Italian Bike brands

[Tom Kunich]

https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/

[AMuzi]

On 5/5/2023 6:32 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/
>

My 1976 Pogliaghi wasn't listed. Best handling bike I ever
owned.

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

[Lou Holtman]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/

Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties) a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames because they all used the same tubes. You only need good brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to be Italian. The best/durable paintjobs came from Belgium at that time. My LBS had a Pegoretti on display once. Beautiful bike but ridiculous expensive and a leadtime of 1 year. Technically nothing special though. Never tempted for an Italian frame. Ymmv.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

If anyone could make a steel bike why were the overwhelming majority from Italy and not France, Belgium or the Netherlands? Around the world why are most older and new steel bikes Italian? Tommasini still sells more steel bikes than carbon. My 60 cm Tommasini weighs 18 1/4 lbs. That's a little more than a lb heavier than my Trek Emonda of the same size. You're willing to throw away almost 2 lbs on disk brakes so obviously that amount of weight isn't of any real concern to you.

Now I don't ride in the rain because I absolutely do not trust drivers that are speeding everywhere here. But your conditions are probably different and you prefer disks for their stopping power in the wet. But for plain stopping power rim brakes equal disks in dry conditions. I have been surprised on downhills going very fast and applying the brakes to have the rear wheel lifting. My wife can't ride her good bikes anymore because of damage to her ankle and so had gotten this horrible aluminum step through and it has V-brakes that are dangerously strong if you don't know how to ride. She and the kids rode coast to coast 2 1/2 times so she knows how to ride but the kids will not ride anymore. So I suppose that was enough riding for a lifetime.

The steels came from a dozen of different companies and was not "the same tubing" While the weights of the tubing varied quite a bit, the handling characteristics were significantly different. As for Columbus, a company built several bikes of all of the available Columbus tubing and had pro riders test the bikes and asked them what they preferred. Every one of them preferred the bike made of Thron - Columbus's cheapest tubes which had the best ride. My Land Shark is made of Columbus Brain. Very light hence oversize to return the stiffness that the thin tubing would otherwise lose.

I think that you're looking through the lens of today's peloton.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/6/2023 10:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/

>> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I was in the
market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties) a lot of them were
overpriced bad quality crap (mostly paintjobs). In the steel era anyone
could build good frames because they all used the same tubes. You only
need good brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to be
Italian. The best/durable paintjobs came from Belgium at that time. My
LBS had a Pegoretti on display once. Beautiful bike but ridiculous
expensive and a leadtime of 1 year. Technically nothing special though.
Never tempted for an Italian frame. Ymmv.
>>
>> Lou
> If anyone could make a steel bike why were the overwhelming majority
from Italy and not France, Belgium or the Netherlands? Around the world
why are most older and new steel bikes Italian? Tommasini still sells

more steel bikes than carbon. ...

>
> The steels came from a dozen of different companies and was not "the
same tubing" While the weights of the tubing varied quite a bit, the

handling characteristics were significantly different. ...

I'm with Lou on this. A majority of steel bikes from Italy means only
that Italian manufacturers were into bikes, much like American
manufacturers are into pickup trucks. Perhaps there are details of
culture and tradition that lured more Italians into bike manufacture,
but it certainly doesn't mean that nobody else can be as good at
building steel bikes.

A steel bike frame is a physical object that can be measured and
duplicated. If a custom builder in the U.S. measured and carefully
duplicated your favorite Italian bike, it would perform precisely the same.

And BTW, any differences in steel alloy would be irrelevant. Changing
from one steel alloy to another has no effect on handling characteristics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 5/6/2023 10:30 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/6/2023 10:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou
> Holtman wrote:
> >> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom

> Kunich wrote:
> >>> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/
>
> >> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I
> was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties)
> a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly
> paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames
> because they all used the same tubes. You only need good

> brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to

Good points, especially regarding steels as a group, 'all
else being equal'. They are often not equal, some builders
using mixed gauge tube to very good effect on handling
especially in climbing.

The Italians did many things well in the classic era, just
not everything and often imperfectly. To Mr Holtman's point,
compare a US Masi Gran Criterium to the Italian model.
Night and day.

[Lou Holtman]

There are/were fine framebuilders in every country. SLX tubeset or any other tubeset you could/can buy is the same in the US, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands for instance a lot of people rode a Gazelle frame with some Reynolds tubeset. Joerg still ride such a frame. They were as good as any Italian frame. IIRC the name Tommasini or another once ‘famous’ Italian brand was sold several times and at the end had nothing to do with the original. I may be wrong and Andrew will correct me.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

This is what causes me to question Frank's claim that he is a mechanical engineer. Steel as a material overall has the same average strength but steel in particular grades have a LOT of variations. Harder steels less prone to bending could be pulled into thinner sections - two and three gauges from specialty houses. I could plainly tell the difference in rides of the racing tubing houses from Columbus. Of what good is it making oversize tubing if all it does is make a frame heavier? My Eddy Merckx Strata rode completely different from the Eddy Mercks Corsa. and it wasn't geometry.

But I suppose we dabble anyway since the tires make 10 times or more different than the type of steel. I refer to the ride as it was with 23 mm tire pumped to 120 psi. Who does that anymore?

[Tom Kunich]

Certainly Lou and I'm sure that they are equally able to make special purpose frames for those purposes. But the Italians specialized in racing frames and that is what we ride. Trek built some good racing bikes but they relied on Eddy Merckx to build their racing frames and he was heavily influenced by Colnago.

[AMuzi]

On 5/6/2023 10:56 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:30:44 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/6/2023 10:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:

>>>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/
>>
>>>> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I was in the
>> market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties) a lot of them were
>> overpriced bad quality crap (mostly paintjobs). In the steel era anyone
>> could build good frames because they all used the same tubes. You only

>> need good brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to be

> There are/were fine framebuilders in every country. SLX tubeset or any other tubeset you could/can buy is the same in the US, Belgium and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands for instance a lot of people rode a Gazelle frame with some Reynolds tubeset. Joerg still ride such a frame. They were as good as any Italian frame. IIRC the name Tommasini or another once ‘famous’ Italian brand was sold several times and at the end had nothing to do with the original. I may be wrong and Andrew will correct me.
>
> Lou
>

Not sure about Tommasini (his daughter was running things
when last knew) but certainly 'brands' have no relationship
with their origin any longer with very few exceptions (the
Shimano family, the Campagnolo family).

The Dodge Brothers or Agnelli would not recognize Stellantis.

[Tom Kunich]

The two Tommasini sisters are running Tommasini. But I suppose that's neither here nor there since neither of them raced professionally. But they don't build the bikes. They measure you and long term builders build the bikes to very exacting standards.

[John B.]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 07:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29?AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:

Some years ago a bloke had two identical bicycles built. One from the
best tubing and one from the cheap stuff. One was painted blue and one
pink, if I remember. He then got a bunch of bicycle "experts" to ride
them and none of these "experts" could tell the difference between the
expensive version and the cheap version. In fact a number thought that
the "cheap charley" bike rode best.

I can't find a copy of the test but I believe that I remember Frank
referencing it so perhaps he can furnish "proof".

As for handling, I have a study of "Italian "Stage" Bicycles" that
says, in brief, that "Italian Stage Bicycles" of the times had
slightly different geometry - top tube and seat tube length and fork
angle and trail, which made it's handling different.

So, in simple terms, it seems that the difference in feel between
different tubing is minimal, perhaps impossible to feel, while
difference in feel between different geometries is very noticeable.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

> This is what causes me to question Frank's claim that he is a mechanical engineer. Steel as a material overall has the same average strength but steel in particular grades have a LOT of variations. Harder steels less prone to bending could be pulled into thinner sections - two and three gauges from specialty houses. I could plainly tell the difference in rides of the racing tubing houses from Columbus.

Your comment proves that you're not an engineer. "Steel overall has the same average strength" is
meaningless. Yes, particular grades have great variations in strength; but I was talking (as you were)
about handling, and the strength of a bike's tubing has no direct effect on handling. If you had
two steel bikes made of different steel alloys but with identical dimensions throughout, including
all tubing dimensions, they would ride the same. This is pretty basic metallurgical knowledge.

The only limitation on that statement would be if one steel alloy were so weak that the frame
failed by bending, twisting, etc. But that's not ride quality, that's failure.

Your "plainly telling the difference" has only two realistic explanations. One would be actual
differences in frame dimensions, like thicker tube walls or differences in angles, sizes and other
frame dimensions. The other would be yet another Kunich delusion.

And of course, those two explanations are not mutually exclusive.

- Frank Krygowski

[NFN Smith]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Certainly Lou and I'm sure that they are equally able to make special
> purpose frames for those purposes. But the Italians specialized in
> racing frames and that is what we ride. Trek built some good racing
> bikes but they relied on Eddy Merckx to build their racing frames and
> he was heavily influenced by Colnago.

Speaking of Merckx and steel...

My understanding is that Merckx is really finicky on fit. I saw a story
about when the Motorola team was riding his frames, where he would go
ride with the team, and was constantly fiddling with adjustments
(especially saddle and seatpost). Not just his own, but team riders,
moving things around a mm one way or the other.

Apparently this also affected his preference for doing steel frames,
where steel allowed him to tear apart a frame and re-assemble easily, if
he wasn't entirely happy with all the geometry. As far as I'm aware,
Merckx is now doing other materials, but among the builders supplying
teams, they were one of the later ones to move away from steel exclusively.

Smith

[NFN Smith]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> There are/were fine framebuilders in every country. SLX tubeset or
> any other tubeset you could/can buy is the same in the US, Belgium
> and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands for instance a lot of people
> rode a Gazelle frame with some Reynolds tubeset. Joerg still ride
> such a frame. They were as good as any Italian frame. IIRC the name
> Tommasini or another once ‘famous’ Italian brand was sold several
> times and at the end had nothing to do with the original. I may be
> wrong and Andrew will correct me.

There is also a question where they're actually building frames. Just
because the name is an old well-known name, I think that a lot of the
actual building may be outsourced to builders in other countries, where
the production costs are cheaper. It may be that the high-end racing
lines are still built in-house, but as you go down to cheaper lines that
do higher volume of sales, then they're more likely to be outsourced.

My own bike (just one) is a Bianchi Vigorelli -- it does everything I
need, although perhaps a little too heavy for racing, and as such, it
doesn't have a Celestia paint job. But as far as I'm aware, it was
assembled in Taiwan and not in Italy.

Smith

[John B.]

On Sat, 6 May 2023 20:46:37 -0700, NFN Smith <worldo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Basically, with a metal bike, the design is the whole story, assuming
of course that the bike is assembled in a competent shop/factory, as
cutting, fitting and fastening metal together is a skill that is
practically world wide.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

I have a bike from specially drawn to purpose Columbus steel, and together with some tricks in the frame, the steel and the structure combine to be stronger in torsion than a two and a half ton Rolls-Royce. Any engineer foolish enough to tell me you can do that with any old pot iron is an idiot.
>
Why am I not surprised that it is Frank Krygowski being stupid? Again.
>
I can remember when we built motor-racing chasses from 1in square or round tube, and the quality of the metal sure as hell mattered if you didn't want to die on the track.
>
Andre Jute
There is more about steel, Horatio, than is dreamt of in Timoshenko. -- Will Shakespeare (a cyclist?)
>

[Andre Jute]

Open-hearth brazing of bicycles is probably a goner unless someone can find a village blacksmith who is interested in building a bike the old way.*
>
Personally, for new materials, I liked Marc Newson's foamed aluminium S-shaped frame for Biomega, Craig Calfee's bamboo bike, and a wide variety of wood-framed bicycles from designers and DIYers from around the world.
>
Andre Jute
Wood is the wonder-material par excellence.
>
* Chances unfortunately are that such a village blacksmith bike won't be refined enough for modern tastes. Example: during the Chinese COVID Pandemic, after adding a few pieces to my watch collection (stuff I didn't have like a double compressor diver, and my first smart watch for many years), I started a small collection of knives. Everyone knows the French regional specialty, the Laguiole knife as a very smooth, refined, finished to a T, item. But that's for tourists. My French lawyer, a wit and an all-round good fellow, happened to be in the right place to bid on a Laguiole knife with a special provenance, that it had been used by a real shepherd, and was made for him from damasque steel (basically sheets of carbon and stainless hammered together and folded and hammered ad infinitum, evidenced as lines and swirls on and in the blade that can be polished away or enhanced by etching -- it's what makes a thin katakana blade so strong) with a 124+ layers hammered by his brother-in-law and handled with a fine parquet of dissimilar woods by his other brother-in-law, a carpenter. The lawyer bought the knife for me. When I got it, I was horrified at how roughly it had been made, but it was definitely authentic: when I put it in a spirit bath to sterilise it, fifty or sixty years of dried lamb's blood floated out, enough to make a blutwurst. But the gaps between the side plates and the slip joint spring weren't anywhere near even and the bee, presumably originally forge-welded or brazed on, had at some stage been knocked off and electrically welded back on -- skew. On the other hand, it was made of good enough metal that you could still after half a century or more of use and several further decades of lying around in a toolbox and being used as a prybar see some of the original polish behind the scratches. The point is that to me, the provenance of authenticity makes the knife special -- besides the fact that Maitre Olivier is the only lawyer who ever made me a gift -- so that I'm halfway to deciding just to polish it up lightly, as the shepherd's son might have done on inheriting his father's knife, but a big-time knife collector would probably have it over-restored to a finish it never had when it was new, same way a hearth-brazed bike by a village blacksmith wouldn't be acceptable to most of today's riders. Horses for courses.
>

[John B.]

On Sun, 7 May 2023 04:55:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:12:01?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:56:21?AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 5/6/2023 10:30 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > > On 5/6/2023 10:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> > > > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou
>> > > Holtman wrote:
>> > > >> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom

>> > > Kunich wrote:
>> > > >>> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/
>> > >
>> > > >> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I
>> > > was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties)
>> > > a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly
>> > > paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames
>> > > because they all used the same tubes. You only need good

>> > > brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to

Well, that sounds pretty exciting but exactly what are you talking
about? Columbus doesn't seem to specify the exact alloy that they use
but their higher end tubing is specified with a maximum tensile
strength very, very, close to common old heat treated 4140 steel.
Which is in the 150,000 - 160,000psi range, more or less depending on
temperatures used in the heat treating process.

And stronger in torsion? Again exactly what do you mean? For example
it could be to clamp the head tune in a vice and apply 5,000 pounds of
force to the seat tube to attempt to twist the frame laterally?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

I'm no longer surprise what comes from the fingers of Krygowski after he has spent all day with them up his ass. Hardened steel has a strength of about 450 megapascals while the alloys can range all the way up to 1200 megapascals. Frank wants the entire world to know that there is no difference when there is three times the strength or more in steel alloys used in things like some sorts of missiles. Frank claims to be a mechanical engineer and comes up with bullshit like "they're all the same"?

It is noticeable that even Flunky has stayed out of these comments because he has actually ridden bicycles and not pretended to do so like Slocomb whose entire experience is from Google or Krygowski who as never been able to afford a good high end Italian racing bike and hence pretends that his straight gauge hardened steel low end touring bike is as good as it gets.

[Roger Meriman]

I can well believe that, this said my CX bike which was essentially a early
Gravel bike, it’s geometry was similar to my Gravel bike and on same tires
and size and pressures I remember being surprised that the Gravel bike
didn’t jar as much.

But the Gravel bike was from a better manufacturer, and by that time
definitely a Gravel bike be that early one.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/7/2023 9:31 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Hardened steel has a strength of about 450 megapascals while the alloys can range all the way up to 1200 megapascals. Frank wants the entire world to know that there is no difference when there is three times the strength or more in steel alloys used in things like some sorts of missiles. Frank claims to be a mechanical engineer and comes up with bullshit like "they're all the same"?

Nobody doubts that different steels with different heat treatments have
different strengths. That's not what was being discussed.

You implied that different steels affect ride quality. Note that a
frame's "ride quality" (however you define it) is something completely
different than its strength.

I said if two frames were perfectly identical except for the type of
steel, there would be no difference in ride quality.

If you can explain how two such frames would "ride" differently, have at
it. Your explanation should be fun to read.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

The bicycle triangular frame shape is EXTREMELY strong in the energy region we are talking about. So contrary to Krygowski displaying his ignorance of mechanical engineering, the alloys and tube thickness and diameter have a dramatic effect on initial impact reactions. A 7 lb frame made of cheap heat treated steel might very well compare to a 4 lb high strength alloy in every performance save weight and acceleration. Does Frank actually believe himself so clever and people whose entire lives were spent improving bicycle performance so stupid? Plainly that is so but he will now say "I didn't say that". Frank again and again shows himself to be a contemptable fraud.

This is as bad as that fool Slocomb being totally unaware that Kunich is a common Croatian name with dozens and dozens of unrelated families. And that it is the practice of the Christian communities all over the world to name their children after saints. Meaning that there are dozens of unrelated Thomas Kunichs across the US alone. He is stupid enough to quote another brain dead Jobst lover publishing the name and address of another unfortunate unrelated Kunich so that she probably had to put up with the same sort of crap my mother had to put up with when that immoral Jobst Brandt published her address and claimed it as mine. I did buy that house for her but it was always in her name until her death and she willed it to me rather than my older brother who would normally have inherited it. But at the time of the Jobst event, I was married and living in a town 20 miles away and before that was living on a 35 foot sailboat at my club in Alameda. Again 6 miles away from my mother's home.

I am the only one here who actually rode with Jobst and knew him personally so why do you suppose that the stupid 4 have anything at all to say about him? He had a lot of good things to say about him - he founded this group but Sheldon Brown was really the heart of the rec.bicycles.x was more than willing to take suggestions to improve them and most of all did not lead rides designed to be dangerous to new comers. In pure speed Jobst was not that very fast and that is why he continued to throw in dangerous things like jumping the 3 foot wide drainage ditch on the side of the road onto a gravel trail when in those days a lot of fast riders were riding on 21cm very high pressure tires. When I pointed that out is when Jobst went crazy accusing me of anything he could think of.

[John B.]

On Sun, 7 May 2023 05:55:55 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Open hearth brazing, probably. But torch brazing is alive and well and
the lugs used are still easy to find.
See
https://www.framebuilding.com/NEWPARTSPAGES/lugs.htm
https://www.framebuilding.com/NEWPARTSPAGES/Cast%20BB%20Shells.htm
https://www.framebuilding.com/NEWPARTSPAGES/Other%20BB%20shells.htm

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 7 May 2023 08:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

I hear you talking but I wonder. Nearly 20 years ago your address was
published and there was some discussion about it. But not a peep from
you saying that "you didn't live there". Not a peep! And now Suddenly!
"No, no, no! I didn't live there!" Did it tale you 17 years to figure
out that you didn't live there? Or is it just another lie.

If you didn't live there why did didn't you say something at the time?

>I am the only one here who actually rode with Jobst and knew him personally so why do you suppose that the stupid 4 have anything at all to say about him? He had a lot of good things to say about him - he founded this group but Sheldon Brown was really the heart of the rec.bicycles.x was more than willing to take suggestions to improve them and most of all did not lead rides designed to be dangerous to new comers. In pure speed Jobst was not that very fast and that is why he continued to throw in dangerous things like jumping the 3 foot wide drainage ditch on the side of the road onto a gravel trail when in those days a lot of fast riders were riding on 21cm very high pressure tires. When I pointed that out is when Jobst went crazy accusing me of anything he could think of.

As for you being a running buddy of Jobst, I doubt that very much as
his description of you is:
"I thought we had gotten over him, now that we have other contributors
who are equally rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering no
useful information. A few names come to mind.
and
"Kunich bore the flame of flaming writers on just about any subject
with no useful contribution to the thread except attempting to
belittle the previous writer."

Jobst Brandt"

Why would Jobst want to associate with someone he obviously detested.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

You're assuming that the special drawing was in the lowest common denominator of Columbus steel. Why bother with a special drawing then?

>
> Which is in the 150,000 - 160,000psi range, more or less depending on
> temperatures used in the heat treating process.
>

Lowest common denominator steel but pretty good for making replacement Ferrari chassis tubes, where the wall thickness can make up for the shortfalls of the material. Not what is in my bike.

>
> And stronger in torsion? Again exactly what do you mean? For example
> it could be to clamp the head tune in a vice and apply 5,000 pounds of
> force to the seat tube to attempt to twist the frame laterally?
>

I saw the test rig. The head tube was clamped, sure, but not the seat tube (where presumably you mean the middle of it). Instead the bottom bracket was clamped as well, and then a twisting force was applied. This test was repeated with the top of the seat tube clamped and the twisting force applied there. But the special frame which required the special tubes is three-dimensional, and triangulated, not one-dimensionally flat like a common diamond frame, so an axle was fitted between between the rear dropouts, and the 5000 pound twisting force was applied there and caused no deformation.
>
To get the benefit of the first element put on the drawing board, 60mm low-pressure tyres, the frame must be stiff. It is so stiff that I ride it, especially downhill, like I drive a car, right on the edge, where predictability is everything. In my opinion the special steel and the special drawing and the special handmade lugs are well worth the cost of the predictability that is their natural outcome. All it takes is brains, and money, of course.
>
Now, about your idea of clamping the seat tube at only one point, presumably in the middle, consider a large American SUV with a low-flying cowcatcher bar hitting a diamond-frame bike in the centre of the seat tube. The seat tube will buckle and pull the rest of the tubes with it, and very probably out of the central alignment that is the feature of the diamond frame. The bike will fold around the point of impact. Conclusion: little torsional resistance. Of course, your average diamond-frame bike either is a lowest common denominator tourer built of water pipes, or a road bike with a light rider on top and made of better tubes. In neither case is torsional rigidity a primary consideration. Neither will be ridden at high speed on bad roads with unequally distributed loads, whereas my bike is often loaded all on one side with a heavy easel and a 60 pound bag of paint and tools -- hefty but not far enough from the centreline to make 5k pounds of torsional force. Nor will a truck T-boning my bike trash it instantly, because the triangulation is about six or seven inches wide at the middle of the seat tube.
>
As Tom says, it's the tyres that matter, and on my bike everything was designed and scaled to maximise the effect of the big balloons around which the bike was designed, including every detail (except the gold coach lining by the European Craftsman of the Year) of the frame and its fittings. The amazing thing about the steel is that it makes an extremely competent bike very light for what it is: a crushing high speed tourer which at the factory door, with Rohloff hub gearbox filled and air in the 622 x 60mm tyres and luxurious fittings like B&M lamps front and back driven by a SON hub generator and stainless steel transmission gears under a full chain case, fenders and rack fitted, weighed only 16.8kg.
>
Andre Jute
Finite element analysis.
>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 07:56:48 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>...so an axle was fitted between between the rear dropouts,

>and the 5000 pound twisting force was applied there and
>caused no deformation.

Torque is measured in lbs-ft (pound-feet), Nm (newton-meters) and not
in pounds.

>...hefty but not far enough from the centreline to make 5k pounds of torsional force.

Same problem. lbs-ft or Nm, not pounds.

None of my torque wrenches will measure 5000 lbs-ft, lbs-in,
newton-meters or stones-cubits. Well, maybe kg-cm. Italy is metric,
so I assume that they also specify their bicycle frame torque limits
in metric units.

"Torque Specifications and Concepts"
<https://www.parktool.com/en-us/blog/repair-help/torque-specifications-and-concepts>
This article is for fasteners, not frame testing, but might help you
correct your torque units.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Andre Jute]

I'm rather busy today with a new watch for my collection, so when it is only you I'm writing to, whoever you are, you'll have to excuse carelessness with measures which I'm sure everyone, except the prissy-mouths trying to find something I did wrong, automatically corrected and took in their stride.
>
Andre Jute
Author of Designing and Building Special Cars
Full of correct measurement units, good chapter on chassis design including torsional stiffness.
>

[Tom Kunich]

No worry, it is only Liebermann trying to impress everyone that he discovered a typo. Imagine him gloating over his achievement.

[Tom Kunich]

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 9:35:15 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

I just got my financial report from my counselors and I am now officially a millionaire aside from the investment in my home. The kids want a reunion in Hawaii either this or next year. I do not like bright blue states but I can well afford it so that their mother can see them comfortably. So though they don't want nor need it, they will have an inheritance forced upon them since their father and mother certainly could do nothing of the sort. If all goes well, by the time of my passing I will have enough to leave the girls enough to buy themselves a home. Mandy's father-in-law death has allowed them to pay off the tiny little home they have, Shelly's husband teaches at a school near Sacramento where the property values have allowed them to purchase a home though it would take a large part of the remainder of their lives to pay it off. Mellissa got a two year degree in legal secretary joined a large law firm, made a great impression and now runs the entire office. But around here there is no place she could afford to buy where the kids would be safe. I think they desperately need private schooling.

That idiotic lockdown really put them behind. Fauci should spend the remainder of his life in the general population in a federal prison. That way he could use all of his money to pay the cons off so they don't kill him.

I don't think I will leave Alex anything but good wishes. His education was paid for by his parents while the girls had to get their own degrees. And he has succeeded extremely well since he now has his PhD and is a manager at a large aerospace firm that has already started their exit from San Diego with Gavin Loathsome's endless company taxation and very high taxation of ANYONE that is successful. Plus, why should ANYONE stay in California when you could get shot on the street of any of the larger cities merely for looking at someone? The comments of the stupid 4 should be interesting. Krygowski obviously is rich and getting richer from his college retirement. Slocomb wants us all to believe that he stayed in Thailand because he likes it there when he cannot afford a house in the city and his health is failing. Liebermann is, well, Liebermann. I am getting a feeling that Flunky may be looking at his life and asking "why". If indeed, he is an EE despite not being able to understand a simple C program, (I suppose there were some schools that didn't teach programming as part of their engineering curriculum) supporting the idiotic ramblings of the likes of the other three would have to break through to the weakest mind sooner or later.

[John B.]

On Mon, 08 May 2023 08:45:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 8 May 2023 07:56:48 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
><fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>...so an axle was fitted between between the rear dropouts,
>>and the 5000 pound twisting force was applied there and
>>caused no deformation.
>
>Torque is measured in lbs-ft (pound-feet), Nm (newton-meters) and not
>in pounds.
>
>>...hefty but not far enough from the centreline to make 5k pounds of torsional force.
>
>Same problem. lbs-ft or Nm, not pounds.
>

The original post had the bicycle stronger the a 2-1/2 ton auto.
I converted that to a 5,000 lb force.

And torque can, and is measured as a force in pounds, ounces, tons, or
any other "weight" that you want to use (:-) and yes it is usually
stated as inch pounds, or inch ounces or ton foot, simply to make it
more convenient to understand but one would be equally correct to say,
"the force of horses turning the shaft by walking in a 24-foot
diameter circle, approximately 144 times in an hour, which Watt
estimated that each horse was pushing with a force of 180 pounds."
(:-)

>None of my torque wrenches will measure 5000 lbs-ft, lbs-in,
>newton-meters or stones-cubits. Well, maybe kg-cm. Italy is metric,
>so I assume that they also specify their bicycle frame torque limits
>in metric units.

But you can use a hand spring scale and any wrench, I once gave a
lecture on that to let students visualize just what inch pounds are.
https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/tools-equipment/hand-tools-equipment/spring-scale/spring-scale-12-5-kg.html
Measure the length of the wrench in inches then tighten the fastener
by pulling the wrench using the spring scale and multiply.

I don't think that anyone specifies the strength of a bicycle frame
(:-) Well other then someone who is a bit over enthusiastic about his
own importance (:(
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2023 4:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>
> I just got my financial report from my counselors and I am now officially a millionaire aside from the investment in my home. The kids want a reunion in Hawaii either this or next year. I do not like bright blue states but I can well afford it so that their mother can see them comfortably. So though they don't want nor need it, they will have an inheritance forced upon them since their father and mother certainly could do nothing of the sort. If all goes well, by the time of my passing I will have enough to leave the girls enough to buy themselves a home. Mandy's father-in-law death has allowed them to pay off the tiny little home they have, Shelly's husband teaches at a school near Sacramento where the property values have allowed them to purchase a home though it would take a large part of the remainder of their lives to pay it off. Mellissa got a two year degree in legal secretary joined a large law firm, made a great impression and now runs the entire office. But around here there is no place she could afford to buy where the kids would be safe. I think they desperately need private schooling.
>
> That idiotic lockdown really put them behind. Fauci should spend the remainder of his life in the general population in a federal prison. That way he could use all of his money to pay the cons off so they don't kill him.
>
> I don't think I will leave Alex anything but good wishes. His education was paid for by his parents while the girls had to get their own degrees. And he has succeeded extremely well since he now has his PhD and is a manager at a large aerospace firm that has already started their exit from San Diego with Gavin Loathsome's endless company taxation and very high taxation of ANYONE that is successful. Plus, why should ANYONE stay in California when you could get shot on the street of any of the larger cities merely for looking at someone? The comments of the stupid 4 should be interesting. Krygowski obviously is rich and getting richer from his college retirement. Slocomb wants us all to believe that he stayed in Thailand because he likes it there when he cannot afford a house in the city and his health is failing. Liebermann is, well, Liebermann. I am getting a feeling that Flunky may be looking at his life and asking "why". If indeed, he is an EE despite not being able to understand a simple C program, (I suppose there were some schools that didn't teach programming as part of their engineering curriculum) supporting the idiotic ramblings of the likes of the other three would have to break through to the weakest mind sooner or later.

Bike Tech relevance? Did I miss it?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/8/2023 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2023 08:45:13 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Torque is measured in lbs-ft (pound-feet), Nm (newton-meters) and not
>> in pounds.
>>
>>> ...hefty but not far enough from the centreline to make 5k pounds of torsional force.
>>
>> Same problem. lbs-ft or Nm, not pounds.
>>
>
> The original post had the bicycle stronger the a 2-1/2 ton auto.
> I converted that to a 5,000 lb force.
>
> And torque can, and is measured as a force in pounds, ounces, tons, or
> any other "weight" that you want to use (:-) and yes it is usually
> stated as inch pounds, or inch ounces or ton foot, simply to make it

> more convenient to understand ...

No, John, torque is fundamentally measured in units of Force times
Distance. You can't omit the distance unit. Look it up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Mr Slocumb correctly wrote, "Measure the length of the

wrench in inches then tighten the fastener
by pulling the wrench using the spring scale and multiply. "

Which you snipped.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 09 May 2023 07:17:10 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The original post had the bicycle stronger the a 2-1/2 ton auto.
>I converted that to a 5,000 lb force.

Your original comment was:

"And stronger in torsion? Again exactly what do you mean? For example

it could be to clamp the head tube in a vice and apply 5,000 pounds of

force to the seat tube to attempt to twist the frame laterally?"

If you do that, the clamped head tube experiences torque (lbs-feet)
with the center line of the head tube as the axis of rotation and the
torque arm being the top tube. The only tube that will "twist" is the
head tube. Pounds of force by itself doesn't mean much unless you
were trying to crush to head tube with 5,000 pounds of force with the
bench vise.

>And torque can, and is measured as a force in pounds, ounces, tons, or
>any other "weight" that you want to use (:-) and yes it is usually
>stated as inch pounds, or inch ounces or ton foot, simply to make it
>more convenient to understand but one would be equally correct to say,
>"the force of horses turning the shaft by walking in a 24-foot
>diameter circle, approximately 144 times in an hour, which Watt
>estimated that each horse was pushing with a force of 180 pounds."
>(:-)

I beg to differ and welcome to my minefield. If you simply specify
"pounds", you'll first need to distinguish between lbs (pounds mass)
and lbf (pounds force).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)>
"Pound-force should not be confused with pound-mass (lb), often simply
called pound, which is a unit of mass, nor should these be confused
with foot-pound (ft·lbf), a unit of energy, or pound-foot (lbf·ft), a
unit of torque."

Such confusion is one of the benefits of metric units, which doesn't
conglomerate units of mass, weight and torque. By deleting the torque
arm length from the units of measuring torque and simply using
"pounds", you provide the temptation to do the same with other units.
For example, how would like to have pressure specified in pounds,
instead of the more proper psi (pounds per square inch)? Naming such
units after famous dead scientists mostly avoids having to recycle the
units of measure.

>>None of my torque wrenches will measure 5000 lbs-ft, lbs-in,
>>newton-meters or stones-cubits. Well, maybe kg-cm. Italy is metric,
>>so I assume that they also specify their bicycle frame torque limits
>>in metric units.
>
>But you can use a hand spring scale and any wrench, I once gave a
>lecture on that to let students visualize just what inch pounds are.
>https://www.leadingedgeairfoils.com/tools-equipment/hand-tools-equipment/spring-scale/spring-scale-12-5-kg.html
>Measure the length of the wrench in inches then tighten the fastener
>by pulling the wrench using the spring scale and multiply.

I recently calibrated two of my Harbor Fright torque wrenches using
the torque wrench arm and some known weights (or a luggage scale for
the small stuff). I'm looking for an excuse to purchase a digital
torque adapter:
<https://www.harborfreight.com/hand-tools/sockets-ratchets/torque-wrenches/38-in-drive-59-59-ft-lb-digital-torque-adapter-58705.html>
If you need some entertainment, watch some of the torque wrench
calibration YouTube videos which show someone trying to calibrate a
torque wrench while the vise, adapter or clamp holding the drive in
place is bending and twisting. So much for accuracy.

>I don't think that anyone specifies the strength of a bicycle frame
>(:-)

There are many bicycles that specify the maximum payload. Presumably,
the frame designers performed the necessary (static and dynamic)
FEA/FEM (finite element analysis/method) to calculate the maximum
loading and the necessary testing to verify the calculations. Once
that's done, they can move on to fatigue testing and simulation. I
would be seriously worried if I were buying a very light weight CF
frame, that was loaded to near maximum capacity. They probably test
only the major stress concentration points, but not every possible
load in every possible axis.
<https://www.bikecad.ca>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9Nu3Wuh3s> (46:52)
<https://www.simscale.com/projects/jprobst/bike_frame_analysis_1/>
(Hold down left mouse button and move mouse around. Scroll wheel to
zoom in and out.)

>Well other then someone who is a bit over enthusiastic about his
>own importance (:(

The search for self esteem is the surest sign of its absense.

[Frank Krygowski]

I was addressing the fundamental fact that torque cannot be measured in pounds.
Of course one can compute torque by multiplying applied force times the length
of the lever arm - um, provided the length of the lever arm is measured perpendicular
to the line of action of the force.

But it remains true that torque is not measured in pounds.

In engineering calculations, it's critical to pay attention to units and be sure they worked
out as expected. I taught that as a built-in way of catching errors in calculations.

But it works only if you know the proper units of measurement to expect in your answer.

- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

+1 That is also the reason I don't like units named after a dead scientist.

Lou

[John B.]

On Mon, 08 May 2023 18:21:54 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 May 2023 07:17:10 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The original post had the bicycle stronger the a 2-1/2 ton auto.
>>I converted that to a 5,000 lb force.
>
>Your original comment was:
>"And stronger in torsion? Again exactly what do you mean? For example
>it could be to clamp the head tube in a vice and apply 5,000 pounds of
>force to the seat tube to attempt to twist the frame laterally?"
>
>If you do that, the clamped head tube experiences torque (lbs-feet)
>with the center line of the head tube as the axis of rotation and the
>torque arm being the top tube. The only tube that will "twist" is the
>head tube. Pounds of force by itself doesn't mean much unless you
>were trying to crush to head tube with 5,000 pounds of force with the
>bench vise.

Well, how would you describe the force of a 2-1/2 ton auto? And I know
there are a multitude of ways to define it 2.5 tons traveling at 100
mph; stationary 2.5 tons tipping over on your toe? and so on. I
elected to define it as the gross weight as a force applied to the
bike frame.

If you clamp the head tub in a vise and apply force to turn,
laterally, the seat tube you will be applying force to the seat tube,
assuming that you simply grab the tube in the middle, both the top and
down tubes and the head tube.

>>And torque can, and is measured as a force in pounds, ounces, tons, or
>>any other "weight" that you want to use (:-) and yes it is usually
>>stated as inch pounds, or inch ounces or ton foot, simply to make it
>>more convenient to understand but one would be equally correct to say,
>>"the force of horses turning the shaft by walking in a 24-foot
>>diameter circle, approximately 144 times in an hour, which Watt
>>estimated that each horse was pushing with a force of 180 pounds."
>>(:-)
>
>I beg to differ and welcome to my minefield. If you simply specify
>"pounds", you'll first need to distinguish between lbs (pounds mass)
>and lbf (pounds force).
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)>
>"Pound-force should not be confused with pound-mass (lb), often simply
>called pound, which is a unit of mass, nor should these be confused
>with foot-pound (ft·lbf), a unit of energy, or pound-foot (lbf·ft), a
>unit of torque."

An interesting explanation. Now try hoisting a 100 lb sack of grain up
on your shoulders and start from the road to your house and come back
and tell me that there was no force applied to your shoulder.

But you are playing word games. 1 lb of weight exerts 1 lb of force on
an object, assuming normal gravitational forces. You can use any
mumbo-jumbo you want but the force applied to the object is still 1
lb.

By the way, your site referenced as "proof"above, says exactly what I
said above (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 11:56:21 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/6/2023 10:30 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/6/2023 10:17 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> > > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou
> > Holtman wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 1:32:20 AM UTC+2, Tom

> > Kunich wrote:
> > >>> https://biketips.com/italian-bike-brands/
> >
> > >> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I
> > was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties)
> > a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly
> > paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames
> > because they all used the same tubes. You only need good

> > brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to

I have two Tom Kellog designed frames - a '90 Merlin 3/2.5 and a '85 Ross of Ishiwata 022. In regular riding they are almost indistinguishable, it's only when you start to thrash the bike that you can feel the difference - the Ti is somewhat less responsive, doesn't have the same snap as the steel. Other than that I was amazed at the ride quality or the Ross - Excellent work he and his builder Fred Duser did there.

The point being it's more about the build. Sure there will be different qualities when the bike is pushed, but most people would be exceptionably hard-pressed to tell the difference between a bike of identical designs made from different tubing unless they're trying to chase an attack out of a corner on rough pavement.

[Catrike Rider]

On Tue, 09 May 2023 14:47:50 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

Torque is defined as a vector, meaning that it is simply magnitude and
direction.

Rotational movement (distance) can be a result of the force, not part
of the torque calculation.

There is such a thing as static torque

https://reimaginingeducation.org/what-is-the-difference-between-static-torque-and-dynamic-torque/

[Andre Jute]

When I say pounds of twist, I expect my mechanics to hear pounds-feet lbs/ft. Translating to Newton-metres Nm is a pain, even though a textbook on automobile design I wrote forty-odd years ago even in the British and American editions used metric measurements beside the imperial ones precisely because at that time automobile engineers were already switching over. Though I have various bike- and car-sized torque wrenches, some of them digital, the one I reach for first is the beam model with all the possible scales engraved on it, so that I can tell whoever needs to know in a measure they expect because I suspect that measures called out in different languages (English, French, Italian, German, never mind the Asian languages) are already a source of confusion, which will be adversely multiplied by confusion over the measurement scale. The big advantage of Nm is that today it is unambiguously universal.
>
Andre Jute
Always glad to accommodate respectful, polite people, even engineers and lawyers.
>

[Tom Kunich]

In that manner Frank can lecture on which he dearly misses. The fiddling with his actual classes at Youngstown where they initially said that he taught industrial engineering and balked at saying he taught mechanical engineering should be a hint that whatever he did it was not mechanical engineering. This is reason enough to question why he would lecture on even to the point of cutting the part that prevented the need for a lecture.

[Andre Jute]

To this:

>one would be equally correct to say,
"the force of horses turning the shaft by walking in a 24-foot
diameter circle, approximately 144 times in an hour, which Watt
estimated that each horse was pushing with a force of 180 pounds."
>

an economist would reply, "Of course, less the cost of carting away all that horsehair, plus the value of the horseshoe at the farmer's fields, all supposing we could determine and agree a a base prices for that horse's labour, including its food and stabling and veterinary services. Hold it right there. I'll be back tomorrow with some more considerations to price."
>
Andre Jute
Never give an economist a millimetre.
>

[Andre Jute]

Until I arrived on RBT, Franki-boy constantly lied about statistics, and when I held him to even a lax academic standard (never mind the high level of honesty required in commercial numbers on which billions will ride) he took such violent offence that I wondered whether he simply didn't know better or whether he thought he had some god-given right to lie. When he also lied on matters he held up as an engineer's prerogative, I decided he knew, and though it was smart to lie, simply because no-one could be as badly educated as Krygowski appears to be. -- AJ
>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/9/2023 10:51 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> When I say pounds of twist, I expect my mechanics to hear pounds-feet lbs/ft.

Then you're expecting your mechanics to have more technical competence
than you do. That's fine and appropriate. Good mechanics are used to that.

Don't pretend lbs/ft is a proper measurement for torque. The units are
not force _divided_ by distance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Luns Tee]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:33:56 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> Some years ago a bloke had two identical bicycles built. One from the
> best tubing and one from the cheap stuff. One was painted blue and one
> pink, if I remember. He then got a bunch of bicycle "experts" to ride
> them and none of these "experts" could tell the difference between the
> expensive version and the cheap version. In fact a number thought that
> the "cheap charley" bike rode best.

I suspect you're thinking of the John Schubert/Bruce Gordon comparo, but your details and conclusions don't quite align with the actual article.

The comparison wasn't best vs cheap per se, but of good quality tubing from Columbus SL (established, popular) and Tange Prestige (excellent quality, stronger/lighter but not getting the publicity its promoter felt it deserved). There was a detectable difference. The 'surprise' conclusion was not of people preferring the cheaper option, but that any relations between weight, stiffness, handling, ride comfort and climbing did not align to expectations.

http://www.bgcycles.com/new-page-1

-Luns

[Tom Kunich]

You have to remember that Slocomb doesn't ride bicycles and he only sees the occasional article on them and he never reads them. And even if he does, at 98 he doesn't understand them anymore. Best not to pay any attention to his comments. Most of them are strictly cut and paste from Wikipedia which has very bad opinion pieces and not that great on actual hard facts.

[Andre Jute]

Yup, that's why I have widely acclaimed technical books, Franki-boy, while you have none. I know when precision is proper while a false precision is all you have.
>
For that matter, I've probably done more original engineering in the few brief spaces I could find in a busy life than you have in your entire career. Go on, tell us what original engineering you've done in your entire life.
>
Unsigned because I don't want my name associated with this clown.
>

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

The only twisting andre was ever any good at was twisting words - even then he completely failed to reach his goals.

[Tom Kunich]

Krygowski has slipped so far over the edge that he is falling and can't help himself anymore. He is arguing with Slocomb for Christ's sake - a military lifer, that a .22 is a dangerous weapon!

Now, I like your turn of phrase - False precision. In ALL of my books they usually say "ft/lbs" when designating actual torque measurements and hence real mechanics expect when you day LBS you mean ft/lb.s. Perhaps Frank would take that for lb.s per mm? An ass by any other name still stinks.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/9/2023 5:02 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:05:59 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/9/2023 10:51 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>> When I say pounds of twist, I expect my mechanics to hear pounds-feet lbs/ft.
>> Then you're expecting your mechanics to have more technical competence
>> than you do. That's fine and appropriate. Good mechanics are used to that.
>>
>> Don't pretend lbs/ft is a proper measurement for torque. The units are
>> not force _divided_ by distance.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>

> Yup, that's why I have widely acclaimed technical books ...

Like "Designing and building special cars"? Rated 3 out of 5 stars with
just seven reviews doesn't qualify as widely acclaimed.

I liked this Amazon review:

"Oh, My! How this ever got into print is a mystery - One must guess that
the publisher has a Vanity Press division. 'Nuff said. "

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/9/2023 5:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> In ALL of my books they usually say "ft/lbs" when designating actual torque measurements ...

Bullshit, unless all your books are coloring books.

You never did take a physics course, did you?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 5/9/2023 4:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 2:02:20 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

Jury just found for plaintiff.

No corroborating evidence, two witnesses plaintiff claimed
knew 'at the time' refused to testify, no specific year, day
or time was specified. Who among us could defend on that basis?

[Tom Kunich]

This case without a doubt will be overturned by a Superior Court the moment they get it into one that isn't entirely politically motivated. And even one that is would be treading on ice so thin that a rat would fall right through it. The manner in which this was done is so grotesque that it clearly brings into question the jury's neutrality

[John B.]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 08:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:52:22?PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:

Goodness! Doesn't it hurt to pat yourself on the back so rigorously?

But more to the point when have you ever held anyone, least of all
yourself. "to any standard"? You recent yammering on about custom
drawn tubing and a bicycle that was stronger then a 2-1/5 ton auto,
for example. When I showed a bit of interest in this "custom tubing"
you changed the subject.

No Andy, you use a lot of polysyllable words and a loud voice coupled
with insults to prove that you really are an expert.... on bull shit,
one supposes.

As the U.S. Supreme court stated you "have no socially redeeming
qualities", unless one is trying to fertilize the garden.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-4, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 2:02:20 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:05:59 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 5/9/2023 10:51 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When I say pounds of twist, I expect my mechanics to hear pounds-feet lbs/ft.
> > > Then you're expecting your mechanics to have more technical competence
> > > than you do. That's fine and appropriate. Good mechanics are used to that.
> > >
> > > Don't pretend lbs/ft is a proper measurement for torque. The units are
> > > not force _divided_ by distance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > Yup, that's why I have widely acclaimed technical books, Franki-boy, while you have none. I know when precision is proper while a false precision is all you have.
> > >
> > For that matter, I've probably done more original engineering in the few brief spaces I could find in a busy life than you have in your entire career. Go on, tell us what original engineering you've done in your entire life.
> > >
> > Unsigned because I don't want my name associated with this clown.
> > >
> Krygowski has slipped so far over the edge that he is falling and can't help himself anymore. He is arguing with Slocomb for Christ's sake - a military lifer, that a .22 is a dangerous weapon!

Yeah... no one ever died from a .22 round......

>
> Now, I like your turn of phrase - False precision. In ALL of my books they usually say "ft/lbs" when designating actual torque measurements and hence real mechanics expect when you day LBS you mean ft/lb.s. Perhaps Frank would take that for lb.s per mm? An ass by any other name still stinks.

It's not a ratio sparky - that's what Frank has been trying to explain to you and the troll-boi.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Or as the troll's Wikipedia page once put it "a writer of vanity novels and diarrhea-mouthed, long winded poster to the Usenet - where he pretends to be famous."

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

but but but,,,,tommy readed out twee liberries!!!!

[John B.]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 13:04:07 -0700 (PDT), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:

It's possible as I was working from memory, which can be unreliable.

But from memory the article used the words best and worst to describe
the tube set and the test riders were "experts" who wrote for cycling
magazines and I definitely remember that one comment was that some of
the tester preferred the "cheap stuff" bike and reported it was a
better ride.

Perhaps the article I read was a "take off" from the article you
reference but there certainly was no mention of any riding
characteristics, simply "I like this one or "No! I like that one!" and
no mention of the testers by name or any of the other details that I
read in your reference.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 13:22:09 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 1:04:09?PM UTC-7, Luns Tee wrote:

Well Tommy, I built one bicycle from tubes and lugs and bought two
others secondhand, stripped them to the bare steel fixed what needed
to be fixed, had them painted and reassembled them. The bottom
brackets all fitted, the seat tubes fitted, the handle bars fitted,
the shifters and derailours worked and the cables didn't stretch.

Since you can't say the same you should run away and hide your head.

I might add that prior to breaking my hip was riding 100 km a day,
getting ready for a 850 km ride from Phuket, Thailand, to Bangkok.
But the broken hip and a month in the hospital sort of put paid to
that (:-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 14:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 2:02:20?PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:

But Tommy, any forearm is a dangerious weapon.

The Israelis used a .22 pistol as an assassination weapon during the
Wrath of God Operation and I read a report of a chap, in Texas, dying
from a bullet wound from a .25 automatic pistol, probably one of the
most puny firearms ever made. In fact there are air rifles that are
more powerful then the .25 ACP.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wrong thread? AFAIK units for torque are decided by scientists and
engineers, not juries.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/9/2023 9:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2023 13:04:07 -0700 (PDT), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 5:33:56?PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>> Some years ago a bloke had two identical bicycles built. One from the
>>> best tubing and one from the cheap stuff. One was painted blue and one
>>> pink, if I remember. He then got a bunch of bicycle "experts" to ride
>>> them and none of these "experts" could tell the difference between the
>>> expensive version and the cheap version. In fact a number thought that
>>> the "cheap charley" bike rode best.
>>
>> I suspect you're thinking of the John Schubert/Bruce Gordon comparo, but your details and conclusions don't quite align with the actual article.
>>
>> The comparison wasn't best vs cheap per se, but of good quality tubing from Columbus SL (established, popular) and Tange Prestige (excellent quality, stronger/lighter but not getting the publicity its promoter felt it deserved). There was a detectable difference. The 'surprise' conclusion was not of people preferring the cheaper option, but that any relations between weight, stiffness, handling, ride comfort and climbing did not align to expectations.
>>
>> http://www.bgcycles.com/new-page-1
>>
>> -Luns
>
> It's possible as I was working from memory, which can be unreliable.
>
> But from memory the article used the words best and worst to describe
> the tube set and the test riders were "experts" who wrote for cycling
> magazines and I definitely remember that one comment was that some of
> the tester preferred the "cheap stuff" bike and reported it was a
> better ride.

I think this may be the article you have in mind:
https://www.habcycles.com/m7.html

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 09 May 2023 14:47:50 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Well, how would you describe the force of a 2-1/2 ton auto?

Well, if the car isn't moving, the force (lbf) is zero:
Force = pounds(mass) * acceleration
Zero acceleration implies zero lbf. Force without movement is called
pressure and is measured in units of:
pounds(force) / area
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)>
"The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass
of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth."

Conversion from pound(mass) to pound(force)
<https://calculator.academy/pound-mass-to-pound-force-calculator/>

As I mentioned somewhere in my previous rant:
"Naming such units after famous dead scientists mostly avoids having
to recycle the units of measure."

>And I know
>there are a multitude of ways to define it 2.5 tons traveling at 100
>mph; stationary 2.5 tons tipping over on your toe? and so on. I
>elected to define it as the gross weight as a force applied to the
>bike frame.

May the force be with you.

>If you clamp the head tube in a vise and apply force to turn,

>laterally, the seat tube you will be applying force to the seat tube,
>assuming that you simply grab the tube in the middle, both the top and
>down tubes and the head tube.
>

>>>And torque can, and is measured as a force in pounds, ounces, tons, or
>>>any other "weight" that you want to use (:-) and yes it is usually
>>>stated as inch pounds, or inch ounces or ton foot, simply to make it

>>>more convenient to understand but one would be equally correct to say,
>>>"the force of horses turning the shaft by walking in a 24-foot
>>>diameter circle, approximately 144 times in an hour, which Watt
>>>estimated that each horse was pushing with a force of 180 pounds."
>>>(:-)
>>

>>I beg to differ and welcome to my minefield. If you simply specify
>>"pounds", you'll first need to distinguish between lbs (pounds mass)
>>and lbf (pounds force).
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)>
>>"Pound-force should not be confused with pound-mass (lb), often simply
>>called pound, which is a unit of mass, nor should these be confused

>>with foot-pound (ft損bf), a unit of energy, or pound-foot (lbf搭t), a

>>unit of torque."
>
>An interesting explanation. Now try hoisting a 100 lb sack of grain up
>on your shoulders and start from the road to your house and come back
>and tell me that there was no force applied to your shoulder.

There was pressure applied to my back. If it was 100 lbs spread over
a large area, I might be able to lift it on my shoulders. If the same
100 lbs was concentrated on a small point on one shoulder, I would be
seriously injured. In other words, if you want to claim that there's
an effect to applying 100 lbs to something (or someone), you need to
also specify the area over which the 100 lbs is applied.

>But you are playing word games. 1 lb of weight exerts 1 lb of force on
>an object, assuming normal gravitational forces. You can use any
>mumbo-jumbo you want but the force applied to the object is still 1
>lb.

It's not a word game. It's a total mess that many centuries of
scientists and physicists have tried to untangle and make
understandable to the GUM (great unwashed masses). Their mistake was
to recycle units of measure rather than give them unique names. The
SI (International System of Units) worked long an hard to hammer out a
workable system of units. For example, the units of mass is the
Kilogram and the units of force is the Newton. Unlike the problem
with using "pounds" for both, one can easily distinguish if something
is a force or a mass.

>By the way, your site referenced as "proof"above, says exactly what I
>said above (:-)

Show me. I didn't see any mention of it being a "word game"?

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Tue, 09 May 2023 20:48:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

About half way down the page:

"The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass
of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth."

and
"The pound-force is the product of one avoirdupois pound (exactly
0.45359237 kg) and the standard acceleration due to gravity, 9.80665
m/s2 (32.174049 ft/s2)"

"The kilogram was originally defined in 1795 during the French
Revolution as the mass of one litre of water. "

Or to phrase it a bit differently "the weight of 1 litre of water"
(:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 13:32:31 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

P.S. And even that is in error as water changes in weight per unit
depending on temperature... and even worse fresh water weighs less
then sea water (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Until the magatards get hold of it and declare SI units too 'woke'.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/10/2023 2:32 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2023 20:48:33 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

> wrote [regarding units of force and units of mass:]

>
>>
>> It's not a word game. It's a total mess that many centuries of
>> scientists and physicists have tried to untangle and make
>> understandable to the GUM (great unwashed masses). Their mistake was
>> to recycle units of measure rather than give them unique names. The
>> SI (International System of Units) worked long an hard to hammer out a
>> workable system of units. For example, the units of mass is the
>> Kilogram and the units of force is the Newton. Unlike the problem
>> with using "pounds" for both, one can easily distinguish if something
>> is a force or a mass.

That's exactly correct.

> "The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass
> of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth."
> and
> "The pound-force is the product of one avoirdupois pound (exactly
> 0.45359237 kg) and the standard acceleration due to gravity, 9.80665
> m/s2 (32.174049 ft/s2)"
>
> "The kilogram was originally defined in 1795 during the French
> Revolution as the mass of one litre of water. "
>
> Or to phrase it a bit differently "the weight of 1 litre of water"
> (:-)

Sorry, John. The kilogram is a measurement of mass. When properly used,
it is not a measurement of force or weight. Don't equate mass and
weight. They are related but distinct.

Granted, for static situations the distinction makes little if any
difference. But in computations involving accelerations, it's easy for
those who don't understand the difference to get results that are wrong
by a factor of over 30.

The SI system of units is clearly better than the U.S. system in this
way (and other ways).

But having said that, I've come across mention of pressure measured in
kg/cm^2, which is a misuse of SI units.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Luns Tee]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:17:43 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/10/2023 2:32 AM, John B. wrote:
> > Or to phrase it a bit differently "the weight of 1 litre of water"
> > (:-)
> Sorry, John. The kilogram is a measurement of mass. When properly used,
> it is not a measurement of force or weight. Don't equate mass and
> weight. They are related but distinct.

I read that as John kidding around, rather than an uninformed error.

Playing along, note that F=ma, or F/m = a

If we follow the convention of using units of lbs for both forces and masses, then acceleration (measured in inches/s^2) is a dimensionless quantity. Therefore we have to conclude distances dimensionally time squared .

If we try to do better and distinguish between lb and lbf, and note that for weights due to gravity (which is from our stationary frame of reference accelerating relative to an inertial frames at a rate of g), a=g so:

F/m = g

Any object would have the same numeric quantity for F and m, therefor g must be 1. The units of this are lbf/lb = f. So acceleration due to gravity is 1 force.

-Luns

[Roger Meriman]

Ah that makes more sense, ie it’s diminishing returns once into mid end
same goes for most stuff, at the very pointy end of road racing Dura Ace
probably does make a difference though i suspect even then it’s marginal.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

Fun with units!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

The "faster and faster" developments are all deeply into diminishing
returns these days. That's one of the reasons I'm more interested in
developments in other directions.

But they seem to be few.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Luns Tee]

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 7:17:30 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties) a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames because they all used the same tubes. You only need good brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to be Italian. The best/durable paintjobs came from Belgium at that time. My LBS had a Pegoretti on display once. Beautiful bike but ridiculous expensive and a leadtime of 1 year. Technically nothing special though. Never tempted for an Italian frame. Ymmv.
> >
> > Lou
> If anyone could make a steel bike why were the overwhelming majority from Italy and not France, Belgium or the Netherlands? Around the world why are most older and new steel bikes Italian?

To quote Josh Poertner paraphrasing Dario Pegoretti: https://www.cyclingtips.com/2018/08/tribute-to-dario-pegoretti/

.... the exchange rate on the lira had given Italy a large export advantage, allowing brands like Colnago, Cinelli, Silca, and others to spread globally, only to experience massive inflation when Italy moved to the euro, which dramatically hurt the ability to export and price competitively.

-Luns

[Roger Meriman]

For me personally disk have been a boon as I’m heavy, and I ride off-road
and all that, tubeless has its troubles in that if goes wrong seems to be
spectacular so.

But it’s stopped me getting multiple punctures on a ride, ie might find
that at the cafe stop I have slightly squishy tire with some sealant
showing, so I can top up if I wish to with some air and it’s good.

Electronic gears? Not used them my bikes are mechanical only and 10s bar
the older commuter which is 9s

Again 1by though my commuter is 1/9 speed my MTB/Gravel bikes are 2/10 and
really 1 you do loose some range or get gaps in the cassette unless it’s
12s some club mates have 1/12 gravel bikes which broadly cover the range of
my Gravel bike.

In short while I have used 1by and it’s a good system it’s not worth the
expense to upgrade a bikes group set like hydraulic disks was for me.

Roger Merriman

[Radey Shouman]

Back when I was in engineering school, this was fixed up with a
dimensional quantity called g_c, and the lb above was writen lb_m, for
pounds mass. We could have used poundals, but as far as I can tell
literally no one actually does.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gc_(engineering)

Computations were littered by multiplications by g_c, which is 1.0 in SI
systems, or by g/g_c, which is 1.0 in English customary units. But,
whatever the numbers, if the units didn't come out right the answer was
not even wrong.

--

[John B.]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:

Nope I was telling the truth.... see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

"The kilogram was originally defined in 1795 during the French

Revolution as the mass of one litre of water. The current definition
of a kilogram agrees with this original definition to within 30 parts
per million"
Now ask Frank how you determine the mass of 1 litre of water?

Or to be a bit spiteful, I've got some relatives that are wholesale
food sellers and who sell rice in 10, 15, 20 and 30 kilo - kilo - Thai
version of the word kilogram - sacks. I must tell then that they have
been doing it wrong for all these years as a "kilo" is not a
measurement of weight.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/10/2023 7:13 PM, Luns Tee wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 7:17:30 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 2:23:29 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> Is there something special about Italian bikes? When I was in the market for my first serious bike (early 80 ties) a lot of them were overpriced bad quality crap (mostly paintjobs). In the steel era anyone could build good frames because they all used the same tubes. You only need good brazing skills. Anyone can learn that. You don’t have to be Italian. The best/durable paintjobs came from Belgium at that time. My LBS had a Pegoretti on display once. Beautiful bike but ridiculous expensive and a leadtime of 1 year. Technically nothing special though. Never tempted for an Italian frame. Ymmv.

>>>
>>> Lou
>> If anyone could make a steel bike why were the overwhelming majority from Italy and not France, Belgium or the Netherlands? Around the world why are most older and new steel bikes Italian?
>
> To quote Josh Poertner paraphrasing Dario Pegoretti: https://www.cyclingtips.com/2018/08/tribute-to-dario-pegoretti/
>
> .... the exchange rate on the lira had given Italy a large export advantage, allowing brands like Colnago, Cinelli, Silca, and others to spread globally, only to experience massive inflation when Italy moved to the euro, which dramatically hurt the ability to export and price competitively.
>
> -Luns
>

+1

[Frank Krygowski]

That's interesting, and it makes sense.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:32:52 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> Back when I was in engineering school, this was fixed up with a
> dimensional quantity called g_c, and the lb above was writen lb_m, for
> pounds mass. We could have used poundals, but as far as I can tell
> literally no one actually does.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gc_(engineering)
>
> Computations were littered by multiplications by g_c, which is 1.0 in SI
> systems, or by g/g_c, which is 1.0 in English customary units. But,
> whatever the numbers, if the units didn't come out right the answer was
> not even wrong.

When I was in engineering school, friends and I spent a lot of time studying
and doing homework together. We were always very puzzled about "g sub c" as in
"What the hell IS that?" Apparently we never got a clear explanation - and never
bothered to figure it out. We just knew we had to use it when appropriate.

It wasn't until I started teaching that I really had to understand it to explain it well.
That's when i realized it's actually a conversion factor - in other words, an
expression with a mathematical value of One. You can use it to multiply or divide
without changing the fundamental magnitude of your answer, but changing its
form or representation. It's very similar to multiplying by (12 in / 1 ft) to convert
feet to inches.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 17:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:

>On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 7:17:30?AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:

A year, or so, ago Thailand devalued their currency, according to the
local news, to increase their international sales. Given the volume of
export sales versus local sales it makes sense and has little effect
on local prices viv-a-vis salaries as Thailand imports so little from
foreign countries.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Radey Shouman]

It's perfectly reasonable to sell in units of mass. Mass is what is
measured by a balance, the traditional marketplace tool for measuring
quantity. To measure weight you need a spring scale or something
equivalent.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:50:04 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 8:17:43?AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, John. The kilogram is a measurement of mass. When properly used,
> >> it is not a measurement of force or weight. Don't equate mass and
> >> weight. They are related but distinct.
> >
> >I read that as John kidding around, rather than an uninformed error.

> Nope I was telling the truth...

Which means John really does not understand the distinction between
mass and weight.

> see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram
> "The kilogram was originally defined in 1795 during the French
> Revolution as the mass of one litre of water. The current definition
> of a kilogram agrees with this original definition to within 30 parts
> per million"

Right. The kilogram was defined as a unit of _mass_, not weight. The two
quantities are closely coupled, but not equivalent.

> Now ask Frank how you determine the mass of 1 litre of water?

I'd say a good way would be by using a mass balance. I can describe other
ways as well. There are even ways of measuring mass in space, John -
in "weightless" conditions. I'm not sure why you ask.

> Or to be a bit spiteful, I've got some relatives that are wholesale
> food sellers and who sell rice in 10, 15, 20 and 30 kilo - kilo - Thai
> version of the word kilogram - sacks. I must tell then that they have
> been doing it wrong for all these years as a "kilo" is not a
> measurement of weight.

I think you need to do a Google search on "mass vs. weight" and do some
serious reading.

Mass is basically a measurement of quantity of matter. Weight is the force of gravity
on an object, or on a specific amount of matter. It's perfectly appropriate
for your relatives to use kilograms to measure the amount of rice.

In America, we'd say "Here's the amount of rice upon which the earth's gravity
exerts a downward force of 22 pounds" - or words to that effect. Obviously it
works well enough, but the SI system is conceptually more clear on the matter.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

No, if you are talking about the "open markets" found in developing
countries,they sell and have sold, by weight for years and years. Yes,
Years ago, I was told, rice, in commercial quantities were measured by
volume, the words used translated to "barrel" and "Cart" but that was
long out of fashion by the time I came here and kilo - Thai word for
Kilogram", a weight, was, and is still, in use.

For example, some of my extended family deal in wholesale quantities
and might sell a "sack" of rice, for example. But it is a 10, 20, 30
kilo sack of rice.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 13:32:31 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"The pound-force is equal to the gravitational force exerted on a mass
>of one avoirdupois pound on the surface of Earth."
>and
>"The pound-force is the product of one avoirdupois pound (exactly
>0.45359237 kg) and the standard acceleration due to gravity, 9.80665
>m/s2 (32.174049 ft/s2)"

This might help:

On the surface of the earth, the numeric values for pounds-force and
pounds-mass are equal. If you move your scale to the top of a
mountain, the mass will remain unchanged, because it still contains
the same number of whatever molecules you're weighing. However, the
weight (pounds-force) will be less because the acceleration of gravity
is less as you go up in altitude. If do the same on the surface of
the moon, which has less gravitational attraction than on the surface
of the earth, the mass will again be the same wherever you measure it,
but the weight will be different because of the differences in
gravitational attraction.

Such distinctions between force and mass are not a problem if you
distinguish between pounds-force and pounds-mass by using different
units of measure. It is a problem when you call them both "pounds"
with no qualifier or modifier.

[Q] How much does an automobile weigh?
[A] It varies depending on where you weigh it.

[Q] What is the weight of 100 pounds of lead in outer space?
[A] Zero. Without gravity, there is no weight, but there is mass.

[John B.]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 21:47:54 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Yes and a bowling ball falls at the same speed as a feather (:-)
https://abc11.com/bowling-ball-and-feathers-ifl-sicence-i-love-science-nasa/382792/

But both you and I both know that I was talking about things that are
normal conditions to both you and I, the surface of the earth. Not
some theoretical situation. For example, one Kg of water would weigh
about 165 gms on the moon, on the sun about 62 kg and on Mars about
378 gm. But, So What? Will you be traveling to Barsoom shortly to
visit John Carter and test the theory?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 5/10/2023 8:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Maybe I'm a little slow here.

A conversion of 12:1 or 2.54:1 or (5/9)-32:1 changes
something. What does a 1:1 factor accomplish?

[Rolf Mantel]

But are they measuring weight with electronic scales or feather scales,
or are they measuring mass with balances? Will they be allowed to sell
their 30 kilo-bags of rice in the mountains in Nepal in the same way?

Traditonally, market traders in Europe were using balances, i.e. were
selling by mass.

[Rolf Mantel]

Wrong: 1 kg of water would not weigh 165gms on the moon because grms is
not a unit of weight.
1kg of water weighs 9.81N (1kg * 9.81 ms^-2) on earth and about 1.6N on
the moon.

[Tom Kunich]

I might point out that until recently in a country as large as the US, there was only one major steel bike maker while Italy had dozens. Schwinn was MUCH cheaper than the Italian marks and they made at least three models that were competitive with them. And yet people bought Italian. They did not do the same with Italian cars (England held the edge in sports cars). So this was not an economic decision.

[Tom Kunich]

I get nothing from the citation and Coinages were NEVER cheap here nor were Pinarello, Tomaso or Tommasini and the like.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank believes that tp be scholarly. I believe it to be white noise.

[Frank Krygowski]

>> (12 in /1 ft) to convert feet to inches.

>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Maybe I'm a little slow here.
>
> A conversion of 12:1 or 2.54:1 or (5/9)-32:1 changes something. What
> does a 1:1 factor accomplish?

OK, more detail:

Legally, an inch is defined as 2.54cm. Algebraically, that's this equation:
2.54cm = 1 inch.

Let's use algebra and divide both sides by 1 inch. We get

2.54cm/1 inch = 1 inch/1 inch

but the right side is obviously equal to one. So:

(2.54cm/1 inch) = 1

(2.54cm / 1 inch) is a conversion factor. It has a value of one, so
multiplying by it or dividing by it does not change the value of the
result; it changes only its form.

Now let's apply this. You tell an employee to measure the frame size of
that old bike someone brought in. He grabs a yardstick and says "I get
23 inches."

But you wanted the answer in centimeters. You multiply by the conversion
factor:

23 inches * (2.54cm / 1 inch) = 58.42cm That number represents the same
length. Multiplying by a conversion factor whose value is One doesn't
change the length, it just expresses it differently.

And note that the inches unit in the numerator cancel the inches in the
denominator, leaving the desired units of centimeters in the numerator
of the answer, just as it should be. That's a strong clue that you
didn't multiply when you should have divided. That's the great benefit
of checking the units when doing your calculations.

This problem is trivial; nobody would mix up multiplying and dividing.
But when using more complex equations it really is very valuable to show
each unit conversion formally the way I did, and to make sure the units
work out before punching keys on a calculator. Or sliding your slide rule!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Luns Tee]

+1

The verb ‘weigh’ has two different meanings. It can mean to apply the force due to gravity of a mass. Or it can mean to measure said mass using said force. Either way, weight is a force. The trouble is when we use the verb to mean the result of that measurement process - that result is a mass, not a weight.

When one says something weighs (quantity of mass), it’s an abbreviation for saying the thing weighs the same as what (quantity of mass) _would_ weigh. But the problem is that ‘what xxx would weigh’ is ambiguous - …would weigh where?

On the moon, 1kg of water on the moon would weigh 1kg*1.618ms^-2 = 165g*9.81ms^-2 ~1.62N. That mass on a balance scale would read 1kg, while on a spring scale it would read 165g. Both are correct but that’s because neither of them is reporting an actual weight, they’re both reporting what mass (where?) would have the same weight.

So it weighs 1kg AND it weighs 165g. And there lies the trouble of reporting weights in units of mass - there’s an inherent ambiguity from being abbreviated. Unabbreviated would be saying 1 kg on the moon, weighs(the same as what) 1kg (would weigh on the moon) and weighs (the same as what) 165g (would weigh on earth). Better to just not abbreviate things and say it weighs 1.62N.

-Luns

[Radey Shouman]

How do they measure the number of kilos? If they calibrate their
measuring device, how do they do that?

[Radey Shouman]

Units and dimensions. If you charge $1 per person to enter the Yellow
Jersey Museum of Bicycle History, and 50 people show up, your take is

50 people * $1/person = $50

We multiplied people by 1.00 to get dollars. Even though the
multiplication is trivial, people are not identical to dollars. If we
were using some other currency the principal would be the same but the
numerical factor would be different.

In engineering school, at least for Chem E, (EE maybe not so much) one
is required to show all units explicitly and verify that the units of
the result are what was desired. In engineering practice units are
often treated more casually, sometimes with disappointing results.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/11/2023 1:42 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
>
> In engineering school, at least for Chem E, (EE maybe not so much) one
> is required to show all units explicitly and verify that the units of
> the result are what was desired.

For one walk-in-the-door intro class for mixed majors, I even had them
justify electrical units on calculations like E=I*R and P=E*I using
conversion factors (1V = 1 Amp * 1 Ohm)

> In engineering practice units are
> often treated more casually, sometimes with disappointing results.

... like crashing spacecraft into distant planets.

https://www.simscale.com/blog/nasa-mars-climate-orbiter-metric/

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

In trade (as opposed to some applications of science or in
theory), one uses a 10k weight plus some weight for tare[1]
on one side and your rice sack on the other. Fill sack until
equilibrium.

Change weight to 5k or 1k or whatever the desired amount for
purchase.

There are valid reasons in various situations to change
method but selling or buying rice is not one of them.

[1] Either a weight or an empty sack

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 11 May 2023 08:44:35 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A year, or so, ago Thailand devalued their currency, according to the
> local news, to increase their international sales. Given the volume of
> export sales versus local sales it makes sense and has little effect
> on local prices viv-a-vis salaries as Thailand imports so little from
> foreign countries.

If you import little, what do you get for the stuff that you ship
abroad?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 8 May 2023 13:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I just got my financial report from my counselors and I
>am now officially a millionaire aside from the investment in my home.

03/05/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/JG80Gv6eFz4/m/I5iXXkCRAgAJ>
"Lou, I am worth a million and 3/4 dollars. Exactly what are you
worth?"

01/20/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/85qODEJbdFE/m/uHojwq_tAQAJ>
"If I had not needed to cash in my stock option to gain cancer
treatments for my mother and then getting a divorce, I would easily
have been a multimillionaire. Instead I am only worth about a million
and a half due to Biden's latest market recession."

12/25/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/njA7DYpUtww/m/uTnjTb6DAwAJ>
"I'm worth nearly two million now and can live almost entirely on my
social security. Can you? Even with my expensive bicycle hobby I own
less than $1,600 TOTAL. And I knocked my bank account down to just
enough to cover emergencies since the Democrats are now attacking
banks which will drive them into bankruptcy."

04/29/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/vRf9zk39jnc/m/Pccwf7dbBAAJ>
"I was making up to a quarter of a million dollars a year while
Krygowski was making $2.50 a day."

01/07/2023
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/2FS5CrA2NTs/m/3RMpAhArAQAJ>
"Imagine that Frank believes me in misery with a sum worth of a
million and a half dollars and no bills..."

[Radey Shouman]

That is a measurement of mass. It compares a known mass of 5k or 1k or
whatever to the unknown mass of the rice. On the moon it work just the
same. To actually measure weight one needs a spring scale or something
similar.