mo' tech is good tech.

[Andre Jute]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:

> Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
>
> produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.

A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator excuse for not discussing tech:

"If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth discussing."

"If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning it?"

"It costs more than $1.99."

It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to prove my thesis.

Andre Jute

[davethedave]

If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't say it on the
internet. A fairly simple rule of etiquette.

You really need to get out more. This kind of ill mannered, vitriolic
spouting would be beaten out of you by the upset denizens of your local
pub if you tried it there.
--
davethedave

[Dan O]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

> ... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a "religion" is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.
>

Elsewhere, Frank said:

"I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."

But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
done"? ... Please?

Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
proper way for others.

Do you see the religiousness?

(Cool google factoid: If you start typing "i am the wa... " - looking
for that quote from the bible - the autocomplete suggests, "I am the
Walrus" first. I guess the Beatles are *still* more popular than Jesus.)

[Andre Jute]

Good heavens, some little man I don't know from anywhere is getting so hot under the collar, he's threatening to come beat me up on behalf of another little man, who presumably has more sense. What a reckless little man you are, Davey-boy.

Andre Jute

[Jay Beattie]

I can't speak for Damon, but I suspect he would agree that frame stiffness, weight and geometry all affect performance. If not, his work would just be building the lightest possible bike. All of those things make my various bikes ride differently, although the greatest difference is weight and tire profile/pressure. The stiffer front end on my new Cannondale does give it a much more positive feel climbing and descending, but at the end of the day, I don't know if I'm doing either that much faster than my CAAD 9 (correcting for continued aging).

The latest "big difference" is new bars on both my CAAD 9 (which got the OEM Cannondale branded bars from my SuperSix) and on my commuter, which got some cheap Performance bars to replace the oxidized and pitted Ritchey bars. Both are relatively conventional bend bars, and I dislike both of them. It is amazing how the bend profile and lever placement can affect comfort. I lived for decades with classic Cinelli round bend bars, and now I hate that design. I'm going to fuss with lever placement some more (which means re-taping and re-taping cables). Maybe I can make them comfortable. My favorite bars are the anatomical bend, flat to FSA bars.

-- Jay Beattie.

[davethedave]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:48:44 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 5:52:46 PM UTC, davethedave wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 09:20:32 -0800, Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:04:21 AM UTC, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > A couple of other versions of John B.'s lowest-common-denominator
>> > excuse
>>
>> > for not discussing tech:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "If it ain't available by dumpster-diving, it ain't worth
>> > discussing."
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "If it ain't the cheapest Shimano component, why are you mentioning
>> > it?"
>>
>>
>> >
>> > "It costs more than $1.99."
>>
>>
>> >
>> > It's almost as if the little smartarses are vying with each other to
>>
>> > prove my thesis.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then don't say it on the
>>
>> internet. A fairly simple rule of etiquette.
>>
>>
>>
>> You really need to get out more. This kind of ill mannered, vitriolic
>>
>> spouting would be beaten out of you by the upset denizens of your local
>>
>> pub if you tried it there.

> Good heavens, some little man I don't know from anywhere is getting so
> hot under the collar, he's threatening to come beat me up on behalf of
> another little man, who presumably has more sense. What a reckless
> little man you are, Davey-boy.

For a person who makes his living using the English language, your
reading and comprehension skills are surprisingly as lacking as your
manners.
--
davethedave

[James]

On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

>> ... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
>> "religion"
>> is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
>> views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
>> riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.
>
> Elsewhere, Frank said:
>
> "I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."
>
> But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
> done"? ... Please?

That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
though illegal.

At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
it might be.

All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
treatments.

> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

Does one example count? Please?

> And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
> wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
> proper way for others.

In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
make their life better, they should fight for them.

What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
road.

> Do you see the religiousness?

Not really. More self preservation than anything.

--
JS

[AMuzi]

+1
James, you're a cyclist after my own heart in these things.
Besides which you have actually seen one functional bicycle
facility.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Andre Jute]

Everyone knows that my preferred method is for cars and bikes to share the road, and to use the existing laws, which in many places already give cyclists some pretty good rights if only they could claim them, strictly applied and enforced by the police and the courts to hold drivers of automobiles responsible for their acts, which would already take us a very long way. After we sort out enforcement, we can work on some minor changes in the law to recognize that drivers are in charge of lethal blunt instruments, say that they should give cyclists right of way. But we won't get any of that while the "official" cycling bodies are divided, and in large part swallow the separate facilities placebo.

We hear a lot about the cycling culture in The Netherlands taking generations to build, but in actual fact its key component is simply a greater respect for existing laws than exist in the anglophone societies. We in the rest of the EU have many of the same laws that make The Netherlands a cycling society. The laws are simply not implemented. An example is the hard shoulder disappearing on the main road out of my town: actually, that hard shoulder is an EU legal requirement, but the engineer in charge just shrugged me off when I pointed out that on the section she was rebuilding the hard shoulder was being reduced to zero.

[Andre Jute]

Give us a single reason we should care what you say or think, Davey-boy.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:04:21 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:34:02 +0000, Clive George wrote:
>
> >You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
> >who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
> >Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
> >"new tech" either.
>
> Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
> produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.

It's been sold for about 15 years. So perhaps 7000 per year? That puts Rohloff on about 0.05% of the bikes sold each year.

I don't doubt that it's pretty popular among certain people. But apparently, there aren't very many of those people.

Doesn't mean it's a bad design, of course. I think it's well done, and it obviously has certain advantages. It's just that very few think its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:34:08 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>
>
> But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
> done"? ... Please?

I have, recently and many times in the past.

> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.

Dan, if I thought you would actually read, I'd give you citations of books and articles, and links to sites, where expert and well-known vehicular cyclists speak approvingly of certain bike infrastructure.

But you're not really interested in reading or learning. You know next to nothing about VC, but you yap about it as if you'd studied every VC statement or position.

This is why I think you're so seldom worthy of response. Sorry, but it's true.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:58:08 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:34:08 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:

> > But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
> > done"? ... Please?
>
> I have, recently and many times in the past.

Show me, please.

>
> > Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>
> Dan, if I thought you would actually read, I'd give you citations of books and articles, and links to sites, where expert and well-known vehicular cyclists speak approvingly of certain bike infrastructure.
>

I'd read that, but how about just some examples of infrastructure

that is not "badly done"?

> But you're not really interested in reading or learning.

Well then, I see that we're at an impasse. Seems rather stubborn
of you (disingenuous, too).

> You know next to nothing about VC,

What's to know?

Or... test me (just the quiz show version, please - I don't feel
like writing you a comprehensive essay. I promise not to look up
the answer.)

> ... but you yap about it as if you'd studied every VC statement or position.
>

As if?

> This is why I think you're so seldom worthy of response. Sorry, but it's true.
>

No need to be sorry; I am fully aware of your regard for me.

But will you please address the issue and point to some examples

[Andre Jute]

You should check the numbers, Krygowski.

In 2012 Rohloff sold 18000 hubs, a figure they publish. Between 1998 and the end of 2012 they built 171000 hubs, an average of over twice the figure you pulled out of thin air.

But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hub is technically advanced. There are any number of revered components that do not appear on one out of every 7800 bikes produced in the world, as the Rohloff does, a pretty amazing feat for so expensive a component.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:20:27 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:19:00 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > But let's also note that Damon Rinard, of all people, would scoff at the road test we discussed a year or two ago, comparing a modern racing bike with one from the 80s, and claiming great differences from aspects other than weight. Rinard is the man who used physics principles to build the Analytic Cycling site. AC is a site respected by Carl Fogel, Jobst and me, and a site that demonstrates that climbing speed depends on little beyond power and total weight. If "responsiveness" and "handling" were important, Rinard would have built those factors in.
>
>
>
> I can't speak for Damon, but I suspect he would agree that frame stiffness, weight and geometry all affect performance. If not, his work would just be building the lightest possible bike. All of those things make my various bikes ride differently, although the greatest difference is weight and tire profile/pressure. The stiffer front end on my new Cannondale does give it a much more positive feel climbing and descending, but at the end of the day, I don't know if I'm doing either that much faster than my CAAD 9 (correcting for continued aging).

Jay, you could review the article and the ensuing discussion. The magazine recorded slightly increased speed in the climb. They attributed the speed to many "improved" factors - things like stiffness, handling, extra gears, better gear shifting, and I forget what all else. I was the one who showed that the change in speed was exactly what would be predicted by the change in weight.

That doesn't mean that a stiffer front end can't feel better. But that wasn't the main claim of the article, nor the main point of the discussion here. And I maintain that Rinard, an acknowledged master of predicting speed benefits, would agree. Heck, you can use his website to verify my calculations!

> The latest "big difference" is new bars on both my CAAD 9 (which got the OEM Cannondale branded bars from my SuperSix) and on my commuter, which got some cheap Performance bars to replace the oxidized and pitted Ritchey bars. Both are relatively conventional bend bars, and I dislike both of them. It is amazing how the bend profile and lever placement can affect comfort. I lived for decades with classic Cinelli round bend bars, and now I hate that design. I'm going to fuss with lever placement some more (which means re-taping and re-taping cables). Maybe I can make them comfortable. My favorite bars are the anatomical bend, flat to FSA bars.

It's certainly true that there's lots of room for personal preference. But if a person's going to say "there's not much tech discussion any more," they should be willing to admit that preference in bar shape isn't exactly tech.

FWIW, I'm happy with the mix of topics on this group, although I'm not happy with the rudeness. R.b.soc and r.b.misc were both swamped by indefatigable trolls. That's what really drove the non-tech topics here. We'll see how long r.b.tech survives.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> You should check the numbers, Krygowski.
>
> In 2012 Rohloff sold 18000 hubs, a figure they publish. Between 1998 and the end of 2012 they built 171000 hubs, an average of over twice the figure you pulled out of thin air.

I accepted the numbers given by John for the total lifetime production. Based on that, my estimate was that Rohloff hubs are on 0.05% of the bikes produced since they were introduced. Even if it's wrong by a factor of two, that's still just 0.1% market penetration, and that's ignoring the billions of older bikes still being used. That doesn't meet the definition of popular.

> But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hub is technically advanced.

Correct, and I have said that the Rohloff is technically advanced. From here, there's no way to tell why you missed that. Some claim it's a dismal lack of reading comprehension, but I'll (diplomatically) give you more credit. I think it's more likely due to a layer of foaming saliva obscuring your computer screen.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:35:09 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:04:21 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 05:34:02 +0000, Clive George wrote:
>>
>> >You're wrong there - the Rohloff is actually pretty popular for people
>> >who don't mind paying for quality (the same folk who buy Dura-Ace,
>> >Record or XTR - and there's a lot of them about). But it's no longer
>> >"new tech" either.
>>
>> Someone said that Rohlof had sold 100,000 units... in a world that
>> produces nearly 140 million bikes a year.
>
>It's been sold for about 15 years. So perhaps 7000 per year? That puts Rohloff on about 0.05% of the bikes sold each year.
>

You dropped a decimal point there 7,000 divided by 140,000,000 is
0.000050 (or .0050 % ) The difference is about 10 years sales of the
Rohloff :-)

>I don't doubt that it's pretty popular among certain people. But apparently, there aren't very many of those people.
>
>Doesn't mean it's a bad design, of course. I think it's well done, and it obviously has certain advantages. It's just that very few think its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.
>

But it doesn't have 22 gears and everyone knows that 22 speeds is the
absolutely minimum number required to properly ride a bicycle :-)

>- Frank Krygowski
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Wes Groleau]

On 12-18-2013, 10:16, Andre Jute wrote:
> That may be true for those who don't grasp the n'lock's USP over carrying a hex key and loosening the stem every time you stop, which is all that poor Krygowski thinks it does. But for cyclists who understand what it does, and how it does it, and what is involved in defeating it (destroying the bike), and above all for cyclists who have their brains in gear well enough to take a systems approach to bicycle security, the n'lock is a huge boon in that it serves as the sole security required 95-99% of the time, depending on your circumstances. (Together with the cable attached inside the handlebar, it serves 99.999% of my needs, but I don't want to perpetrate the Krygowski Error of claiming that because it is true for me, it is necessarily true for everyone else.) But apparently no one else on RBT has the brains to work this out. Or perhaps they like carrying a 4 pound U-lock... I saved over four pounds of mass on my bike when I fitted the n'lock.

Looks like something I might buy, indeed. And no doubt it prevents a
LOT of thefts. But it obviously cannot stop someone who wants a
particular bike from carrying that bike.

--
Wes Groleau

Nutrition for Blokes: Re-engineering your diet for life
http://www.phlaunt.com/quentin

[Dan]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>>> ... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
>>> "religion"
>>> is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
>>> views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
>>> riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.
>>
>> Elsewhere, Frank said:
>>
>> "I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."
>>
>> But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
>> done"? ... Please?
>
> That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
> done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
> added dangers.

Okay, we have a problem already: What constitutes, "badly
done"?

Must it be 100% upside with zero downside? If there is any
downside, does that constitute "badly done"? If so, everything
is badly done, and our discussion is futile.

(But I'll play along for now... )

> One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
> lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge.

"Basically"? Is it, or isn't it?

> The drivers stay out
> of it.

Frickin' cool! (Unless you're a "bicycle driver" :-)

> The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
> barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
> lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
> meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
> edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
> though illegal.
>

So, sounds like an improvement (for bicyclists).

> At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
> it might be.
>

If it weren't for your "voice" coming over the internets to
us, I'd still be skeptical that Australia really exists :-)

Here, there is plenty of f*&^%d... er, "badly done" infra-
structure, all of it has one thing or another for somebody
to make a valid complaint about, but much of it has at least
*something* going for it. Since infrastructure seems key to
significantly increased participation, and participation
brings many benefits which are relevant priorities to the
society... "Get ready, 'cause here it comes."

> All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
> hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
> case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
> behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
> treatments.
>

If it really makes riding more hazardous, that should be
articulated to the responsible authority. If they won't
listen to reason... well, that's a problem with your society
- not infrastructure.

>> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>
> Does one example count? Please?
>

No, but your years of contributions here provide would *seem*
to provide an acceptably reliable *impression* of what you're
about, and you are excused :-)

(Of course, what do I know about VC anyway? ;-)

>> And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
>> wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
>> proper way for others.
>
> In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
> for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
> make their life better, they should fight for them.
>

All this fighting - I think I *will* move to one of the
enlightened societies.

> What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
> use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
> road.

Yes!! Yes! I see that. I don't like it either, but then,
I don't let it rule me. Certain "laws" take precedence over
others.

Problem is, the facilities won't be built unless they come with
a requirement to use them when reasonably practicable. Sounds
good to Frank; we know you can live without facilities; so can
I. But Nervous Ned and Fat Bottom Nellie won't get out of the
cage. Society will not crest the hill and snowball (in more
ways than mode share) into the valley of healthy happy kumbaya.

> Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
> to be difficult.

Fuck it. Why worry about proving it? Just ride where it makes
sense to you.

> Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in

> general than fat bottomed...

"... girls you make the rockin' world go 'round... "

"Get on your bikes and ride!"

[extended three-piece instrumental jam]

> ... women on city bikes count?
>

er... where was I? The fat bottom girls? You bet your ass
they count! Er... oh - you meant does the fact that you're
so much faster than them count? Uh... sure - that counts;
what did I say before up there? Ride where it makes sense to
you? Are you reading me?

What about the fat bottom girls, though? You would take away
their bike lane? Forester? (Move away from the altar... )

> Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
> lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
> road.
>

Sounds great.

>> Do you see the religiousness?
>
> Not really. More self preservation than anything.
>

I was talking to Frank, but any may play. Surely you have
the impression from *my* years of "contributions" (such as
they are) that we agree on self preservation. The religion
thing had to do with being judgmental (you're not doing that
properly and there's something wrong with it) and zealous
evangelism about the one true right proper way if you want to
be accepted into the Kingdom and the glory and the way and the
life and all that.

(Man I am not succinct.)

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 8:53:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>
>
> You dropped a decimal point there 7,000 divided by 140,000,000 is
> 0.000050 (or .0050 % ) The difference is about 10 years sales of the
> Rohloff :-)

Oops, you're right. Next time I'll grab a calculator.

Of course, Mr. Jute has informed us that we're off by a factor of roughly two. So that makes it a full 0.01% of the market, not counting all the older bikes still in service.

I think I understand why I've never seen one in real life!

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:


<snip>

>
> It's certainly true that there's lots of room for personal preference. But if a person's going to say "there's not much tech discussion any more," they should be willing to admit that preference in bar shape isn't exactly tech.
>

I disagree that there is not technical reason for the preference.

> FWIW, I'm happy with the mix of topics on this group, although I'm not happy with the rudeness.
>

Yeah, yeah - and you always carry a comb, and tissues
in your handlebar bag. We know. Nothing Wrong With
That (TM), but take the judgmental down a few notches.

> R.b.soc and r.b.misc were both swamped by indefatigable trolls. That's what really drove the non-tech topics here. We'll see how long r.b.tech survives.
>

The prognosis was iffy before the breach on our veil of
obscurity.

It's a horrendous maggot infestation, but looks like it
should be manageable with e.g. filters (technology!)

(I haven't traced the source, but have a sense that I
witnessed the cross-posting breach and an idea who was
responsible - unintentionally, I think, but what a shit
storm it has wrought!)

Personally, I prefer back-of-the-shop banter to hoity-
toity analytic engineering pretense. Doesn't mean I
don't appreciate facts and science, but the back-of-the-
shop banter has produced many a highly qualified mechanic,
and (I can tell you for sure but shouldn't have to) the
engineering schools have produced many a nincompoop.

[Dan]

Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:58:08 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:34:08 PM UTC-5, Dan O wrote:
>
>> > But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
>> > done"? ... Please?
>>
>> I have, recently and many times in the past.
>
> Show me, please.
>
>>
>> > Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>>
>> Dan, if I thought you would actually read, I'd give you citations of books and articles, and links to sites, where expert and well-known vehicular cyclists speak approvingly of certain bike infrastructure.
>>
>
> I'd read that, but how about just some examples of infrastructure
> that is not "badly done"?
>

How about just those (at least two?) examples of infrastructure
that you said you were largely responsible for in your area?

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:09:48 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
> > FWIW, I'm happy with the mix of topics on this group, although I'm not happy with the rudeness.
>
> Yeah, yeah - and you always carry a comb, and tissues
> in your handlebar bag. We know. Nothing Wrong With
> That (TM), but take the judgmental down a few notches.

:-) And of course, _you're_ not being judgmental at all, right?

Your remark about carrying a comb and tissue remind me about an incident many, many years ago. One of my students also had aspirations as a singer/songwriter, and my wife and I went to a club to hear him perform. His cocky little girlfriend - whom we barely knew - was there as well.

At a certain point, she came up to us, sniffling, and asked my wife if she had a kleenex in her purse. My wife said "Sure" and gave her one.

Instead of thanks, she said "You looked like the type that would carry a kleenex," and walked away.

We looked at each other and my wife said (out of earshot) "And she looks like the type that would run around with a snotty nose."

> Personally, I prefer back-of-the-shop banter to hoity-
> toity analytic engineering pretense. Doesn't mean I

> don't appreciate facts and science...

Yes it does. You're once again blathering idiocy while you stand in total ignorance. You have no concept of what engineering entails, and how far it is beyond you. You'd have had zero chance of making it through an engineering curriculum or doing any practical engineering, yet you demean the profession that's enabled your bike to even exist - not to mention your roads, your computer, your electrical supply, your heating and cooling, your water supply, and even your sewage system.

Of course, maybe your sewage system isn't working. That would explain what you spew here.

- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 19/12/13 14:46, Dan wrote:
> James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>
>>>> ... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
>>>> "religion"
>>>> is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
>>>> views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
>>>> riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.
>>>
>>> Elsewhere, Frank said:
>>>
>>> "I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."
>>>
>>> But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
>>> done"? ... Please?
>>
>> That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
>> done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or
>> added dangers.
>
> Okay, we have a problem already: What constitutes, "badly
> done"?
>
> Must it be 100% upside with zero downside? If there is any
> downside, does that constitute "badly done"? If so, everything
> is badly done, and our discussion is futile.
>
> (But I'll play along for now... )

I'd say it shouldn't make riding more dangerous than it was before. If
you don't think that includes door-in-your-face bike lanes, for example,
then sure, there's plenty of fine bike specific infrastructure.

>> One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
>> lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge.
>
> "Basically"? Is it, or isn't it?

There were two car lanes. There is now a car and a bike lane with a
painted island between. The bike lane is just a little narrower than
the car lane was before it.

>> The drivers stay out
>> of it.
>
> Frickin' cool! (Unless you're a "bicycle driver" :-)
>

Oh, yeah. It's fabulous - for 150m.

>> The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by
>> barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
>> lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
>> meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
>> edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
>> though illegal.
>>
>
> So, sounds like an improvement (for bicyclists).

Certainly. The one and only.

>> At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
>> it might be.
>>
>
> If it weren't for your "voice" coming over the internets to
> us, I'd still be skeptical that Australia really exists :-)
>
> Here, there is plenty of f*&^%d... er, "badly done" infra-
> structure, all of it has one thing or another for somebody
> to make a valid complaint about, but much of it has at least
> *something* going for it. Since infrastructure seems key to
> significantly increased participation, and participation
> brings many benefits which are relevant priorities to the
> society... "Get ready, 'cause here it comes."

Yes, and as I've eluded here, I think the "must use bike lane" law needs
an exception for people who ride faster than, say, 20km/h. Let the
wobbly ones enjoy the segregated bike lanes, where they can brake and
stop when a pedestrian steps in their way, and with their big fluffy
tyres they can probably handle more glass too.

Let me and others like me who regularly ride at 30 or 40 km/h behave
like other road going vehicles if we want to - and not be penalised for it.

>> All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
>> hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
>> case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
>> behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
>> treatments.
>>
>
> If it really makes riding more hazardous, that should be
> articulated to the responsible authority. If they won't
> listen to reason... well, that's a problem with your society
> - not infrastructure.

Really. You don't think I've been doing that? I even emailed council
plans to John Forester for his comment! The council think the design of
one particular road is all fine and dandy. The local all powerful
Bicycle Network gave it their rubber stamp - though I bet they've never
tested it. I have spoken to about a dozen bicycle riders who have
ridden along the road in question, and _none_ would even think of using
the bike lanes they've installed.

>
>>> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>>
>> Does one example count? Please?
>>
>
> No, but your years of contributions here provide would *seem*
> to provide an acceptably reliable *impression* of what you're
> about, and you are excused :-)
>

Oh, thank you.

That's what I do at the moment.

>> Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
>> general than fat bottomed...
>
> "... girls you make the rockin' world go 'round... "
>
> "Get on your bikes and ride!"
>
> [extended three-piece instrumental jam]
>
>> ... women on city bikes count?
>>
>
> er... where was I? The fat bottom girls? You bet your ass
> they count! Er... oh - you meant does the fact that you're
> so much faster than them count? Uh... sure - that counts;
> what did I say before up there? Ride where it makes sense to
> you? Are you reading me?
>
> What about the fat bottom girls, though? You would take away
> their bike lane? Forester? (Move away from the altar... )
>

Not at all. We need more fat bottomed girls out there.

>> Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
>> lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
>> road.
>>
>
> Sounds great.
>
>>> Do you see the religiousness?
>>
>> Not really. More self preservation than anything.
>>
>
> I was talking to Frank, but any may play. Surely you have
> the impression from *my* years of "contributions" (such as
> they are) that we agree on self preservation. The religion
> thing had to do with being judgmental (you're not doing that
> properly and there's something wrong with it) and zealous
> evangelism about the one true right proper way if you want to
> be accepted into the Kingdom and the glory and the way and the
> life and all that.
>
> (Man I am not succinct.)

I was only playing along.

--
JS

[Lou Holtman]

Op donderdag 19 december 2013 00:35:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:

Frank, visit Rohloff's website read their history and filosofy and you will understand why they don't sell millions of units a year. They can't and they don't want to. They made a perfect product for their intended customers. I'm in product development myself for more than 30 years now and can tell you that they do remarkable job and still do considering their resources.

Lou

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:14:37 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > You should check the numbers, Krygowski.
>
> > In 2012 Rohloff sold 18000 hubs, a figure they publish. Between 1998 and the end of 2012 they built 171000 hubs, an average of over twice the figure you pulled out of thin air.
>
> I accepted the numbers given by John for the total lifetime production.

I see. How is it that someone else is always to blame when you get the numbers wrong, Franki-boy? Isn't the first thing a proper engineer does to check that he's working with the correct numbers?

> Based on that, my estimate was that Rohloff hubs are on 0.05% of the bikes produced since they were introduced. Even if it's wrong by a factor of two, that's still just 0.1% market penetration, and that's ignoring the billions of older bikes still being used. That doesn't meet the definition of popular.

Being out by 100% probably passes for accuracy in Krygo-land, but I'm not so fussed about that (if the anal obsessives can clean up behind me, they can clean up behind you too -- unlike you and Scharfie, I'm not a hypocrite) as about the repeated insult to our intelligence of the junior-school debating tricks you introduce, Franki-boy. Here your little debating-trade trick is the obfuscation of "That doesn't meet the definition of popular." That's the same as, "If it isn't $1.99, it isn't tech," a despicably formulation. Also, an attempt at obfuscation. Making the test of whether tech is to be discussed whether it is possible is your dumb barnacle on the conversation, no one else's. It's as despicable in your mouth as it is in Daniels' or George's.

Even more distressing is your lack of imagination. For heaven's sake, man, can't you see that it is pretty awesome for a hub gearbox that costs a grand and a half in those mickey mouse American dollars to be on one bike out of every 7800 and even more common on real bikes when one considers that a large part of the 140m John B cites are bike shaped objects, hardly more than toys, that probably cost less at the factory gate for a dozen than the wholesale price of a single Rohloff chain tensioner.

It's called lateral thinking, or just imagination; you can find exercises on the net to help you develop some.

> > But that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hub is technically advanced.
>
> Correct, and I have said that the Rohloff is technically advanced. From here, there's no way to tell why you missed that. Some claim it's a dismal lack of reading comprehension, but I'll (diplomatically) give you more credit. I think it's more likely due to a layer of foaming saliva obscuring your computer screen.

Nah, I just read a few lines of your posts to see if your inevitable errors need to be corrected by me or will most likely be taken care of by someone else. You don't know anything I don't already know*, Franki-boy, so it isn't worth my while to read more. Of course, even a broken clock reads right twice a day, so by that method I'll occasionally overlook a place where you agree with me and are therefore correct for a change. Too bad; that's the cost of you being such a wrongo for so longo (heh-heh), and so boringly longwinded about it.

> - Frank Krygowski

Hey, Davey-boy, Kreepy Krygo is a candidate for you to impose your lower-class idea of "nice manners" on. I wish you success! Once you've knocked off his corners, I'll take him in hand and give you a demonstration of why I'm a boss motivational psychologist: I'll turn the totally objectionable thug Krygowski into the charming bicycle spokesmen he wanted to be before he crossed me. Christ, I've done it for dumber governors, senators, premiers and cabinet ministers, so why not for RBT prime thicko? All it takes is enough money to pay me, and a peg off the washing line for my nose to keep me from choking on the smell of pigshit.

Andre Jute

* "You don't know anything I don't already know, Franki-boy" -- Though you could try the good manners to be grateful to me for giving you the main thing you *do* know, Krygo, that cycling is safer than is commonly thought. For the johnny-come-latelies like Davey-boy and John B, poor Krygo is so incompetent with statisttics, he made cycling seem more dangerous than it really is. I took pity on him and worked up a set of statistics that showed cycling to be so much safer than Krygowski claimed, everyone was amazed. Krygowski has since used my analysis. Of course, he's such an ungracious, mannerless lout, I'm still waiting for as much as "thank you".

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 6:35:24 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:14:37 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:30:16 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

Snipped

>Of course, even a broken clock reads right twice a day,

Snipped
> Andre Jute

Not if it's a 24 hours clock. VBEG LOL ;<)

Cheerio

[Andre Jute]

Well, the way Krygowski counts, it doesn't matter whether he's right once or twice a day and wrong 86399 times or 86398 times. Either way the outcome is that he's clearly a wrongo.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

That's what I mean by a systems approach. Just for dashing into a shop, a bare n'lock stops the impulse thief riding it away. If your bike is large and heavy like mine, the bare n'lock will almost certainly stop all but the largest, strongest and most coordinated thieves from carrying it away even as far as his truck. The flopping, uncooperative steering wheel and handlebars are almost guaranteed to bring him down, very likely with breakages. I worry more about a thief managing to scratch my irreplaceable coachlining than him stealing my bike. For the coachlining, see Meester Kluwer of Van Raam umbilically connecting my bike to the iconic Locomotief Crossframe De Luxe of 1935, well down in this PDF: http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf

Systems approach: One of the accessories for the n'lock is a handlebar (in several shapes) with a cable attached to the inside, which you wrap around a handy fixed object and plug into the n'lock so that all your security has one key.

If you need more than that, a long cable is available which you thread through the components and around a fixed object and then plug into the n'lock, same one key operation. I have this one too, but don't even know where it is, because I see no no great need for it.

Beyond that, you need to carry a good U-lock. (I like the Abus 54 Granit X but I can't be bothered to carry it...)

n'lock, bare, on sale at a good price: http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/nlock-classic-313-locking-1-1-8-inch-stem-+6-deg-318-mm-clamp-100mm-prod33089/

More info, pics of my installation, large pic on second page: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=3930.0

Ask if you want to know more.

Good luck.

Andre jute

[Duane]

Or digital with a dead battery. lol

[Frank Krygowski]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 4:59:18 AM UTC-5, Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op donderdag 19 december 2013 00:35:09 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
>
>

> Frank, visit Rohloff's website read their history and filosofy and you will understand why they don't sell millions of units a year. They can't and they don't want to. They made a perfect product for their intended customers. I'm in product development myself for more than 30 years now and can tell you that they do remarkable job and still do considering their resources.

Lou, I admire Rohloff's achievements. I think their hub is a technological marvel, and although I've not investigated all the other internal gear choices, I feel sure that theirs is the absolute cream of the crop.

As with so many topics on this group, the discussion has splintered a bit. I'm merely saying that the Rohloff, good as it appears to be, is very much a niche product. Over 99.99% of the world's cyclists apparently think they're better off with other systems. A person like Jute should not insult other members of the discussion group because they choose not to own a Rohloff.

That doesn't mean I'd turn one down if it were given to me, or sold to me at a price I felt I could justify. It's a marvelous piece of work.

- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Heh-heh!

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 4:31:54 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> A person like Jute should not insult other members of the discussion group because they choose not to own a Rohloff.

I don't care what you choose to buy, or dumpster-dive for, Franki-boy; everyone knows you're a cheapskate. But once more you're lying about what happened. What I said was that Rohloff, among other technical advances, cannot be discussed on RBT because the resident scum, like you, will instantly divert the conversation into their own petty concerns (an example is how you diverted Lou's invitation to you into another sideswipe at me, above). I didn't insult anyone for not choosing, or having the money, to buy a Rohloff. I put down the usual trash for being hostile to any tech that costs more than $1.99 or that isn't branded Shimano, preferably both. That's not news, sonny; I put you down every time I see you, because you deserve it, and the rest of the scum when they misbehave. Nothing to do with Rohloff in particular, but with your wretched behavior and fascist attitudes to human life and other matters, of which your congenital lying is the least part.

Andre Jute
Relentles rigor -- Gaius Germanicus

[SMS]

On 12/19/2013 1:59 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

> Frank, visit Rohloff's website read their history and filosofy and you will understand why they don't sell millions of units a year. They can't and they don't want to. They made a perfect product for their intended customers. I'm in product development myself for more than 30 years now and can tell you that they do remarkable job and still do considering their resources.

Exactly. They aren't trying to cater to people that buy solely on price.
It's a unique product with specific advantages that some people value. I
think I saw one on a bicycle on the train on Tuesday. Full chain case,
dynamo hub, and a height-adjustable threaded headset as well.

Many people are perfectly willing to spend relatively large sums of
money on products that demonstrate a clear advantage over the
alternatives even if that advantage isn't obvious to many people.

Of course many people are willing to spend relatively large sums of
money on products with a clear disadvantage over the alternatives.
That's puzzling to some of us but it's their money and they can do what
they want with it.

[AMuzi]

wake me when it's time to sing kumbaya.


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

For some definition of clear, alternatives and disadvantages.
--
duane

[Andre Jute]

That used be sung by the pinko--commie-fellow travelers at my first college. Are you coming out of the closet, Andrew?

Andre Jute

[AMuzi]

Not at all.
I just wouldn't want to miss the moment.
Invective I can read any time.

[Radey Shouman]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 19/12/13 06:34, Dan O wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:26:12 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>
>>> ... problem is not my "religion." (The closest I have to a
>>> "religion"
>>> is relevant facts, data and their citations.) ... problem is that my
>>> views differ from... "one true religion" of danger, bike lanes and edge
>>> riding, and that I've posted data showing [that] religion to be wrong.
>>
>> Elsewhere, Frank said:
>>
>> "I've got no problem at all with criticizing or protesting badly done cycling infrastructure."
>>
>> But can you point to some examples of infrastructure that is not "badly
>> done"? ... Please?
>
> That is difficult. There are only one or two short sections of well
> done infrastructure that I know of, where there are no impediments or

> added dangers. One section is about 150m long, and basically is a car
> lane remarked for bicycles only, across a bridge. The drivers stay out
> of it. The riders get full use of the lane, and are not hemmed in by

> barriers and bollards. There is just a painted island to separate the
> lanes. Prior to that the car traffic would bank up for several hundred
> meters and the bike lane was a half meter wide strip next to a very hard
> edged gutter (like about 6 inches straight up) - or the foot path,
> though illegal.
>

> At first I thought there was another example, but now I can't think what
> it might be.

I have described one near me already: a single lane, not striped, that
was *just* wide enough to tempt masshole drivers into sharing it between
two cars. It was not wide enough to share between a truck and a car,
nor between two cars and a bicycle, and so was really ugly to ride.

A bike lane stripe was added, and now the cars fall into a single lane,
which is quite a significant improvment, despite not adding any asphalt.

>
> All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
> hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
> case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
> behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
> treatments.
>

>> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>
> Does one example count? Please?
>

>> And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
>> wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
>> proper way for others.
>
> In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
> for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
> make their life better, they should fight for them.
>

> What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
> use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the

> road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
> to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
> general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?

>
> Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
> lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
> road.
>

>> Do you see the religiousness?
>
> Not really. More self preservation than anything.

Agreed.
--

[Andre Jute]

I quite agree. RBT offers an altogether better class of invective since I arrived. But that's hardly surprisingly, considering how many obstinately dull engineers post on RBT. Even a lesser polemicist than me would have enlivened the proceedings considerably.

Andre Jute
Connoisseur

[sms]

On 12/19/2013 9:46 AM, SMS wrote:

should be:

> Of course many people are willing to spend relatively large sums of

> money on products with _NO_ clear disadvantage over the alternatives.

[Jay Beattie]

There are a lot of places where striping a bike lane has made my commute more enjoyable, particularly where there was pavement added to accommodate the bike lane. If I am travelling faster than other cyclists, I legally may enter the traffic lane to pass. There is some stupid and dangerous infrastructure, too. It's hit and miss but hardly all bad. There are even some dog and pedestrian laden multi-use paths that give me an alternate route home or even a short-cut out to the country, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/qesyomy

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:35:23 PM UTC, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 18 Dec 2013

> To be fair, they don't exactly target the mass market xmart BSOs,
>
> which probably account for 99% of bicycles sold.
>
> I doubt if their market penetration is much worse than Di2, for
>
> example, and it is a comparison with that which would be more
>
> meaningful.
>
> I don't think there is any real doubt about the technical excellence
>
> of what they produce, and scaling production up to supply a much
>
> larger market can be very difficult.
>
> It seems to me that Rohloff's penetration of the market they actually
>
> target is remarkably good, given the price of the product.
>
> It could probably be improved quite a bit by a greater range of
>
> shifting options, as well. The fact that they don't yet offer much in
>
> the way of shifting options seems to indicate to me that they are
>
> happy with the market penetration that they have achieved, since that
>
> would be a very cheap and easy way of expanding the target market.
>
> Expanding too fast is a recipe for losing control of the business to
>
> bean-counters, and losing the benefit the company currently has of
>
> being controlled by the engineers.
>
> I suspect they are expanding at the rate that can be funded by
>
> profits, rather than looking for outside investment to do so (which
>
> would risk losing control of the business to non technical investors
>
> only interested in short-term profits).
>
> You'd never get a product of that quality from a company that starts
>
> with a desired bottom line, and works backwards to the product design.

One has to wonder whether and for how long under a regime of bean counters Bernd Rohloff would have been allowed to keep up one of the mainstays of Rohloff's enviable reputation for reliability: see, a Rohloff is guaranteed for a year or two by a piece of paper but I don't actually know how long, nor do I care, and most savvy owners take the same attitude, because we know that, if we play by the rules (only three: don't bodge, change the oil once a year, don't exceed the permitted torque), service including labour and parts and carriage to you anywhere in the world is free forever. Rohloff has never been known to charge anyone who didn't abuse the box. So, for any practical purposes, a Rohloff comes with a lifetime guarantee. (For practical purposes, its service life is indefinite: none have ever worn out.) That makes the thing a bargain at any price, because once you've taken the initial hit, there are no further expenses (less than twenty bucks a year for an oil change with the deluxe clean hands kit) until your grandchildren inherit it. I have two broken Shimano hub gearboxes that wore out in fewer miles between the pair of them than my Rohloff has traveled; just not having the nuisance of replacing a broken box, having to source a new wheel and fit it, is worth the whole price of a Rohloff installation to me. (Chalo used to say that a Rohloff starts being run-in about the time you retire a Shimano hub gearbox. I didn't grasp then that he wasn't being amusing: he meant it literally. I get it now.)

BTW, Rohloff has had a lighter, presumably roadie, version of their box ready to put into manufacturing for at least a couple of years. I suspect they haven't rolled it out not for lack of finance but because they fear the lighter box will interfere with their chief USP, which is their reputation for invincibility.

Trivia: The makers of my everyday bike, Utopia, were the first to see the benefit of this mud plugger's gearbox for touring plutocrats. Utopia bought the first 100 Rohloff gearboxes, and it is still the standard Utopia fitment on all their top bikes. One gets to rub shoulders with Herr Rohloff at the annual Utopia summer festival in the forest which holds the Utopia test track around the factory.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

Yes some bike lanes work well. And yes, some of those paths are pretty
empty at the ungodly early hour I'm heading to work. Of course they
deprive me of the joys of sitting in traffic but I somehow survive anyway.


--
duane

[Duane]

Yes we have a few cases like that here. One particular road that I
mentioned before goes from Montreal's west island to the city following the
river. When it's congested it's really nice to blow by the traffic instead
of sitting there inhaling exhaust fumes.

>>
>> All other infrastructure is either superfluous or makes riding more
>> hazardous in an attempt to make people either just feel safe, or in the
>> case of really segregated lanes, completely safe from being hit from
>> behind, though the risk of such a collision is not worthy of such
>> treatments.
>>
>>> Then we might consider that you are not devout VC.
>>

James seems more concerned with cycling than zealotry. Of course maybe
he's a zealous cyclist...

>> Does one example count? Please?
>>
>>> And even though you are, Nothing Wrong With That (TM). Where something
>>> wrong comes into it is your critical insistence that it's the one true
>>> proper way for others.
>>
>> In a democracy I have a right to fight for what I want and what works
>> for me. If other people want to have facilities that they think will
>> make their life better, they should fight for them.
>>
>> What I really object to is the laws that make it illegal for me to *not*
>> use their facilities when I consider them more dangerous to use than the
>> road. Proving that a bike lane is impracticable to use has been shown
>> to be difficult. Does the fact that I like to ride much faster in
>> general than fat bottomed women on city bikes count?
>>
>> Perhaps there should be a 20km/h speed limit on the segregated bike
>> lanes, such that if you expect to exceed that speed you may ride on the
>> road.
>>

That's how it works here and why we have a clause in the vehicle code
guaranteeing us the right to not use them.

>>> Do you see the religiousness?
>>
>> Not really. More self preservation than anything.
>
> Agreed.
> --

--
duane