Re: power of positive thinking

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

You might not be able to feel the difference in speed (though 3% is
conceivably noticeble), but you surely can feel some difference
(perhaps it's handling, perhaps it's stability/instaility).

I think "handling" is the major difference that folks notice. The
lighter bike is a little easier to push around the road. I see the
same thing with (much) lighter sports cars - although they may have
the same, or often lower ratings on the skid pad, they are still a lot
more fun to toss around the road.

Quoted message said:

Funny that a difference that large in bike weight is derided as
weigh-weeniness. Funny that 3% in time is considered weeniness.

3% matters in the TDF. On a pleasure ride, it would have to be much
more.

Quoted message said:

Dear Carl. Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

Interesting idea. Carl?

still just me said:

3% matters in the TDF. On a pleasure ride, it would have to be much
more.

It matters in even lower level racing. It might even "matter" if
you're just trying to beat your buddy up a long hill. That's up to
the rider what matters -- if the result of the ride is different and
noticeable, then it matters.

Heck, 3% is 100 times as good if you win something instead of losing.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Quoted message said:

Alas, the calculators predict that Joe was yet another victim of
weight-weenie wishful thinking--surely you should be able to feel the
difference when you start pushing the pedals of a bike 1/3 lighter!

You might not be able to feel the difference in speed (though 3% is
conceivably noticeble), but you surely can feel some difference
(perhaps it's handling, perhaps it's stability/instaility).

Funny that a difference that large in bike weight is derided as
weigh-weeniness. Funny that 3% in time is considered weeniness.

Dear Carl. Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

Cheers,

JT

Dear John,

Joe explicitly talked about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed," not
stability or handling, neither of which are likely to be noticeable on
a 92-mile Ride-the-Rockies tour on the highway--pavement posted at 65
mph doesn't usually highlight subtle handling improvements.

What time difference would you predict adding seven pounds to my
current ~220 pound bicycle-and-rider combination (steel with frame
bag, seat bag, and camera bag) would make at my average speed on a
daily 15-mile ride, which is back down to just under 50 minutes after
illness?

Would the improvement in my "forward thrust" be "noticeably robust"
without a stop watch? It's a tiny 0.5 km/h for a smaller rider on a 6%
grade?

Would I start "cruising at a more-than-respectable" clip? The
improvement is less than a practically unmeasurable 0.1 km/h on the
flats.

Let's see . . .

First, let's pretend that it's a flat ride, ignoring that 400-foot
ridge west of town.

15.1 miles = 24.35 km

24.35 km / (5/6 hour) = 29.22 km/h

190 lb rider = 86.4 kg

5,000 feet = 1523 meters

25 lb bike = 11.4 kg

32 lb bike = 14.5 kg

A sizzling 138 watts predicts the desired 29.2 km/h for the 86.4 kg
rider and 11.4 kg bike on this side-by-side calculator:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

Raising the bike weight seven pounds to 14.5 kg lowers the speed from
29.25 km/h to 29.14 km/h, 0.11 km/h slower.

It takes an extra 2 kcal.

Time rises from 49.95 to 50.14 minutes, 0.19 minutes. That's 11.4
seconds on a 3,000 second ride.

In other words, you'd need a lot of rides, a stopwatch, and a big
spreadsheet to show the difference in real life. (My daily time varies
considerably more than 11.4 seconds because of the wind.)

No human being can detect that difference without instruments.

It's a good example of how we pursue real improvements that are too
small to measure outside of laboratory-control conditions.

In real life, the lighter bike should indeed be ever-so-slightly
faster. But real life variables like wind, temperature, barometric
pressure, tire inflation, and what you ate for breakfast yesterday
will swamp that tiny improvement--we're kidding ourselves when we
think that we can "feel" a bike cruising 0.11 km/h faster at 29 km/h.

Joe was riding an unfamiliar 92-mile stretch of mountain highway with
plenty of encouragement and even pressure to believe that there was a
"robust" improvement in how fast he could go.

Limit the test to a 6% grade and you'll get a bigger difference, but
it's still too small for a human being riding on his own on an
unfamiliar stretch of highway to detect, even with a good cyclometer.

You're grinding 13.5 km/h up this new road on a 92-mile ride. You
don't know whether someone has put 7 pounds of lead weights in your
bike's frame.

Are you going faster or slower? The lead weights will change your
speed, one way or the other, only 0.5 km/h.

If you know that you're riding an $8500 bike that's 7 pounds lighter,
you're likely to believe that you're going much faster.

I'm sure that Joe "felt" the speed differences, but adding or removing
7 pounds doesn't make a difference that anyone can detect on that
92-mile ride with the seat of his pants. It takes a stopwatch and
plenty of tests to tease that kind of tiny speed difference out of
real rides.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Carl Fogel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Alas, the calculators predict that Joe was yet another victim of
weight-weenie wishful thinking--surely you should be able to feel
the difference when you start pushing the pedals of a bike 1/3
lighter!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You might not be able to feel the difference in speed (though 3% is
conceivably noticeble), but you surely can feel some difference
(perhaps it's handling, perhaps it's stability/instaility).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny that a difference that large in bike weight is derided as
weigh-weeniness. Funny that 3% in time is considered weeniness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Carl. Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

Quoted message said:

Joe explicitly talked about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed,"
not stability or handling, neither of which are likely to be
noticeable on a 92-mile Ride-the-Rockies tour on highway pavement
posted at 65 mph doesn't usually highlight subtle handling
improvements.

Quoted message said:

What time difference would you predict adding seven pounds to my
current ~220 pound bicycle-and-rider combination (steel with frame
bag, seat bag, and camera bag) would make at my average speed on a
daily 15-mile ride, which is back down to just under 50 minutes
after illness?

Quoted message said:

Would the improvement in my "forward thrust" be "noticeably robust"
without a stop watch? It's a tiny 0.5 km/h for a smaller rider on a
6% grade?

Quoted message said:

Would I start "cruising at a more-than-respectable" clip? The
improvement is less than a practically unmeasurable 0.1 km/h on the
flats.

When reading these promotional phrases by unwitting shills, I think
they don't ride any significant distances on climbs (like Mt. Evans)
or the mountains around here:

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm

4209ft above the Santa Clara Valley and across the other side, the
coast range of 3000 to 4000ft mountains.

Quoted message said:

Let's see...

Quoted message said:

First, let's pretend that it's a flat ride, ignoring that 400-foot
ridge west of town.

Quoted message said:

15.1 miles = 24.35 km

Quoted message said:

24.35 km / (5/6 hour) = 29.22 km/h

Quoted message said:

190 lb rider = 86.4 kg

Quoted message said:

5,000 feet = 1523 meters

Quoted message said:

25 lb bike = 11.4 kg

Quoted message said:

32 lb bike = 14.5 kg

Quoted message said:

A sizzling 138 watts predicts the desired 29.2 km/h for the 86.4 kg
rider and 11.4 kg bike on this side-by-side calculator:

http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

Quoted message said:

Raising the bike weight seven pounds to 14.5 kg lowers the speed
from 29.25 km/h to 29.14 km/h, 0.11 km/h slower.

Quoted message said:

It takes an extra 2 kcal.

Quoted message said:

Time rises from 49.95 to 50.14 minutes, 0.19 minutes. That's 11.4
seconds on a 3,000 second ride.

Quoted message said:

In other words, you'd need a lot of rides, a stopwatch, and a big
spreadsheet to show the difference in real life. (My daily time
varies considerably more than 11.4 seconds because of the wind.)

Quoted message said:

No human being can detect that difference without instruments.

Quoted message said:

It's a good example of how we pursue real improvements that are too
small to measure outside of laboratory-control conditions.

Quoted message said:

In real life, the lighter bike should indeed be ever-so-slightly
faster. But real life variables like wind, temperature, barometric
pressure, tire inflation, and what you ate for breakfast yesterday
will swamp that tiny improvement--we're kidding ourselves when we
think that we can "feel" a bike cruising 0.11 km/h faster at 29
km/h.

Quoted message said:

Joe was riding an unfamiliar 92-mile stretch of mountain highway
with plenty of encouragement and even pressure to believe that there
was a "robust" improvement in how fast he could go.

Quoted message said:

Limit the test to a 6% grade and you'll get a bigger difference, but
it's still too small for a human being riding on his own on an
unfamiliar stretch of highway to detect, even with a good
cyclometer.

Quoted message said:

You're grinding 13.5 km/h up this new road on a 92-mile ride. You
don't know whether someone has put 7 pounds of lead weights in your
bike's frame.

Quoted message said:

Are you going faster or slower? The lead weights will change your
speed, one way or the other, only 0.5 km/h.

Quoted message said:

If you know that you're riding an $8500 bike that's 7 pounds
lighter, you're likely to believe that you're going much faster.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure that Joe "felt" the speed differences, but adding or
removing 7 pounds doesn't make a difference that anyone can detect
on that 92-mile ride with the seat of his pants. It takes a
stopwatch and plenty of tests to tease that kind of tiny speed
difference out of real rides.

I think that trying to reduce it to more than total rider and bicycle
weight times the gradient is not understood by people who believe
these promotional phrases.

Jobst Brandt

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:40:52 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Carl. Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

Cheers,

JT

Dear John,

Joe explicitly talked about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed," not
stability or handling, neither of which are likely to be noticeable on
a 92-mile Ride-the-Rockies tour on the highway--pavement posted at 65
mph doesn't usually highlight subtle handling improvements.

What time difference would you predict adding seven pounds to my
current ~220 pound bicycle-and-rider combination (steel with frame
bag, seat bag, and camera bag) would make at my average speed on a
daily 15-mile ride, which is back down to just under 50 minutes after
illness?

Would the improvement in my "forward thrust" be "noticeably robust"
without a stop watch? It's a tiny 0.5 km/h for a smaller rider on a 6%
grade?

Would I start "cruising at a more-than-respectable" clip? The
improvement is less than a practically unmeasurable 0.1 km/h on the
flats.

Let's see . . .

First, let's pretend that it's a flat ride, ignoring that 400-foot
ridge west of town.

15.1 miles = 24.35 km

24.35 km / (5/6 hour) = 29.22 km/h

190 lb rider = 86.4 kg

5,000 feet = 1523 meters

25 lb bike = 11.4 kg

32 lb bike = 14.5 kg

A sizzling 138 watts predicts the desired 29.2 km/h for the 86.4 kg
rider and 11.4 kg bike on this side-by-side calculator:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

Raising the bike weight seven pounds to 14.5 kg lowers the speed from
29.25 km/h to 29.14 km/h, 0.11 km/h slower.

It takes an extra 2 kcal.

Time rises from 49.95 to 50.14 minutes, 0.19 minutes. That's 11.4
seconds on a 3,000 second ride.

In other words, you'd need a lot of rides, a stopwatch, and a big
spreadsheet to show the difference in real life. (My daily time varies
considerably more than 11.4 seconds because of the wind.)

No human being can detect that difference without instruments.

I'm not so sure: human beings are capable of extraordinary sensitivity
to unexpected things. A snooker player for example will know at once if
you've exchanged his favourite cue for another one that's practically
identical. A racing driver could tell if you'd changed his tyres for
ones that were a little bit more or less worn (even though the
difference in speed might be less than a second over a lap).

So maybe the nice bike does really _feel_ nicer to some riders, even if
the differences on paper only matter if you're racing at a high level.

"Ben C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm not so sure: human beings are capable of extraordinary sensitivity
to unexpected things. A snooker player for example will know at once if
you've exchanged his favourite cue for another one that's practically
identical. A racing driver could tell if you'd changed his tyres for
ones that were a little bit more or less worn (even though the
difference in speed might be less than a second over a lap).

So maybe the nice bike does really _feel_ nicer to some riders, even if
the differences on paper only matter if you're racing at a high level.

Test after test shows that human beings - even the most sensitive ones -
can't tell the difference between even very familiar things if that
difference is below about 2%.

I thought that I could tell my Look KG241 from my Basso Loto but after
trying to tell the difference in ride the only thing I could detect was that
when you hit a really large bump the steel bike jumps more than the carbon
fiber one. And that difference is probably 5% in flex.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Would the improvement in my "forward thrust" be "noticeably robust"
without a stop watch? It's a tiny 0.5 km/h for a smaller rider on a
6% grade?

Quoted message said:

Would I start "cruising at a more-than-respectable" clip? The
improvement is less than a practically unmeasurable 0.1 km/h on the
flats.

When reading these promotional phrases by unwitting shills, I think
they don't ride any significant distances on climbs (like Mt. Evans)
or the mountains around here:

http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm

4209ft above the Santa Clara Valley and across the other side, the
coast range of 3000 to 4000ft mountains.

[snip calculations]

Quoted message said:

I think that trying to reduce it to more than total rider and bicycle
weight times the gradient is not understood by people who believe
these promotional phrases.

Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

You're probably right that going through the details with the
calculators is more than some posters are willing to follow.

There's a tiny improvement when a bike loses 7 pounds, but we agree
it's not likely to be anything that a rider can actually notice.

When I read the Ride-the-Rockies article about the lighter bike's
"robust forward thrust," I couldn't help thinking of you happily
riding up Alpine passes and California climbs that daunt most riders.

I suspect that the secret of your "robust forward thrust" is not an
ultra-light $8500 10-speed carbon-fiber frame disguised as a yellow
steel 6 or 7 speed:
http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg

Enviously,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Dear Jobst,

You're probably right that going through the details with the
calculators is more than some posters are willing to follow.

Dear Carl.

Please add six pounds to your bike overwhateve it is now. It
shouldn't be costly. Indeed, you might even do so in a way that makes
your machine more durable

Cheers,

JT

On Jun 20, 6:10 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Jobst,

Quoted message said:

You're probably right that going through the details with the
calculators is more than some posters are willing to follow.

Dear Carl.

Please add six pounds to your bike overwhateve it is now.  It
shouldn't be costly.  Indeed, you might even do so in a way that makes
your machine more durable

I can only repeat, sort of, that instead of adding weight, Mr. Fogel
should go the other direction, maybe get a ride on one of those
demonstrators he mentioned. Kind of like seeing how the other half
lives, if you will. --D-y

Ben C said:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:40:52 -0600, [email hidden] wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dear Carl. Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

Cheers,

JT

Dear John,

Joe explicitly talked about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed," not
stability or handling, neither of which are likely to be noticeable on
a 92-mile Ride-the-Rockies tour on the highway--pavement posted at 65
mph doesn't usually highlight subtle handling improvements.

What time difference would you predict adding seven pounds to my
current ~220 pound bicycle-and-rider combination (steel with frame
bag, seat bag, and camera bag) would make at my average speed on a
daily 15-mile ride, which is back down to just under 50 minutes after
illness?

Would the improvement in my "forward thrust" be "noticeably robust"
without a stop watch? It's a tiny 0.5 km/h for a smaller rider on a 6%
grade?

Would I start "cruising at a more-than-respectable" clip? The
improvement is less than a practically unmeasurable 0.1 km/h on the
flats.

Let's see . . .

First, let's pretend that it's a flat ride, ignoring that 400-foot
ridge west of town.

15.1 miles = 24.35 km

24.35 km / (5/6 hour) = 29.22 km/h

190 lb rider = 86.4 kg

5,000 feet = 1523 meters

25 lb bike = 11.4 kg

32 lb bike = 14.5 kg

A sizzling 138 watts predicts the desired 29.2 km/h for the 86.4 kg
rider and 11.4 kg bike on this side-by-side calculator:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

Raising the bike weight seven pounds to 14.5 kg lowers the speed from
29.25 km/h to 29.14 km/h, 0.11 km/h slower.

It takes an extra 2 kcal.

Time rises from 49.95 to 50.14 minutes, 0.19 minutes. That's 11.4
seconds on a 3,000 second ride.

In other words, you'd need a lot of rides, a stopwatch, and a big
spreadsheet to show the difference in real life. (My daily time varies
considerably more than 11.4 seconds because of the wind.)

No human being can detect that difference without instruments.

I'm not so sure: human beings are capable of extraordinary sensitivity
to unexpected things. A snooker player for example will know at once if
you've exchanged his favourite cue for another one that's practically
identical. A racing driver could tell if you'd changed his tyres for
ones that were a little bit more or less worn (even though the
difference in speed might be less than a second over a lap).

So maybe the nice bike does really _feel_ nicer to some riders, even if
the differences on paper only matter if you're racing at a high level.

Dear Ben,

Try to find someone who can detect without instruments the speed
difference on 92 miles of Colorado highway caused by removing 7 pounds
from a bicycle.

"Feel" is not really the question. Replies have wandered off into
handling and agility and vibration and so forth, but Joe Hudson's
comments were about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed," which are
objective matters of how far you go in a given time.

If Joe can "feel" the difference of 0.1 km/h in crusing speed, he's
more sensitive than most cyclocomputers and somehow corrects for road
roughness, air temperature, altitude, and quite a few other factors.

As for racing drivers, that's pretty much a myth. They rely on the pit
crew's stop watches to find out what equipment combinations are
actually faster. Their "feelings" about speed are notoriously
unreliable, which is hardly surprising, given the tremendous physical
stress of modern car racing and the tiny differences involved in lap
times. Without electronic timing, modern racing would be chaos. If
you're interested, "The Physics of NASCAR" gives some details about
such things.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Ben C said:

On 2008-06-20, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Time rises from 49.95 to 50.14 minutes, 0.19 minutes. That's 11.4
seconds on a 3,000 second ride.

In other words, you'd need a lot of rides, a stopwatch, and a big
spreadsheet to show the difference in real life. (My daily time varies
considerably more than 11.4 seconds because of the wind.)

No human being can detect that difference without instruments.

I'm not so sure: human beings are capable of extraordinary sensitivity
to unexpected things. A snooker player for example will know at once if
you've exchanged his favourite cue for another one that's practically
identical. A racing driver could tell if you'd changed his tyres for
ones that were a little bit more or less worn (even though the
difference in speed might be less than a second over a lap).

So maybe the nice bike does really _feel_ nicer to some riders, even if
the differences on paper only matter if you're racing at a high level.

Dear Ben,

Try to find someone who can detect without instruments the speed
difference on 92 miles of Colorado highway caused by removing 7 pounds
from a bicycle.

"Feel" is not really the question. Replies have wandered off into
handling and agility and vibration and so forth, but Joe Hudson's
comments were about "forward thrust" and "cruising speed," which are
objective matters of how far you go in a given time.

If Joe can "feel" the difference of 0.1 km/h in crusing speed, he's
more sensitive than most cyclocomputers and somehow corrects for road
roughness, air temperature, altitude, and quite a few other factors.

As for racing drivers, that's pretty much a myth. They rely on the pit
crew's stop watches to find out what equipment combinations are
actually faster. Their "feelings" about speed are notoriously
unreliable, which is hardly surprising, given the tremendous physical
stress of modern car racing and the tiny differences involved in lap
times. Without electronic timing, modern racing would be chaos. If
you're interested, "The Physics of NASCAR" gives some details about
such things.

You make a good case, and I think you're probably right.

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

Quoted message said:

As for racing drivers, that's pretty much a myth. They rely on the pit
crew's stop watches to find out what equipment combinations are
actually faster. Their "feelings" about speed are notoriously
unreliable, which is hardly surprising, given the tremendous physical
stress of modern car racing and the tiny differences involved in lap
times. Without electronic timing, modern racing would be chaos. If
you're interested, "The Physics of NASCAR" gives some details about
such things.

Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the watch
said.

Quoted message said:

Try to find someone who can detect without instruments the speed
difference on 92 miles of Colorado highway caused by removing 7 pounds
from a bicycle.

Dear Carl,

If it doesn't matter, we can only assume you are happy to add the 7.

On Jun 21, 8:52 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Try to find someone who can detect without instruments the speed
difference on 92 miles of Colorado highway caused by removing 7 pounds
from a bicycle.

Dear Carl,

If it doesn't matter, we can only assume you are happy to add the 7.

Improved roadholding. --D-y

On Jun 21, 6:52 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dear Carl,

If it doesn't matter, we can only assume you are happy to add the 7.

JFT...Since I can't even PRETEND to understand physics the only thing
I have to contribute here is this:
Bianchi, 1998, 28 lbs.
While riding this baby my bathroom scale went from 180 to 165.

Trek, 2007, 23 lbs.
And while riding this my bathroom scale went from 165 to 163.
Doh!!!

My conclusion: the cheaper older heavier bike was "better" for what I
want to do.
And since I'm not happy with these results, I had been thinking of
adding back 5 lbs of excess weight onto the Trek.
Since I think Carl is right, I'll take 5 of those 7, and since I think
you're right too, Carl can add only the extra 2.
Anybody who doesn't agree with my Solomonic proposal can meet me in
the alley for a Marquis of Queensbury.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Carl Fogel said:

Alas, the calculators predict that Joe was yet another victim of
weight-weenie wishful thinking--surely you should be able to feel the
difference when you start pushing the pedals of a bike 1/3 lighter!

You might not be able to feel the difference in speed (though 3% is
conceivably noticeble), but you surely can feel some difference
(perhaps it's handling, perhaps it's stability/instaility).

Funny that a difference that large in bike weight is derided as
weigh-weeniness.  Funny that 3% in time is considered weeniness.

Dear Carl.  Please place a six pound piece of lead on your bike and
leave it there for the next year or so.

I have a tool roll that I move around among all my bikes. It weighs a
few pounds-- less than six, but probably three or four. When I
combine it with a tube, a decent pump, a lock, and the bag to hold all
these things, I reckon that I've got at least six pounds of weight
that I add to any given bike when I ride.

I have never noticed any effect of that "extra weight", but I will say
this: My rides are more comfortable when I have those things along
with me than when I forget them.

Chalo

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:17:50 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

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

Quoted message said:

As for racing drivers, that's pretty much a myth. They rely on the pit
crew's stop watches to find out what equipment combinations are
actually faster. Their "feelings" about speed are notoriously
unreliable, which is hardly surprising, given the tremendous physical
stress of modern car racing and the tiny differences involved in lap
times. Without electronic timing, modern racing would be chaos. If
you're interested, "The Physics of NASCAR" gives some details about
such things.

Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the watch
said.

Dear Tom,

Your opening "Actually" seems to suggest disagreement, but everything
else agrees with what I wrote.

So we're on the same page here, right?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:17:50 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the
watch
said.

Your opening "Actually" seems to suggest disagreement, but everything
else agrees with what I wrote.

So we're on the same page here, right?

We're mostly on the right page save the fact that you're attempting to argue
where a simple mild disagreement exists.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:18:00 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:17:50 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.

com said:

Actually when I worked with racing motorcycles the opinions of the riders
were almost irrelevant. Many time a faster engine would feel slower simply
because I'd widened the power band and that caused the bike to accelerate
more smoothly and the rider would swear it was slower despite what the
watch
said.

Your opening "Actually" seems to suggest disagreement, but everything
else agrees with what I wrote.

So we're on the same page here, right?

We're mostly on the right page save the fact that you're attempting to argue
where a simple mild disagreement exists.

Dear Tom,

Now I'm baffled.

What was the mild disagreement?

As far as I could tell, we were saying the same thing.

Please go back and look at what you replied to.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel