Vibration damping

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>As a final demonstration, sit on a bike saddle and touch the vibrating
>tuning fork to the bike's seatpost. Tell us what you feel.

Like a really dorky, confused musician?

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

 

[Jose Rizal]

jim beam wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> As a whole what? We were talking about the relative merits of
>> 3Al/2.5V ti vs. 6Al/4V before you botched the explanation and got
>> called out on it by Frank and Jose.
>
> what's the botch??? modulus is key to any structural calculation:
>
> http://www.engineersedge.com/beam_calc_menu.shtml
>
> do /you/ see yield in any of those equations? i don't.

Eh, you bleated on about strength-to-weight ratio being related to
elastic modulus, when in fact the latter gives absolutely no indication
of the former whatsoever. Then you tried to divert attention by
bringing up yield and specific modulus and mathematical formulae for
stiff structures and all the other irrelevant ****, which did not
succeed in covering up your lack of knowledge.

>> Lemme guess - you found a website that goes on about a structure made
>> from various titanium alloys and are trying to figure out a way to
>> slip it into this thread....
>
>
> only in your convoluted squirming little mind. to everyone else, your
> website goes to great lengths to justify on pseudo-mechanical grounds a
> decision made on purely economic grounds. 3/2.5 is cheaper. straight
> gauge is cheaper. neither are technically superior as you try saying
> with all your "straight gauge is stiffer" ********.

Whereas your bleatings of 6/4 Ti being as easily weldable and
cold-worked as 3/2.5 Ti, and straight gauge tubes being inferior to
butted tubes, without defining relative thicknesses, is quite
convincing? Only to your mind, alcoholic one. The rest of us are still
waiting for your technical explanation. It doesn't have to be
mathematical, by the way, just some citations.
>>
>>> as i presume it's not forthcoming from you or krygowski, i'm taking
>>> myself off to the library this holiday. feel free to beat me to it
>>> and post something useful. [sic]

Try to read beyond the magazine rack with Popular Mechanics in it, would
you?

>>
>> Uhhhh, that IS how you spell "useful".
>
> so /you/ make a f***ing useful contribution then!!! all you've done
> here is bleat a bunch of naysaying **** in contradiction of known fact,

Still waiting for your citation of these "facts", Jimbo.

> wriggle and squirm when called on it,

Ah, the alcoholic one's mirror sayeth thus...

> then studiously avoid addressing
> the mote in your own eye! don't you have a threshold of ridiculousness?

Sure he does, and you're the yardstick!

 

[Jose Rizal]

jim beam wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

>>> krygowski, what is specific modulus?
>>
>> I know what it is, Jim. And I note that you're trying to change the
>> subject.
>
> what's the change?

Uh, from strength to weight claims on Ti, to being called on your
bleatings about modulus being related to strength to weight ratio, to
your diversion to specific modulus definition, to your bleatings about
stiffness... most of us can follow the bouncing ball, alcoholic one.

> you ignore modulus.

You ignore fact and knowledge by diversion.

> then you come back to it in
> ridiculous context.

Pot and kettle story, you know it?

> now you're complaining when you get called on it?
>

This offensive of accusing someone of what you're guilty of really
doesn't work, you know. You can't really imagine this makes you look
better, does it?

>> As Mark clearly explains on his site, and as I've explained here, it's
>> foolish to fixate on one property and pretend it's the only thing that
>> matters.
>
>
> hickey fixates on trying to justify materials choices on the basis of
> properties rather than price. which is bull. straight gauge is not
> superior to butted.

Says your fantasy world. Explain that again, will you?

> 3/2.5 is not superior to 6/4.

Fantasy world again.

> parallel tube is not
> superior to tapered.

You got it, fantasy world.

> but straight gauge 3/2.5 sure is cheaper on all 3
> counts. if he cited economics as his primary decision factor, it would
> be fine, but instead he employs exactly the same advertising "puffery"
> employed by the other manufacturers he has the temerity to criticize.
> that's being a hypocrite.

Whereas you just cite incorrect bleatings with no technical basis
whatsoever. What does that make you? Rhetorical question, that one.

>> By the "logic" of your argument, that difficulty shouldn't matter. We
>> should just pick out the metal with the absolute best property of your
>> choice (specific modulus? fatigue resistance? whatever) and build ALL
>> bikes from it, no matter the tradeoffs and no matter the cost. Right?
>
>
> that depends on the lengths /you/ are going to to make a specious
> argument krygowski. you, the avoider of direct [technical] answers.
>

From above: This offensive of accusing someone of what you're guilty of
really doesn't work, you know. You can't really imagine this makes you
look better, does it?

> no, you find being called on your ridiculous arguments objectionable.
> which is surprising since you don't make any tech contributions, just
> show up for the jerry springer factor.

From above: This offensive of accusing someone of what you're guilty of
really doesn't work, you know. You can't really imagine this makes you
look better, does it?

 

[dvt]

Joe Riel wrote:
> Thanks. Sounds like taking the dual of an electric circuit.

Exactly.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[Dan]

"Jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in

> only in your convoluted squirming little mind. to everyone else, your
> website goes to great lengths to justify on pseudo-mechanical grounds a
> decision made on purely economic grounds. 3/2.5 is cheaper. straight
> gauge is cheaper. neither are technically superior as you try saying with
> all your "straight gauge is stiffer" ********.
>

Jim-

Be careful, a little learning is a dangerous thing:

Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies
Find They're blind to own failings, others' skills

Erica Goode, New York Times 1-18-2000


"People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in studies
conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually
supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact,
than people who do things well. "I began to think that there were
probably lots of things that I was bad at and I didn't know it,"
Dr. Dunning said. One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the
blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills
required for competence often are the same skills necessary to
recognize competence. The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they
suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. "Not only do they reach erroneous
conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them
of the ability to realize it," wrote Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor
at the University of Illinois, and Dr. Dunning."

 

[[email protected]]

Dan who? writes:

>> only in your convoluted squirming little mind. to everyone else,
>> your website goes to great lengths to justify on pseudo-mechanical
>> grounds a decision made on purely economic grounds. 3/2.5 is
>> cheaper. straight gauge is cheaper. neither are technically
>> superior as you try saying with all your "straight gauge is
>> stiffer" ********.

> Be careful, a little learning is a dangerous thing:

> Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies
> Find They're blind to own failings, others' skills

> Erica Goode, New York Times 1-18-2000

> "People who do things badly, Dr. Dunning has found in studies
> conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually
> supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact,
> than people who do things well. "I began to think that there were
> probably lots of things that I was bad at and I didn't know it,"
> Dr. Dunning said. One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the
> blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills
> required for competence often are the same skills necessary to
> recognize competence. The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly,
> they suggested in a paper appearing in the December issue of the
> Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Not only do they
> reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their
> incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it," wrote
> Dr. Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of
> Illinois, and Dr. Dunning."

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

As I see it, there is a blind spot in this because these folks don't
see their own "track record" or they would realize they failed at
various points. Being unaware of incompetence at the moment is
understandable, but in the long run, it requires amnesia of a sort
that most people don't have. I suppose it is useful in never being
embarrassed, because that would require recall.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Dan]

<[email protected]> wrote >
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>
> As I see it, there is a blind spot in this because these folks don't
> see their own "track record" or they would realize they failed at
> various points. Being unaware of incompetence at the moment is
> understandable, but in the long run, it requires amnesia of a sort
> that most people don't have. I suppose it is useful in never being
> embarrassed, because that would require recall.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Jobst-

Thanks for looking up the article. A few people do seem to possess
long term amnesia and remain unaware. I like the quote in the article:

"ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
Charles Darwin

Every time I find myself thinking that I know what I am talking about,
I start checking everything. I figure that the best thing is to look at life
as a learning experience rather than trying to convince the rest of the
world that I know more than they do. We all make errors, catching
them is the trick.

It is really frustrating when the general public perceives someone as
an expert simply because that person is supremely self-confident.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>If you, as Mr Hickey does, suggest that tires and saddles diminish the
>perceivable vibration level, then you both are saying that non-damping (or
>less-damping) tires and saddles don't make for a more comfortable ride.
>Measured where you sit, hold, and pedal. A reduction ad absurdum argument
>fails to convince me. So that' how it goes, I guess.

That's a fairly poor synopsis of our position (which we've stated over
and over and over and over). I can't find one thing Frank or I wrote
that would support what you claim above (that the compliance and/or
damping of tires or saddles doesn't affect ride quality). In fact, I
think we've clearly stated (over and over and over and over) that they
DO, and significantly - that being the whole point.

The other point we keep making (over and over and over and over) is
that the "compliance" of the frame is miniscule in comparison, leading
us to surmise that the "benefit" of the inserts is "lost in the noise"
(pun intended as a double entendre'). The nature of the construction
of tires and saddles is that they can't help but provide massive
amounts of damping (as we've stated over and over and over).

This isn't difficult stuff, Sandy. I think we've put it in layman's
terms (over and over and over and over), and done so clearly enough
that there should be virtually no doubt about what we're saying. I
guess if you're convinced that the frame still plays a significant
part in the overall compliance / damping of high-frequency,
low-amplitude vibrations, that IS how it goes, I guess.

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

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

>> If only you could express things in English, it might have been
>> illuminating.
>
> Sandy, I'm an engineer trying to explain sophisticated technical
> things
> to a lawyer. You'd probably have the same problem trying to explain
> sophisticated legal things to me.

If you have difficulty understanding language, then I just may find it
difficult.

>> Why you remain stuck on 400Hz is beyond me.
>
> I'm emphasizing 400 Hz because a) it was in the frequency range where
> Specialized's plots claimed to show benefit, and b) it's familiar to
> most folks as being roughly in the middle of the usual musical scale.

And ?

>> Try to remember a little of the history of science : people started
>> by
>> wanting to measure, and perhaps compare, what they already had
>> empirical
>> evidence for existence. ... Which is the long way of saying, that
>> you (depending on _your_ anatomy) do experience both shock and
>> vibration, and that when there
>> is more or less perceived, you may want to look at why.
>
> You may also want to look at the placebo effect. Recall that (as
> described many times) in the one blind test of ride quality that we
> know of, the "experts" who'd been authoritatively rating the ride of
> different tubesets couldn't tell the difference in a blind test. Once
> people are properly convinced, they may "feel" what they are told.

I refer to buyer optimism directly below your words. Seems you don't manage
to read as well as I hoped. So yes, it will take a great deal of patience
explaining some law to you, but I'm patient. We could start with the law of
diminishing returns ...

>> You, quite on the
>> other side of things, suggest that perception both plays no part in
>> measurement, and that if it were claimed that a difference existed,
>> then the
>> person experiencing the difference is deceiving himself, as
>> optimistic
>> buyers do, often.
>
> _Have_ you heard of the placebo effect? Do you understand how it
> would
> apply here?

Banzai scanning ? Speed reading ? You should try reading _for
comprehension_.
>>
>> If you, as Mr Hickey does, suggest that tires and saddles diminish
>> the
>> perceivable vibration level, then you both are saying that
>> non-damping (or less-damping) tires and saddles don't make for a
>> more comfortable ride.
>
> That's not at all what we're saying. Note that most others
> contributing to this discussion seem to understand the difference
> between the compliance of tires and saddles, and the negligible
> compliance of a frame tube loaded in compression.

You mean I haven't read that vibration can be diminished by using larger
tires, lower tire pressure, more compliant saddles ? News to me.

>> Measured where you sit, hold, and pedal.
>
> That makes sense to me. Or better: Take _comparative_ measurements
> at
> those spots, under realistic conditions.
>
> Do you understand that Specialized has not done that?
>
No - I understand they did not *publish* anything of the sort. Do you know
for a fact what they did, as opposed to what you have seen ? Do they market
tires ? Do they discuss comfort ? Do they sell saddles and comment on
comfort ? How about bar tape ? Comfort ? Does gestalt mean anything to
you ?
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux. S'endormir à vélo, c'est très
rare. S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.

Philippe Geluck

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> "Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you, as Mr Hickey does, suggest that tires and saddles diminish
>> the perceivable vibration level, then you both are saying that
>> non-damping (or less-damping) tires and saddles don't make for a
>> more comfortable ride. Measured where you sit, hold, and pedal. A
>> reduction ad absurdum argument fails to convince me. So that' how
>> it goes, I guess.
>
> That's a fairly poor synopsis of our position (which we've stated over
> and over and over and over). I can't find one thing Frank or I wrote
> that would support what you claim above (that the compliance and/or
> damping of tires or saddles doesn't affect ride quality). In fact, I
> think we've clearly stated (over and over and over and over) that they
> DO, and significantly - that being the whole point.
>
> The other point we keep making (over and over and over and over) is
> that the "compliance" of the frame is miniscule in comparison, leading
> us to surmise that the "benefit" of the inserts is "lost in the noise"
> (pun intended as a double entendre'). The nature of the construction
> of tires and saddles is that they can't help but provide massive
> amounts of damping (as we've stated over and over and over).
>
> This isn't difficult stuff, Sandy. I think we've put it in layman's
> terms (over and over and over and over), and done so clearly enough
> that there should be virtually no doubt about what we're saying. I
> guess if you're convinced that the frame still plays a significant
> part in the overall compliance / damping of high-frequency,
> low-amplitude vibrations, that IS how it goes, I guess.
>
My words were, admittedly, too convoluted, and you were included,
inaccurately, in the second half of the thought. However, I am NOT stating
that the frame plays a /significant/ part in overall compliance. Rather, I
am saying that when the baseline of tires and saddle and bar tape are
included, you are left with the baseline ; from there, the effects of
varying frames (geometry, materials, gimmicks) will, in my opinion, produce
recognizable effects for the rider's sensory system. To suggest otherwise
is to say that a specific combination of geometry, tires/wheels, saddle, and
bar tape will deliver the same effects to the rider for all frames. If that
is not a logical conclusion from your writing, please show me the
difference, and how the baseline is changed or not.

I think the real distinction to focus on is the flaccid use of the term
"negligible". I think it is the rider who makes that decision, not
measuring instruments. And, beyond a certain level, a competitive rider is
satisfied with a comfort level, where an occasional rider won't be.

Sandy
--
Il n'est aucune sorte de sensation qui soit plus vive que celle de la
douleur ; ses impressions sont sûres, elles ne trompent point comme celles
du plaisir
de Sade

 

[Dan Connelly]

Is this Sandy-Frank-Mark thing approaching convergence? I suspect not.

Dan

 

[Mark Hickey]

Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@i_e_e_e.o_r_g> wrote:

>Is this Sandy-Frank-Mark thing approaching convergence? I suspect not.

Sounds dirty....

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My words were, admittedly, too convoluted, and you were included,
>inaccurately, in the second half of the thought. However, I am NOT stating
>that the frame plays a /significant/ part in overall compliance. Rather, I
>am saying that when the baseline of tires and saddle and bar tape are
>included, you are left with the baseline ; from there, the effects of
>varying frames (geometry, materials, gimmicks) will, in my opinion, produce
>recognizable effects for the rider's sensory system.

The question at hand is whether that "above the baseline effect" of
the inserts would be significant enough for a typical rider to be able
to discern the difference in a blind test.

> To suggest otherwise
>is to say that a specific combination of geometry, tires/wheels, saddle, and
>bar tape will deliver the same effects to the rider for all frames. If that
>is not a logical conclusion from your writing, please show me the
>difference, and how the baseline is changed or not.

I would pretty much expect that to be the case - though finding two
bikes with different frame material but identical geometry and
componentry would be difficult. The anecdotal evidence (based on the
blind testing that's been discussed) would suggest that even those
riders who make a living discerning differences between (admittedly
similar) frame materials - can't. So would I expect a blind test
between two otherwise identical bikes - one with a titanium frame, and
the other with a steel frame - to "ride" the same? Yes, actually I
would, but that would assume that the stiffness of the tubes was
identical (which would obviously require different tubing size and/or
tubing wall thickness).

>I think the real distinction to focus on is the flaccid use of the term
>"negligible". I think it is the rider who makes that decision, not
>measuring instruments. And, beyond a certain level, a competitive rider is
>satisfied with a comfort level, where an occasional rider won't be.

"Flaccid"... heh heh heh. I think Frank and I use the term to
indicate that the component in question (the frame) is contributing
only an extremely small portion of the overall compliance and/or
damping - and that the inserts won't be likely to change that enough
to make the contribution much larger.

And (again...) the frequencies that are important to this discussion
ARE in the range where I wouldn't expect my butt to feel them
anyway... so that would indicate (to me) that a small change in the
amplitude of these frequencies wouldn't be significant. Or flaccid.
;-)

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

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> >> If only you could express things in English, it might have been
> >> illuminating.
> >
> > Sandy, I'm an engineer trying to explain sophisticated technical
> > things
> > to a lawyer. You'd probably have the same problem trying to explain
> > sophisticated legal things to me.
>
> If you have difficulty understanding language, then I just may find it
> difficult.

Likewise if you have difficulty using language, I'm sure.

>
> >> Why you remain stuck on 400Hz is beyond me.
> >
> > I'm emphasizing 400 Hz because a) it was in the frequency range where
> > Specialized's plots claimed to show benefit, and b) it's familiar to
> > most folks as being roughly in the middle of the usual musical scale.
>
> And ?

"And" it's unrealistic to expect someone to feel a 400 Hz frame
vibration with their butt on a saddle. Good grief - take notes, man!

BTW, do you understand what 400 Hz sounds like, and feels like? Do
you own a tuning fork? They're cheap, you know.

> > You may also want to look at the placebo effect. Recall that (as
> > described many times) in the one blind test of ride quality that we
> > know of, the "experts" who'd been authoritatively rating the ride of
> > different tubesets couldn't tell the difference in a blind test. Once
> > people are properly convinced, they may "feel" what they are told.
>
> I refer to buyer optimism directly below your words. Seems you don't manage
> to read as well as I hoped.

Yes, you _mention_ it, but do you understand it? Do you believe it can
be important? Judging by your truculence, you seem unwilling to accept
that such a thing really exists.

> So yes, it will take a great deal of patience
> explaining some law to you, but I'm patient. We could start with the lawof
> diminishing returns ...

If a topic on this list ever turns to fine details of law, I promise to
read your writings carefully.

FWIW, I have good friends who are lawyers and other legal experts, and
I do learn from them on legal matters. However, although they are
contentious (as lawyers tend to be), none of them duplicates your
stubbornness and hubris. They don't imagine that legal expertise
somehow makes them competent with engineering and technology.


> > Take _comparative_ measurements
> > at
> > those spots, under realistic conditions.
> >
> > Do you understand that Specialized has not done that?
> >
> No - I understand they did not *publish* anything of the sort. Do you know
> for a fact what they did, as opposed to what you have seen ?

I will grant you that legal point: We do not know that Specialized has
not done tests directly comparing frames that differ only in the
presence or absence of "zertz."

But we do know that they have not made the results, if any, widely
available. And any reasonable person would expect that IF the results
of such tests proved a significant benefit to Zertz, they would profit
from making the results widely available.

This suggests two possibilities: Either they never did the comparative
test, or they did the comparative test and decided the results should
not be made available.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[StaceyJ]

>
> Only since you asked.
> The comments do not relate to misrepresentations. They refer to opinions
> expressed. I also don't usually reply to a lawyer who quotes casebooks to
> argue a viewpoint. Like it or not (and most American judges hate it),
> statutory and regulatory law has displaced the inventivemess of "finding"
> law from natural principles. Case law, when cited, has its place, but what
> I addressed is the fact that "puffery" is generally an anachronistic
> application, and is, in contemporary jurisprudence, used to buttress the
> interpretation of statutory law.
> OK ?
> (Let's not let this detract from the fact that most of the science related
> in this and many threads is relevant, but not conclusive of the truths or
> falsehoods that marketing efforts may tend to overwhelm.)
> --
> Bonne route !
>
> Sandy
> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

1) When the definition of a concept is in question, it is common to
refer to an authoratitive source, like a dictionary. Black's is THE
legal dictionary (not a casebook).
2) Many US Judges appreciate the fact that statutes (when well
written) take a certain degree of discretion away from them. By
reducing the number of discretionary decisions a judge must make, one
reduces the number of appeals filed by parties unhappy with those
discretionary decisions. This is not to say that poorly written laws
are embraced by judges (quite the opposite).
3) I'm a law student, not a practicing attorney - referring to books
is second nature to me. I have, however, had three classes in the last
two years refer to puffing - one taught by a former contracts attorney
for a major chicago law firm, one taught by a current federal district
court judge, and one taught by the author of several treatises on the
federal and state rules of evidence (I had occasion to see a judge
refer to one such treatise in a trial I was clerking for this summer).
4) Puffery, although an old common law doctrine, is still a valid
legal concept. Essentially, one would argue puffing as an affirmative
defense. Assuming that the court agrees that there was no material
misrepresentation of fact (thus, rendering whatever was stated to an
opinion), there is no claim against the puffing party. Statutory law
may be employed to support the proposition that puffery is conceptually
valid, but it does not displace the claim.


For example, Specialized claims that zertz reduces vibration and makes
the ride more comfortable while reducing fatigue. This, while sounding
authoritative, is an opinion. They may claim this until the cows come
home without violating any FTC regs.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
StaceyJ <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Only since you asked.
>> The comments do not relate to misrepresentations. They refer to
>> opinions expressed. I also don't usually reply to a lawyer who
>> quotes casebooks to argue a viewpoint. Like it or not (and most
>> American judges hate it), statutory and regulatory law has displaced
>> the inventivemess of "finding" law from natural principles. Case
>> law, when cited, has its place, but what I addressed is the fact
>> that "puffery" is generally an anachronistic application, and is, in
>> contemporary jurisprudence, used to buttress the interpretation of
>> statutory law.
>> OK ?
>> (Let's not let this detract from the fact that most of the science
>> related in this and many threads is relevant, but not conclusive of
>> the truths or falsehoods that marketing efforts may tend to
>> overwhelm.) --
>> Bonne route !
>>
>> Sandy
>> Verneuil-sur-Seine FR
>
> 1) When the definition of a concept is in question, it is common to
> refer to an authoratitive source, like a dictionary. Black's is THE
> legal dictionary (not a casebook).
> 2) Many US Judges appreciate the fact that statutes (when well
> written) take a certain degree of discretion away from them. By
> reducing the number of discretionary decisions a judge must make, one
> reduces the number of appeals filed by parties unhappy with those
> discretionary decisions. This is not to say that poorly written laws
> are embraced by judges (quite the opposite).
> 3) I'm a law student, not a practicing attorney - referring to books
> is second nature to me. I have, however, had three classes in the
> last two years refer to puffing - one taught by a former contracts
> attorney for a major chicago law firm, one taught by a current
> federal district court judge, and one taught by the author of several
> treatises on the federal and state rules of evidence (I had occasion
> to see a judge refer to one such treatise in a trial I was clerking
> for this summer). 4) Puffery, although an old common law doctrine,
> is still a valid legal concept. Essentially, one would argue puffing
> as an affirmative defense. Assuming that the court agrees that there
> was no material misrepresentation of fact (thus, rendering whatever
> was stated to an opinion), there is no claim against the puffing
> party. Statutory law may be employed to support the proposition that
> puffery is conceptually valid, but it does not displace the claim.
>
>
> For example, Specialized claims that zertz reduces vibration and makes
> the ride more comfortable while reducing fatigue. This, while
> sounding authoritative, is an opinion. They may claim this until the
> cows come home without violating any FTC regs.

Once and for all - "puffery" is *not* anything more than the descriptive
musing regarding a failed prosecution for violation of contractual
relations, or for a failed prosecution for violation of consumer protection
law. The failure was not due to the claim by the defense that there was
commercial puffery ; it failed due to either : 1) the inadequacy of primae
facie evidence to support the complaint, or ; 2) the successful presentation
of evidence that opposed the complaint. It's shorthand, not law.

But you knew that - you were just testing me.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

 

[David]

> As a whole what? We were talking about the relative merits of
> 3Al/2.5V ti vs. 6Al/4V before you botched the explanation and got
> called out on it by Frank and Jose.

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

Hi Mark,

Would you care to comment on this article here

http://www.yellowjersey.org/SUMITOMO.HTML

As in the reference to the ride of the 3AL/2.5V which is stiffer and
more rigid in terms of side flex as are modern oversized frame tubes.

Does this mean that your frames ride like the modern oversized
aluminium frame tubes? If so, that is one expensive harsh frame.

But then, I know of one person who is very happy with his Habanero --
he said it's super comfy. I suspect that he had a good fitting since
this frame is not supposed to be plush and flexy right?

David.

 

[[email protected]]

David who? writes:

>> As a whole what? We were talking about the relative merits of
>> 3Al/2.5V ti vs. 6Al/4V before you botched the explanation and got
>> called out on it by Frank and Jose.

> Mark, would you care to comment on this article here

> http://www.yellowjersey.org/SUMITOMO.HTML

> As in the reference to the ride of the 3AL/2.5V which is stiffer and
> more rigid in terms of side flex as are modern over sized frame
> tubes.

> Does this mean that your frames ride like the modern over sized
> aluminium frame tubes? If so, that is one expensive harsh frame.

> But then, I know of one person who is very happy with his Habanero
> -- he said it's super comfy. I suspect that he had a good fitting
> since this frame is not supposed to be plush and flexy right?

You can talk around in circles about comfortable frames. Assuming the
bars, saddle and cranks are correctly positioned to the rider, no
bicycle frame without suspension is going to be any more or less
comfortable, vibration damping or other such mechanical description
than what the tires transmit.

We haven't see any measurements of the compliance between the three
points of contact on the bicycles in question, only sonograms of
acoustic frequencies. The difference in frame compression between a
curved stay and classic straight tubed frame has also not been shown
because it is embarrassingly small.

As has been pointed out often here, the rear frame tubes are slender
because there are no significant bending or torsional loads and the
large tubes from the seat tube forward withstand major mending and
torsional loads and are therefore large in diameter, large enough to
prevent major distortions in that part of the frame.

If you like the saddle, have good pedals and shoes, and handlebars
that suit your need, that's it. Beyond those features all the talk
of comfortable frame is in the imagination of the paint job. No one
has heard frame tubes ring and jangle while riding. Damping those
unheard resonances isn't going to change anything in ride comfort.

From what gets argued here on the subject, one might suspect it is
from professional teams riding over miles of cobbles and coarse
chip-seal on the way to great victories. It isn't so. Hearing
marketing from the major brands tell us that it is the difference
between suffering and pleasure on a bicycle is more than riders should
hear and believe.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Jose Rizal]

[email protected] wrote:

> If you like the saddle, have good pedals and shoes, and handlebars
> that suit your need, that's it. Beyond those features all the talk
> of comfortable frame is in the imagination of the paint job.

Not really, since geometry also contributes. I think it can be shown
that a long wheelbase, especially when the rear triangle is long (ie
larger clearance between rear wheel and seat tube) contributes to a more
comfortable ride.

 

[[email protected]]

Jose Rizal writes:

>> If you like the saddle, have good pedals and shoes, and handlebars
>> that suit your need, that's it. Beyond those features all the talk
>> of comfortable frame is in the imagination of the paint job.

> Not really, since geometry also contributes. I think it can be
> shown that a long wheelbase, especially when the rear triangle is
> long (ie larger clearance between rear wheel and seat tube)
> contributes to a more comfortable ride.

I think you won't find any significant geometry differences between
leading bicycle manufacturers. They all run about the same rake and
offset and that's it. Even a couple of degrees of rake difference
will have no effect on comfort, it being in the area of cosine effects
that are vanishingly small for +-2 degrees around 15 degrees rake.

Because the subject here is comfort rather than handling,even that
doesn't vary among bicycles that meet the criteria I listed above.
All this may be disappointing to people who spend inordinate sums of
money for a "comfortable" road bicycle. It's like tying and soldering
spokes. Not long a go we had contributors here who could feel the
difference. Paired and low spoke count wheels may have aided in
keeping that fad from reincarnation after its death more than 20 years
ago.

Forks are designed to be loaded primarily in compression by
statistically important road shocks encountered on today's roads and
that has contributed to steeper rake. Just the same, two fork
failures I experienced were forward (crack in the rear), but being
Cinelli internally lugged fork crowns, they don't count because they
should never have gotten onto the market in the first place. Internal
lungs and their fork crowns of solid steel are a structural mistake...
but they were so elegant that everybody had to have them.

Jobst Brandt