spoke fatigue troll [Archive]

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:38 AM

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1346747861/
>>
>> your homework assignment is to annotate the above showing the location
>> of the neutral plane, and to indicate the residual stress profile across
>> the section.
>
> How's this: http://i29.tinypic.com/27y4bd4.jpg

the revised one is better!

>
> Red: tensile residual stress
> Blue: compressive residual stress
> Green: neutral
>
> Based on the link Peter posted
>
> http://www.lanl.gov/contour/beam.html

that's not a profile appropriate here [but peter cole never plays it
straight] - it's a beam machined from thick section and the residual
stress profile is completely different from bent wire. here's a better one:
http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf

bear in mind, that is not severely bent like a spoke elbow, but it's a
much more relevant residual profile.

>
> Although I'm not sure if they're using negative (blue) to mean
> compressive (I am) or which way they're bending their beam.

for a written description, try this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/af080b93a59cca03

"cccTCttt", severely bent wire, is closer to appropriate.

naturally, if residual stress is an initiator, you expect fatigue to
start and grow from a point of high tensile residual. that's why, with
a coil spring, where there is a high tensile skin residual, and where
you have high skin torsion load that coincides, you do indeed observe
fatigue to initiate in the high tensile region. that's why thermal or
mechanical stress relief is so important in that application.

but with a spoke, the fatigue is observed to be independent of any high
residual zone [because there's minimal applied loading there], and
indeed independent of either tensile or compressive minor residuals.
therefore the largest concern is applied load, and thus its origination
is in the design, not the material processing.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:38 AM

"jim beam" humorlessly wrote:
> still just me wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:10:10 -0700, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1346747861/
>>>
>>> your homework assignment is to annotate the above showing the
>>> location of the neutral plane, and to indicate the residual stress
>>> profile across the section.
>>
>> If a spoke breaks and no one analyzes the metallurgical implications,
>> do you still need to replace it?
>
> permanently stupid or temporarily ignorant - simply replace or figure
> out why? seems an easy choice to me.
>
W H O O S H !

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Ben C

01-04-1970, 08:38 AM

On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1346747861/
>>>
>>> your homework assignment is to annotate the above showing the location
>>> of the neutral plane, and to indicate the residual stress profile across
>>> the section.
>>
>> How's this: http://i29.tinypic.com/27y4bd4.jpg
>
> the revised one is better!
>
>
>>
>> Red: tensile residual stress
>> Blue: compressive residual stress
>> Green: neutral
>>
>> Based on the link Peter posted
>>
>> http://www.lanl.gov/contour/beam.html
>
> that's not a profile appropriate here [but peter cole never plays it
> straight] - it's a beam machined from thick section and the residual
> stress profile is completely different from bent wire. here's a better one:
> http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf
>
> bear in mind, that is not severely bent like a spoke elbow, but it's a
> much more relevant residual profile.

It looks like I guessed right that blue is compressive and red is
tensile.

The profiles look similar but for the thicker beam, the regions of
highest residual stress are nearer the centre of the beam. They
alternate in the same sort of way, but it's as though the effect is sort
of rippling out and becoming weaker by the time you get to the edge.

Fatigue can start in the interior, but there are more things to get it
started on the exterior, like surface imperfections. So you would think
tensile residual stress at the exterior would be the biggest problem--
as the coil spring has.

[...]
> for a written description, try this:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/af080b93a59cca03
>
> "cccTCttt", severely bent wire, is closer to appropriate.

That looks more like the bar-- regions of highest T (bright red) and C
(dark blue) nearer the interior.

> naturally, if residual stress is an initiator, you expect fatigue to
> start and grow from a point of high tensile residual. that's why, with
> a coil spring, where there is a high tensile skin residual, and where
> you have high skin torsion load that coincides, you do indeed observe
> fatigue to initiate in the high tensile region.
>
> that's why thermal or mechanical stress relief is so important in that
> application.
>
> but with a spoke, the fatigue is observed to be independent of any high
> residual zone [because there's minimal applied loading there]

Are you saying spoke fatigue usually starts in the region of high
tensile loading-- i.e. the outside of the bend for outbound spokes? I
thought no-one really knew where it started because we haven't looked at
enough failed spokes.

For outbound spokes the small compressive residual on the outside of the
bend will mitigate fatigue (if only a little bit).

For inbound spokes it won't though-- they get a tensile loading on the
inside of the bend in use, where there is the small tensile residual.

Although not the highest region of tensile residual, it still might
accelerate fatigue that starts on the surface due to a surface
imperfection. I think that's Cole's point.

That all sounds reasonably logical provided one is careful not to make
unfounded claims about how significant that tensile skin residual on the
inside of inbound spokes is compared to other factors (which to be fair
Cole doesn't).

I doubt very much that it is very significant at all, but if it were,
how about this for a wheel-building technique:

Take 18 of your 36 spokes and bend their elbows inwards to about 75
degrees (you might have to go to 65 and let them spring back).

Then bend them back out to 90 degrees (you might have to go 95 or 100
and let them spring back).

They now should have compressive residual stress on the insides of the
elbows. Perfect! Use them for the inbound spokes. The other 18 should be
good to go out of the box for the outbound spokes.

Then whatever you do DON'T stress-relieve and ruin everything.

Since there is now compressive residual stress on all spokes protecting
you from fatigue, I predict that they will last even longer than usual--
at least 600000 miles.

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:39 AM

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1346747861/
>>>>
>>>> your homework assignment is to annotate the above showing the location
>>>> of the neutral plane, and to indicate the residual stress profile across
>>>> the section.
>>> How's this: http://i29.tinypic.com/27y4bd4.jpg
>> the revised one is better!
>>
>>
>>> Red: tensile residual stress
>>> Blue: compressive residual stress
>>> Green: neutral
>>>
>>> Based on the link Peter posted
>>>
>>> http://www.lanl.gov/contour/beam.html
>> that's not a profile appropriate here [but peter cole never plays it
>> straight] - it's a beam machined from thick section and the residual
>> stress profile is completely different from bent wire. here's a better one:
>> http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/AnnualReport/FY1999/residual.pdf
>>
>> bear in mind, that is not severely bent like a spoke elbow, but it's a
>> much more relevant residual profile.
>
> It looks like I guessed right that blue is compressive and red is
> tensile.
>
> The profiles look similar but for the thicker beam, the regions of
> highest residual stress are nearer the centre of the beam. They
> alternate in the same sort of way, but it's as though the effect is sort
> of rippling out and becoming weaker by the time you get to the edge.

yup.

>
> Fatigue can start in the interior,

that's /ultra/ rare.

> but there are more things to get it
> started on the exterior, like surface imperfections.

almost /all/ failures start at the exterior.

> So you would think
> tensile residual stress at the exterior would be the biggest problem--
> as the coil spring has.

indeed. and on spokes too.

>
> [...]
>> for a written description, try this:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/af080b93a59cca03
>>
>> "cccTCttt", severely bent wire, is closer to appropriate.
>
> That looks more like the bar-- regions of highest T (bright red) and C
> (dark blue) nearer the interior.

theoretical bar, not actual. the actual on that test was somewhat skewed.

>
>> naturally, if residual stress is an initiator, you expect fatigue to
>> start and grow from a point of high tensile residual. that's why, with
>> a coil spring, where there is a high tensile skin residual, and where
>> you have high skin torsion load that coincides, you do indeed observe
>> fatigue to initiate in the high tensile region.
>>
>> that's why thermal or mechanical stress relief is so important in that
>> application.
>>
>> but with a spoke, the fatigue is observed to be independent of any high
>> residual zone [because there's minimal applied loading there]
>
> Are you saying spoke fatigue usually starts in the region of high
> tensile loading-- i.e. the outside of the bend for outbound spokes?

either inside or outside, but definitely a region of high loading
[caused by bending].

> I
> thought no-one really knew where it started because we haven't looked at
> enough failed spokes.

who hasn't? just go to a bike shop and ask them to save some for you.

>
> For outbound spokes the small compressive residual on the outside of the
> bend will mitigate fatigue (if only a little bit).

theoretically, yes, but in practice they break pretty evenly both ways.

>
> For inbound spokes it won't though-- they get a tensile loading on the
> inside of the bend in use, where there is the small tensile residual.
>
> Although not the highest region of tensile residual, it still might
> accelerate fatigue that starts on the surface due to a surface
> imperfection. I think that's Cole's point.

peter cole is just fixated on the fact that because there may be a
residual stress, there will definitely be fatigue. which is not the
case here because it's not observed to be initiating in that high
residual zone.

>
> That all sounds reasonably logical provided one is careful not to make
> unfounded claims about how significant that tensile skin residual on the
> inside of inbound spokes is compared to other factors (which to be fair
> Cole doesn't).
>
> I doubt very much that it is very significant at all, but if it were,
> how about this for a wheel-building technique:
>
> Take 18 of your 36 spokes and bend their elbows inwards to about 75
> degrees (you might have to go to 65 and let them spring back).
>
> Then bend them back out to 90 degrees (you might have to go 95 or 100
> and let them spring back).
>
> They now should have compressive residual stress on the insides of the
> elbows. Perfect! Use them for the inbound spokes. The other 18 should be
> good to go out of the box for the outbound spokes.
>
> Then whatever you do DON'T stress-relieve and ruin everything.

but you can't. if you don't overload/stabilize/"stress relieve", the
wheel will go out of true in a few miles as the spokes bed in to the hub
holes. you can prove that to yourself next time you build.
particularly rears.

>
> Since there is now compressive residual stress on all spokes protecting
> you from fatigue, I predict that they will last even longer than usual--
> at least 600000 miles.

easier to just use a fatigue resistant material in the first place, or
better yet, use straight pull spokes.

Ben C

01-04-1970, 08:39 AM

On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> For inbound spokes it won't though-- they get a tensile loading on the
>> inside of the bend in use, where there is the small tensile residual.
>>
>> Although not the highest region of tensile residual, it still might
>> accelerate fatigue that starts on the surface due to a surface
>> imperfection. I think that's Cole's point.
>
> peter cole is just fixated on the fact that because there may be a
> residual stress, there will definitely be fatigue. which is not the
> case here because it's not observed to be initiating in that high
> residual zone.

Well I think you're right about that.

But I'm not sure Peter Cole has claimed the presence of residual stress
means there will definitely be fatigue (premature fatigue that is-- that
there will be fatigue in cyclically loaded aluminium is as certain as
death and taxes).

But Brandt _does_ appear to claim that residual stress causes spoke
failure and that stabilization works by stress-relieving. That's a step
too far for me.

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:39 AM

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> For inbound spokes it won't though-- they get a tensile loading on the
>>> inside of the bend in use, where there is the small tensile residual.
>>>
>>> Although not the highest region of tensile residual, it still might
>>> accelerate fatigue that starts on the surface due to a surface
>>> imperfection. I think that's Cole's point.
>> peter cole is just fixated on the fact that because there may be a
>> residual stress, there will definitely be fatigue. which is not the
>> case here because it's not observed to be initiating in that high
>> residual zone.
>
> Well I think you're right about that.
>
> But I'm not sure Peter Cole has claimed the presence of residual stress
> means there will definitely be fatigue (premature fatigue that is-- that
> there will be fatigue in cyclically loaded aluminium is as certain as
> death and taxes).
>
> But Brandt _does_ appear to claim that residual stress causes spoke
> failure and that stabilization works by stress-relieving. That's a step
> too far for me.

the thing for me is that it's not like he couldn't go out and acquire
evidence if he really believed it to be true. hard data is where it's
at, not assertion based on fundamental misconception such as the belief
that he can eliminate fatigue from a material with no fatigue endurance
limit.

Ben C

01-04-1970, 08:40 AM

On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> But Brandt _does_ appear to claim that residual stress causes spoke
>> failure and that stabilization works by stress-relieving. That's a step
>> too far for me.
>
> the thing for me is that it's not like he couldn't go out and acquire
> evidence if he really believed it to be true.

Agreed. If it were anyone else they would say, "I know maybe residual
stress is a factor", and people would say "yes, interesting, perhaps",
discuss it a bit, and move on.

But because it's Brandt's pet herring it refuses to die and people go
around believing that "residual stress causes spoke failure".

This is particularly ironic as Brandt is himself the proud slayer of the
previous generation's myth and lore.

The truth is bicycle engineering is a bit of an amateur subject these
days, and Brandt is king of the hill. Most engineers are more concerned
with things like aircraft wings and if you published a book about them
containing the least inconsistency, misconception, or anecdotal
conclusion, you wouldn't get away with it for long.

There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:41 AM

Ben C? wrote:
> [...]
> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.

Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
"current", so durability does not matter too much.

Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
"training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
things like pre-built Mavic wheels.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Peter Cole

01-04-1970, 08:41 AM

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-26, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> But Brandt _does_ appear to claim that residual stress causes spoke
>>> failure and that stabilization works by stress-relieving. That's a step
>>> too far for me.
>> the thing for me is that it's not like he couldn't go out and acquire
>> evidence if he really believed it to be true.
>
> Agreed. If it were anyone else they would say, "I know maybe residual
> stress is a factor", and people would say "yes, interesting, perhaps",
> discuss it a bit, and move on.
>
> But because it's Brandt's pet herring it refuses to die and people go
> around believing that "residual stress causes spoke failure".
>
> This is particularly ironic as Brandt is himself the proud slayer of the
> previous generation's myth and lore.

Before you catapult from your ad hominem to a broader indictment of the
engineering skills on this forum, you might (at least) familiarize
yourself with what Jobst actually wrote on the subject.

Residual stresses do exist, but they are only one part of the picture.
The debate (here) on this issue has evolved from a denial that residual
stresses existed, to an acceptance that they did, but played no part in
spoke fatigue, to now claiming they may play a minor role. All this is
rather beside the point.

The technique Jobst describes in his book is called "stress relief", not
"residual stress relief". Obviously, residual stress is added to
operational stress to predict fatigue. When a wheel is laced and
tensioned, some areas may be operating near yield. By momentarily
overloading, those areas will yield, and upon removal of the overload,
the (operating) stress will be lowered. That's all. There will be no
effect on any area other than one that's close to yield. That's all he says.

It is impossible to predict, given the various combinations of hubs and
spokes; forming and bending histories, exactly where the critical stress
areas are. There may not even be any. But we can not be sure of that. We
do know that if there are any tension stresses close to yield -- from
all the various sources: residual, spoke tension, bending moment, stress
raisers -- those critical stresses (and only those stresses) will be
lowered and the fatigue life will be improved. Jobst describes this as
"correcting the spoke line at the microscopic level". I don't think I
can improve upon that description.

And for the record, Jobst's book recommends correcting the spoke line
(carefully, and only when needed) after the wheel has been tensioned.
Also, peak residual stresses may exist on the surface after a bend (it
depends on the depth of the plastic/elastic transition) as described
here: http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/beam_bending/plastic.php

Also, "direct pull" spokes have been around for a hundred years or so,
like almost all current "innovations", there are reasons for their
historical lack of popularity.

Finally, the "Mavic method" and cruder versions of stress relief have
been around for many years. Jobst never claimed to have invented wheel
stress relieving, only to have explained it and devised a better way to
do it. As for the claim that the benefit of these exercises is only to
provide "bedding in", I'd think it should be obvious (even after
building only a few wheels) that the final stresses in a wheel are
something of a crap shoot, not guaranteed to be improved or worsened by
bedding in.

All this straw man bashing could be avoided by simply reading the book.
Do you critique all books without reading them?

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:19:09 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote:

> Ben C? wrote:
>> [...]
>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>
> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
> "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>
> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.

Parts that last don't make money on repeat sales.

Cycling marketing has always been about fads - kids like "jim beam" are the
prime target; gullible and voluble.

Ben C

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

On 2008-04-27, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
>> [...]
>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>
> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
> "current", so durability does not matter too much.

This is the question. Most places I've worked the engineers just work
hard on making the product better. Then the marketing people talk it up
in the way they think best (which may be tangential to its actual
merits).

But the marketing dept doesn't tell the engineers what to actually make,
except in very broad terms. They might design the logos and things, but
not the actual products.

But they might decide what sort of products the company needs to make.

For example it seems likely Mavic make cheap "wheel systems" because it
gives them a bigger slice of the market than if they just stick to rims.
So the engineers might get told: make some wheels that cost less than x,
weigh less than y, visually look like pro-riders' wheels, and on which
we make all the bits. So they do the best they can with an almost-clean
sheet.

The "win on Sunday sell on Monday" principle is also an important part
of their marketing. I'm sure they have expensive engineers working on
the carbon disk wheels and all that kind of stuff.

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Ben C? wrote:
>> [...]
>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>
> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?

but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think straight
pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined rims come from???
that **** ain't cheap.

> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
> "current", so durability does not matter too much.

rubbish. see above.

>
> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>

no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than the
typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in my
experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended on it.
my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of the
box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]

Michael Press

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

In article <4s0t058n0z7x$.156ychv1g9btr$.dlg@40tude.net>,
_ <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:19:09 -0500, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > Ben C? wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
> >> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
> >> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
> >
> > Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
> > After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
> > and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
> > "current", so durability does not matter too much.
> >
> > Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
> > "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
> > things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>
> Parts that last don't make money on repeat sales.
>
> Cycling marketing has always been about fads - kids like "jim beam" are the
> prime target; gullible and voluble.

jim beam is one of the salesmen.

--
Michael Press

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

Ben C wrote:
> On 2008-04-27, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Ben C? wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
>> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
>> "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>
> This is the question. Most places I've worked the engineers just work
> hard on making the product better. Then the marketing people talk it up
> in the way they think best (which may be tangential to its actual
> merits).
>
> But the marketing dept doesn't tell the engineers what to actually make,
> except in very broad terms. They might design the logos and things, but
> not the actual products.
>
> But they might decide what sort of products the company needs to make.
>
> For example it seems likely Mavic make cheap "wheel systems" because it
> gives them a bigger slice of the market than if they just stick to rims.
> So the engineers might get told: make some wheels that cost less than x,
> weigh less than y, visually look like pro-riders' wheels, and on which
> we make all the bits. So they do the best they can with an almost-clean
> sheet.

it's simpler than that. mavic, frustrated by those mislead into
cranking up spoke tension so that rims crack, and being faced with bad
p.r. for being asked to warranty rims they [rightly] can refuse to
replace for abuse, logically and intelligently decided to take the jobst
factor out of the equation. the solution is to sell a whole wheel,
built to the correct specs, with reliable components, and it works.
that's why everyone else got on board too.

>
> The "win on Sunday sell on Monday" principle is also an important part
> of their marketing. I'm sure they have expensive engineers working on
> the carbon disk wheels and all that kind of stuff.

engineers who ride bike no less...

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Ben C? wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>
>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>
> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think straight
> pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined rims come from???
> that **** ain't cheap.
>
And completely unnecessary. Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined
rims work just fine at a much lower cost, thank you.

Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but how
would "jim beam" know that?

>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
>> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of staying
>> "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>
> rubbish. see above.
>
Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist crowd
to see that fashion is the most important thing.

>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
>> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
>> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>
>
> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than the
> typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in my
> experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended on it.
>
There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx and
UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.

One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc. one's
self.

I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive proprietary
parts.

> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of the
> box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]

My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>
>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>
>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think straight
>> pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined rims come
>> from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>
> And completely unnecessary.

ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts. just
hand waving and subjectivity!

> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined
> rims work just fine at a much lower cost, thank you.

they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.

>
> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but how
> would "jim beam" know that?

"unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps good
companies alive.

>
>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the "latest
>>> and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake of
>>> staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>
>> rubbish. see above.
>>
> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist crowd
> to see that fashion is the most important thing.

the defense of the luddite lightweight.

>
>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
>>> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
>>> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>
>>
>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than the
>> typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in my
>> experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended on it.
> >
> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx and
> UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>
> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc. one's
> self.
>
> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive proprietary
> parts.
>
>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of
>> the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>
> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>

typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:42 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>
>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>>
>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think straight
>>> pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined rims come
>>> from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>
>> And completely unnecessary.
>
> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts. just
> hand waving and subjectivity!
>
If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is fine,
what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars more?
Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?

>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine at a
>> much lower cost, thank you.
>
> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>
Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.

>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but how
>> would "jim beam" know that?
>
> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps good
> companies alive.
>
Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?

>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake
>>>> of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>
>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>
>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>
> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>
Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.

>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
>>>> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
>>>> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>
>>>
>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than
>>> the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in my
>>> experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended on it.
>> >
>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx and
>> UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>
>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc.
>> one's self.
>>
>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>> proprietary parts.
>>
>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of
>>> the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>
>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>
>
> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.

Typical "jim beam" non-logic.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:43 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano but
>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go on is
>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>>>
>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined rims
>>>> come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>
>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>
>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts. just
>> hand waving and subjectivity!
>>
> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is fine,
> what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars more?
> Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?

1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there either.

fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
lightweight.

>
>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine at a
>>> much lower cost, thank you.
>>
>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>
> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.

do your homework. lightweight.

>
>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but
>>> how would "jim beam" know that?
>>
>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps
>> good companies alive.
>>
> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?

more straw men? lightweight.

>
>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the sake
>>>>> of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>>
>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>
>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>
>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>
> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.

coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal interaction
problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is getting to you tom.
time to switch back to an ordinary.

>
>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
>>>>> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who purchase
>>>>> things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than
>>>> the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in
>>>> my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended
>>>> on it.
>>> >
>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx and
>>> UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>
>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc.
>>> one's self.
>>>
>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>> proprietary parts.
>>>
>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of
>>>> the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>
>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>
>>
>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>
> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>

see above.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:43 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and Shimano
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go
>>>>>>> on is
>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>>>>
>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined
>>>>> rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>
>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>
>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts. just
>>> hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>
>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is fine,
>> what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars more?
>> Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>
> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there either.
>
> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
> lightweight.
>
So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money? Or is he incapable of
building a proper wheel out of conventional components? Can he not find
a competent builder of proper wheels when so many others do? The mystery
of the Bourbon Man deepens.

>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine at
>>>> a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>
>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>>
>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>
> do your homework. lightweight.
>
What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews of
dubious origin?

>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but
>>>> how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>
>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps
>>> good companies alive.
>>>
>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>
> more straw men? lightweight.
>
Open your eyes, "jim".

>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the
>>>>>> sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>>>
>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>
>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>>>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>
>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>
>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>
> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal interaction
> problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is getting to you tom.
> time to switch back to an ordinary.
>
The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
societal interaction! What a hoot!

>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on the
>>>>>> "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who
>>>>>> purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than
>>>>> the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in
>>>>> my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended
>>>>> on it.
>>>> >
>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx
>>>> and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>
>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc.
>>>> one's self.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>
>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out of
>>>>> the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>
>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>
>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>
>
> see above.

Indeed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:43 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go
>>>>>>>> on is
>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined
>>>>>> rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts.
>>>> just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>
>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is fine,
>>> what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars more?
>>> Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>>
>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there
>> either.
>>
>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
>> lightweight.
>>
> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?

eh?

> Or is he incapable of
> building a proper wheel out of conventional components?

straw man.

> Can he not find
> a competent builder of proper wheels when so many others do? The mystery
> of the Bourbon Man deepens.

er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's hardly
unique.

>
>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine at
>>>>> a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>
>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>>>
>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>
>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>
> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews of
> dubious origin?

no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.

>
>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but
>>>>> how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>
>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps
>>>> good companies alive.
>>>>
>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>
>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>
> Open your eyes, "jim".

oh, the irony.

>
>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the
>>>>>>> sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>>>>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>
>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>
>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>
>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal interaction
>> problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is getting to you
>> tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>
> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
> societal interaction! What a hoot!

you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your brain cells.

>
>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on
>>>>>>> the "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who
>>>>>>> purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable than
>>>>>> the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local shops in
>>>>>> my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their life depended
>>>>>> on it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx
>>>>> and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>
>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc.
>>>>> one's self.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out
>>>>>> of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>
>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>
>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>
>>
>> see above.
>
> Indeed.
>

s/n = 1:100

lightweight.

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:43 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to go
>>>>>>>>> on is
>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on marketing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined
>>>>>>> rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts.
>>>>> just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>>
>>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is
>>>> fine, what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars
>>>> more? Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>>>
>>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there
>>> either.
>>>
>>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
>>> lightweight.
>>>
>> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?
>
> eh?
>
>
>
>> Or is he incapable of building a proper wheel out of conventional
>> components?
>
> straw man.
>
>
>> Can he not find a competent builder of proper wheels when so many
>> others do? The mystery of the Bourbon Man deepens.
>
> er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's hardly
> unique.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine
>>>>>> at a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>>
>>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>>
>> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews of
>> dubious origin?
>
> no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
> beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice, but
>>>>>> how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>>
>>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what keeps
>>>>> good companies alive.
>>>>>
>>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>>>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>>
>>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>>
>> Open your eyes, "jim".
>
> oh, the irony.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the
>>>>>>>> sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>>>>>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>>
>>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal
>>> interaction problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is
>>> getting to you tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>>
>> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
>> societal interaction! What a hoot!
>
> you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your brain
> cells.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on
>>>>>>>> the "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who
>>>>>>>> purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable
>>>>>>> than the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local
>>>>>>> shops in my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their
>>>>>>> life depended on it.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx
>>>>>> and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning, etc.
>>>>>> one's self.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out
>>>>>>> of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>>
>>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>>
>>>
>>> see above.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>
> s/n = 1:100
>
> lightweight.

Much smoke but no fire from the "jim beam" sock puppet.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:44 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to
>>>>>>>>>> go on is
>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing material.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on
>>>>>>>>> marketing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined
>>>>>>>> rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts.
>>>>>> just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>>>
>>>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is
>>>>> fine, what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars
>>>>> more? Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>>>>
>>>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>>>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there
>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
>>>> lightweight.
>>>>
>>> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?
>>
>> eh?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Or is he incapable of building a proper wheel out of conventional
>>> components?
>>
>> straw man.
>>
>>
>>> Can he not find a competent builder of proper wheels when so many
>>> others do? The mystery of the Bourbon Man deepens.
>>
>> er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's
>> hardly unique.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine
>>>>>>> at a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>>>
>>> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews
>>> of dubious origin?
>>
>> no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
>> beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice,
>>>>>>> but how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what
>>>>>> keeps good companies alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>>>>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>>>
>>>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>>>
>>> Open your eyes, "jim".
>>
>> oh, the irony.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the
>>>>>>>>> sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter too much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the conformist
>>>>>>> crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>>>
>>>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal
>>>> interaction problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is
>>>> getting to you tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>>>
>>> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
>>> societal interaction! What a hoot!
>>
>> you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your brain
>> cells.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on
>>>>>>>>> the "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who
>>>>>>>>> purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable
>>>>>>>> than the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local
>>>>>>>> shops in my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their
>>>>>>>> life depended on it.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels. FedEx
>>>>>>> and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning,
>>>>>>> etc. one's self.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight out
>>>>>>>> of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> see above.
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>
>> s/n = 1:100
>>
>> lightweight.
>
> Much smoke but no fire from the "jim beam" sock puppet.
>

so still no signal.

tell me tom, why do you bother? it's sort of interesting. an a sick,
pervy "watching a car wreck" kinda way. do you perceive some kind of
benefit from just yapping, without actually saying anything? can't you
just watch tv?

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:44 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to
>>>>>>>>>>> go on is
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing
>>>>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on
>>>>>>>>>> marketing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and machined
>>>>>>>>> rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts.
>>>>>>> just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is
>>>>>> fine, what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars
>>>>>> more? Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>>>>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
>>>>> lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?
>>>
>>> eh?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Or is he incapable of building a proper wheel out of conventional
>>>> components?
>>>
>>> straw man.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can he not find a competent builder of proper wheels when so many
>>>> others do? The mystery of the Bourbon Man deepens.
>>>
>>> er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's
>>> hardly unique.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just fine
>>>>>>>> at a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously discussed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>>>>
>>>>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews
>>>> of dubious origin?
>>>
>>> no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
>>> beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice,
>>>>>>>> but how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what
>>>>>>> keeps good companies alive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>>>>>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>> Open your eyes, "jim".
>>>
>>> oh, the irony.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for the
>>>>>>>>>> sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter too
>>>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the
>>>>>>>> conformist crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>>>>
>>>>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal
>>>>> interaction problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is
>>>>> getting to you tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>>>>
>>>> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
>>>> societal interaction! What a hoot!
>>>
>>> you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your brain
>>> cells.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look on
>>>>>>>>>> the "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders who
>>>>>>>>>> purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable
>>>>>>>>> than the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local
>>>>>>>>> shops in my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their
>>>>>>>>> life depended on it.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels.
>>>>>>>> FedEx and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning,
>>>>>>>> etc. one's self.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight
>>>>>>>>> out of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> see above.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> s/n = 1:100
>>>
>>> lightweight.
>>
>> Much smoke but no fire from the "jim beam" sock puppet.
>>
>
> so still no signal.
>
> tell me tom, why do you bother? it's sort of interesting. an a sick,
> pervy "watching a car wreck" kinda way. do you perceive some kind of
> benefit from just yapping, without actually saying anything? can't you
> just watch tv?
>
Of more interest to the RBT readership, why do you hide behind a sock
puppet, while constantly sniping at others? What are hiding from or
afraid of?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:44 AM

Tom Sherman wrote:
> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have to
>>>>>>>>>>>> go on is
>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing
>>>>>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on
>>>>>>>>>>> marketing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and
>>>>>>>>>> machined rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no facts.
>>>>>>>> just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is
>>>>>>> fine, what more does one get for spending several hundred dollars
>>>>>>> more? Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the coffee shop?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>>>>>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value there
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is simply
>>>>>> lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?
>>>>
>>>> eh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Or is he incapable of building a proper wheel out of conventional
>>>>> components?
>>>>
>>>> straw man.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can he not find a competent builder of proper wheels when so many
>>>>> others do? The mystery of the Bourbon Man deepens.
>>>>
>>>> er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's
>>>> hardly unique.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just
>>>>>>>>> fine at a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously
>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online reviews
>>>>> of dubious origin?
>>>>
>>>> no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
>>>> beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice,
>>>>>>>>> but how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what
>>>>>>>> keeps good companies alive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap through
>>>>>>> marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Open your eyes, "jim".
>>>>
>>>> oh, the irony.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in the
>>>>>>>>>>> "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading for
>>>>>>>>>>> the sake of staying "current", so durability does not matter
>>>>>>>>>>> too much.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the
>>>>>>>>> conformist crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal
>>>>>> interaction problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is
>>>>>> getting to you tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
>>>>> societal interaction! What a hoot!
>>>>
>>>> you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your
>>>> brain cells.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look
>>>>>>>>>>> on the "training" rides is what matters to most of the riders
>>>>>>>>>>> who purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable
>>>>>>>>>> than the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6 local
>>>>>>>>>> shops in my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if their
>>>>>>>>>> life depended on it.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels.
>>>>>>>>> FedEx and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning,
>>>>>>>>> etc. one's self.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight
>>>>>>>>>> out of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> see above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> s/n = 1:100
>>>>
>>>> lightweight.
>>>
>>> Much smoke but no fire from the "jim beam" sock puppet.
>>>
>>
>> so still no signal.
>>
>> tell me tom, why do you bother? it's sort of interesting. an a sick,
>> pervy "watching a car wreck" kinda way. do you perceive some kind of
>> benefit from just yapping, without actually saying anything? can't
>> you just watch tv?
>>
> Of more interest to the RBT readership, why do you hide behind a sock
> puppet, while constantly sniping at others? What are hiding from or
> afraid of?
>

because it annoys you so excellently!

Tom Sherman

01-04-1970, 08:45 AM

The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The "jim beam" sock puppet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben C? wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are real engineers working at places like Mavic and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shimano but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't post on RBT (as far as we know) so all we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go on is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the finished products and dubious marketing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why spend money on engineering when it could be spent on
>>>>>>>>>>>> marketing?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but they /do/ spend it on engineering!!! where do you think
>>>>>>>>>>> straight pull spokes come from??? where do welded and
>>>>>>>>>>> machined rims come from??? that **** ain't cheap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And completely unnecessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ah, the crux of a lightweight argument. no details. no
>>>>>>>>> facts. just hand waving and subjectivity!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the spokes do not break, the wheel stays true and braking is
>>>>>>>> fine, what more does one get for spending several hundred
>>>>>>>> dollars more? Bragging rights while the bike is parked at the
>>>>>>>> coffee shop?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. i don't drink coffee, so you won't find me there.
>>>>>>> 2. my bikes get ridden and look like ****. so no pose value
>>>>>>> there either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fabricating straw men, then criticizing that fabrication is
>>>>>>> simply lightweight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So "jim beam" just likes to spend extra money?
>>>>>
>>>>> eh?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or is he incapable of building a proper wheel out of conventional
>>>>>> components?
>>>>>
>>>>> straw man.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can he not find a competent builder of proper wheels when so many
>>>>>> others do? The mystery of the Bourbon Man deepens.
>>>>>
>>>>> er, read what i said about local shops and my experience. that's
>>>>> hardly unique.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conventional spoked wheels with non-machined rims work just
>>>>>>>>>> fine at a much lower cost, thank you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they work, but not as well, in several regards previously
>>>>>>>>> discussed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, in "jim beam" world. The rest of us live in the real world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do your homework. lightweight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What homework? Reading manufacturer's propaganda and online
>>>>>> reviews of dubious origin?
>>>>>
>>>>> no, reading the ****ing archives on why these design elements are
>>>>> beneficial. selective strawman lightweight.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Spending money unnecessarily is not good engineering practice,
>>>>>>>>>> but how would "jim beam" know that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "unnecessarily"??? that's utter bull****. r & d - it's what
>>>>>>>>> keeps good companies alive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plenty of companies do just fine selling unnecessary crap
>>>>>>>> through marketing. A salesman should realize this, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> more straw men? lightweight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Open your eyes, "jim".
>>>>>
>>>>> oh, the irony.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, many of the customers are simply interested in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the "latest and greatest" and will be frequently upgrading
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the sake of staying "current", so durability does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter too much.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> rubbish. see above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hit a nerve there "jim"? One only needs to observe the
>>>>>>>>>> conformist crowd to see that fashion is the most important thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the defense of the luddite lightweight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, "jim" can not insult his sales clients, so he vents on RBT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> coming from a guy whose communist rants show real societal
>>>>>>> interaction problems, that's rich. all that exhaust-sucking is
>>>>>>> getting to you tom. time to switch back to an ordinary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The poster who constantly resorts to childish insults lectures on
>>>>>> societal interaction! What a hoot!
>>>>>
>>>>> you're too low to the ground tom. the monoxide is killing your
>>>>> brain cells.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, conforming to the crowd and having the right look
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the "training" rides is what matters to most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> riders who purchase things like pre-built Mavic wheels.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> no, they buy and ride them because they're much more reliable
>>>>>>>>>>> than the typical garbage built by their lbs. 5 out of 6
>>>>>>>>>>> local shops in my experience couldn't build a decent wheel if
>>>>>>>>>>> their life depended on it.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> There are plenty of sources for decent conventional wheels.
>>>>>>>>>> FedEx and UPS will happily deliver the wheels to your door.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One can even buy inexpensive machine built wheels with quality
>>>>>>>>>> conventional components, and do the final truing, tensioning,
>>>>>>>>>> etc. one's self.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suppose "jim" likes paying more for wheels with expensive
>>>>>>>>>> proprietary parts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> my pre-built mavic and shimano wheels have been fab straight
>>>>>>>>>>> out of the box. and i'm no lightweight. [unlike you.]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My LBS built wheels have been fine out of the shipping box.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typical tom sherman lightweight non-argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Typical "jim beam" non-logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> s/n = 1:100
>>>>>
>>>>> lightweight.
>>>>
>>>> Much smoke but no fire from the "jim beam" sock puppet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so still no signal.
>>>
>>> tell me tom, why do you bother? it's sort of interesting. an a
>>> sick, pervy "watching a car wreck" kinda way. do you perceive some
>>> kind of benefit from just yapping, without actually saying anything?
>>> can't you just watch tv?
>>>
>> Of more interest to the RBT readership, why do you hide behind a sock
>> puppet, while constantly sniping at others? What are hiding from or
>> afraid of?
>>
>
> because it annoys you so excellently!
>
It annoys me not at all that the "jim beam" sock puppet lacks
credibility. :)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

jim beam

01-04-1970, 08:45 AM