modulus pedantry

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t.
ridiculousness.

viz:

Mark Hickey said:

I'll bet you $1000 that, all other things being equal (OD, wall
thickness at the ends) that a straight gauge 3/2.5 tube IS stiffer
than a butted 6/4 tube.

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade
the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet". and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated.
since
you /do/ specify the same thickness for the two different materials in
this region, the higher modulus tube "wins" again.

it's ridiculous to "bet" without bothering to properly define terms.
i
suggest you deploy your money for something useful [like a book, which
you bother to read] and some test gear, something you so diligently
avoided earlier and from which you as a "manufacturer" would
substantially benefit.

Jim, you need another vacation.

Phil H

jim beam said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t. ridiculousness.

viz:

Mark Hickey said:

I'll bet you $1000 that, all other things being equal (OD, wall
thickness at the ends) that a straight gauge 3/2.5 tube IS stiffer
than a butted 6/4 tube.

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet". and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated. since
you /do/ specify the same thickness for the two different materials in
this region, the higher modulus tube "wins" again.

it's ridiculous to "bet" without bothering to properly define terms. i
suggest you deploy your money for something useful [like a book, which
you bother to read] and some test gear, something you so diligently
avoided earlier and from which you as a "manufacturer" would
substantially benefit.

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

You, OTOH, remind me of the reason people keep Preperation H in the
bathroom.

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t.

ridiculousness.

Quoted message said:

Damn, I just came back to r.b.t. after being locked up for quite some time
and figured you had left for good. Bummer.

Greg

"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jim beam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t.
ridiculousness.

Jim, you need another vacation.

It's jim beam (no caps), and don't you forget it.

Greg

jim beam said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t. ridiculousness.

viz:

Mark Hickey said:

I'll bet you $1000 that, all other things being equal (OD, wall
thickness at the ends) that a straight gauge 3/2.5 tube IS stiffer
than a butted 6/4 tube.

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet".

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube. Would you try to deny that (or perhaps you'll just
continue to squirm and attempt to obfuscate, a tact that doesn't seem
to be working too well or fooling too many people).

Quoted message said:

and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated.

Stay on subject, Jim (sic). Stiffness....

Quoted message said:

since
you /do/ specify the same thickness for the two different materials in
this region, the higher modulus tube "wins" again.

it's ridiculous to "bet" without bothering to properly define terms. i
suggest you deploy your money for something useful [like a book, which
you bother to read] and some test gear, something you so diligently
avoided earlier and from which you as a "manufacturer" would
substantially benefit.

I could use your $1000 to buy lots of books...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

jim beam said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t. ridiculousness.

viz:

Mark Hickey said:

I'll bet you $1000 that, all other things being equal (OD, wall
thickness at the ends) that a straight gauge 3/2.5 tube IS stiffer
than a butted 6/4 tube.

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet".

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube. Would you try to deny that (or perhaps you'll just
continue to squirm and attempt to obfuscate, a tact that doesn't seem
to be working too well or fooling too many people).

well mark, that just shows you don't understand the concept of modulus.
i'd explain it and do the math for you if i believed you had a genuine
interest in the science, but you've given no evidence of that at any
point in this debate. and tubes are not machined to make them butted -
but you'd know that if you'd bothered to do any homework.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated.

Stay on subject, Jim (sic). Stiffness....

it /is/ on subject mark. you'd know that if you understood what you
were "betting" on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

since
you /do/ specify the same thickness for the two different materials in
this region, the higher modulus tube "wins" again.

it's ridiculous to "bet" without bothering to properly define terms. i
suggest you deploy your money for something useful [like a book, which
you bother to read] and some test gear, something you so diligently
avoided earlier and from which you as a "manufacturer" would
substantially benefit.

I could use your $1000 to buy lots of books...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

Andres

<snippage of the textual effects of winter on cyclists>

See, this is much better than arguing about the latest Bushco debacle.

;-)

Anyone remember a game show spoof on SNL called "The Point is Moot" or
"The Question is Moot"? IIRC, it was hosted either by Jesse Jackson
himself or someone playing him. He would pose a question and then at
some point shout at the contestants "THE QUESTION IS MOOT!" and noone
would get any points. Hilarious (I think).

Moot, of course, meaning arguable and not having a definitive answer.
Not that term that necessarily applies to this thread.

D'ohboy

Mark Hickey said:

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube.

I think jb's point is that a certain amount of material needs to be
removed from the 6/4 tube before it will be less stiff than the 3/2.5
tube... and this hasn't been defined. For instance, tubes that are
identical except for a 0.1% thinner center section on the 6/4 tube will
result in the 6/4 tube still being the stiffest.

Of course, no one would bother to butt a tube such an insignificant
amount. For any butted 6/4 tubing that is used in bike frames your
statement should be correct.

"Modulus pedantry" indeed!

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

I might disagree with Mark's politics, but that does not, IMO, change
his character or the quality of his frames. YMMV.

"Ron Ruff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of
identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube.

I think jb's point is that a certain amount of material needs to be
removed from the 6/4 tube before it will be less stiff than the 3/2.5
tube... and this hasn't been defined. For instance, tubes that are
identical except for a 0.1% thinner center section on the 6/4 tube
will
result in the 6/4 tube still being the stiffest.

Of course, no one would bother to butt a tube such an insignificant
amount. For any butted 6/4 tubing that is used in bike frames your
statement should be correct.

You hit the nail on the head but don't count on jb letting go. His
agenda is to teach someone what he thinks they don't know.

Phil H

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

I might disagree with Mark's politics, but that does not, IMO, change
his character or the quality of his frames. YMMV.

I agree. He is a lunatic!

Just kidding. I think Mark seems like a very nice guy and he makes a
very nice product.

Andres

Mark Hickey said:

jim beam said:

i come back from vacation, and what do i find? more r.b.t. ridiculousness.

Ridiculousness came back with you, jimbo.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

viz:

Mark Hickey said:

I'll bet you $1000 that, all other things being equal (OD, wall
thickness at the ends) that a straight gauge 3/2.5 tube IS stiffer
than a butted 6/4 tube.

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet".

Go on then, please show your calculations. EVERYONE will be interested
to see, I'm sure.

Quoted message said:

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube. Would you try to deny that (or perhaps you'll just
continue to squirm and attempt to obfuscate, a tact that doesn't seem
to be working too well or fooling too many people).

I'll bet jimbo will do the latter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated.

Stay on subject, Jim (sic). Stiffness....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

since
you /do/ specify the same thickness for the two different materials in
this region, the higher modulus tube "wins" again.

it's ridiculous to "bet" without bothering to properly define terms. i
suggest you deploy your money for something useful [like a book, which
you bother to read] and some test gear, something you so diligently
avoided earlier and from which you as a "manufacturer" would
substantially benefit.

I could use your $1000 to buy lots of books...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

jim beam said:

Mark Hickey said:

jim beam said:

a "bet" on something you could instead calculate? that's illogical
since you don't bother to define all relevant terms leaving me to
specify my own butted tube wall thickness. i could therefore trade the
different modulus for the two materials and specify butting thickness
that would win that "bet".

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube. Would you try to deny that (or perhaps you'll just
continue to squirm and attempt to obfuscate, a tact that doesn't seem
to be working too well or fooling too many people).

Ditto. Just show your calculations and make your explanation.

Quoted message said:

well mark, that just shows you don't understand the concept of modulus.
i'd explain it and do the math for you if i believed you had a genuine
interest in the science,

Please DO show your explanation and "do the math", jimbo. This is your
chance to show your knowledge of the issue, and once and for all put to
rest any doubts on your intellectual capacity.

Quoted message said:

but you've given no evidence of that at any
point in this debate.

Now THAT is a classic way of squirming away from presenting any
knowledge of what you're talking about. Just do it, jimbo, show all the
doubters that you DO know what you're talking about. Do the math, and
show your explanation!

Quoted message said:

and tubes are not machined to make them butted -
but you'd know that if you'd bothered to do any homework.

What Mark wrote was "then machine OR OTHERWISE REMOVE material from the
6/4 tube". Stop picking on irrelevancies and DO THE MATH, AND SHOW YOUR
EXPLANATION.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and all this is ignoring the fact that the
majority of the stiffness you're trying to sell me is needed in the
joins since that's where the majority of stress is concentrated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stay on subject, Jim (sic). Stiffness....

it /is/ on subject mark. you'd know that if you understood what you
were "betting" on.

No it's not. You'd know that if you understood what you
were twatting on.
JUST DO THE MATH, AND SHOW YOUR EXPLANATION!

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

Quoted message said:

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

I actually _buy_ Habaneros. I'm comfortable with Mark's
politics (not that we always agree) which are pretty much
mainstream.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant
enough guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

Quoted message said:

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

I actually _buy_ Habaneros. I'm comfortable with Mark's
politics (not that we always agree) which are pretty much
mainstream.

If Chalo were dead (and didn't weigh half a ton), he'd be spinning in his
gravetrench! ROTFL

NF

Jose Rizal said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jim (sic), it ain't rocket science. Start with two tubes of identical
proportions - one 3/2.5 ti, the other 6/4, then machine or otherwise
remove material from the 6/4 tube, and it's no longer as stiff as the
3/2.5 tube. Would you try to deny that (or perhaps you'll just
continue to squirm and attempt to obfuscate, a tact that doesn't seem
to be working too well or fooling too many people).

I'll bet jimbo will do the latter.

That's an even safer bet than my $1000 challenge. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

In article
<[email hidden]>,

D'ohBoy said:

<snippage of the textual effects of winter on cyclists>

See, this is much better than arguing about the latest Bushco debacle.

;-)

Anyone remember a game show spoof on SNL called "The Point is Moot" or
"The Question is Moot"? IIRC, it was hosted either by Jesse Jackson
himself or someone playing him. He would pose a question and then at
some point shout at the contestants "THE QUESTION IS MOOT!" and noone
would get any points. Hilarious (I think).

Moot, of course, meaning arguable and not having a definitive answer.
Not that term that necessarily applies to this thread.

That is not quite what moot means. The question argued
_can_ have a definite answer, but the outcome does not
have consequences other than who carried the argument. A
moot court is (or was) a teaching aid in law school where
students argue a case in the moot court to learn the
craft.

You can look it up.

--
Michael Press

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle wote:

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey seems to be an honest, straightforward and pleasant enough
guy trying to offer Ti frames at a good value.

Quoted message said:

All he needs is to work on his politics a little ;-)

I actually _buy_ Habaneros. I'm comfortable with Mark's politics (not
that we always agree) which are pretty much mainstream.

I would buy an Habanero but I sure hope that Mark's politics aren't
mainstream.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons