Ryder1

Sorry, but the fundamental problem is your math skills are lacking, as repeatedly demonstrated by your previous posts. You even admitted not understand how Reach is measured (!). I'm not being harsh; everybody has their strengths and weaknesses, and math is simply not your strength. Fine. I *suck* at learning foreign languages. And I acknowledge that. Man up and acknowledge your weaknesses instead of engaging me by mindlessly repeating your misunderstanding of what the "INDUSTRY" means by Reach. Note: people don't *decide* what "Reach" means, math does. By themselves, numbers are just numbers. People who understand math analyze the numbers in the form of calculations. That's what I've painstakingly done above, but your math skills and/or ego won't allow you to understand. I even self-verified my data twice by performing 2 alternative calculations. Then I showed you a thread where the same debate was covered and resolved (in my favor). Yet you persist with the sole point of "just compare reach vs. reach."

I can design a bike that's 5 feet long and another that's 100 feet long, and they could both have a 1" Reach. Or I can make the Reach of the 5 foot bike *longer* than that of the 100 foot bike. I could even give the 100 foot bike a negative Reach. Follow? It would be nice if there was a single number we could rely on, but it's a bike, not a dress.

Sorry if I sound condescending, but you're being willfully stubborn. When you read a bunch of numbers and you don't understand them, you can recoil in fear and cling to your ignorance, or you can admit there's maybe something you're not quite grasping. Even Trump has acknowledged having failed to understand the complexities of North Korea and health care policy.

Please re-read the link in my last post, to see how this debate normally ends.