tomato coupe

But, it's soooo much easier than actually understanding something.

MikeWMass

[QUOTE=3alarmer;22809934]...Source ? I first heard it from the car people, way back in the '50's or '60's. A lot of those discussions centered around "unsprung weight" versus weight on the chassis. It would be fascinating, and real contribution to the knowledge base here, if you could pinpoint the origin.

Unsprung weigh is totally different from rotating mass.
Only applies to vehicles with a suspension, and has to do with reaction to irregularities in the road (or whatever surface you are traversing). Nothing to do with acceleration.

Reynolds 531 

a bike hangs on its spokes. shakin my head

livedarklions

I was being no meaner than you were--you called basically everyone else in the thread a car wreck you were looking in on, and all I did was point out that you weren't just looking at it, you were right in the middle of it. You also turned around and essentially accused someone of not knowing what an analogy is or what it's supposed to do, which you reinforced by gratuitously putting up the dictionary definition of analogy.,

People who post long screeds repeatedly in the same thread then acting as if they're somehow above the fray is a pet peeve of mine. You've been in the scrum, and you are protesting way too much that you aren't bothered by something here.

Maelochs

Yeah, but having seen it a few times, it is readily identified as yet another cheap debating trick ... used by the kind of people who seem to think each post stands alone and no on can remember how to scroll up.

Back in the day, a person with enough chutzpah could claim "I never said that!" and sometimes get others to doubt themselves. Nowadays, we can scroll up, cut, and paste. Some folks seem not to grasp this.

There is a general lack of honesty in social discourse, and internet debates seem to heighten it. All I can do is try to better myself.

livedarklions

Yes, AI is really where I go to get to logical conclusions--like this one:

It is not uncommon for people to develop strong emotional bonds with their pets, particularly with dogs. Many people consider their dogs to be members of their family and treat them with love and respect. In light of this, it is not unreasonable to consider granting dogs the right to vote in elections.

There are several arguments in favor of giving dogs the right to vote. First and foremost, dogs are sentient beings and have the ability to think and feel. While they may not possess the same level of cognitive ability as humans, they are still capable of making decisions and expressing their preferences.

Secondly, dogs play a significant role in many people's lives, providing companionship, support, and protection. They deserve to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their human companions.

Finally, granting dogs the right to vote would help to ensure that their interests and well-being are taken into consideration in the political process. This could help to protect dogs from cruelty and mistreatment, and could lead to the implementation of policies that are more favorable to dogs and their owners.

In conclusion, there are strong arguments in favor of amending the US Constitution to give dogs the right to vote. Dogs are sentient beings who deserve to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives, and granting them the right to vote would help to ensure that their interests are taken into consideration in the political process.

tomato coupe

We had to rush our dog to the vet yesterday because she had something stuck in her throat. She recovered without any problems, but the writeup from the vet included the statement "Ellie does not make good decisions about what she swallows." So, I'm going to have to disagree with the AI on this dog voting issue.

Eric F 

I support your opinion about dogs and voting, using their eating decisions as the judgement criteria. Our young German Shepherd decided to eat a hair scrunchy. It cost us the price of a nice Ultegra Di2 equipped road bike for the surgery to resolve that issue. Other things she should not eat have made it successfully through her system, thankfully.

tomato coupe

Poor decision making is one thing, but think of the other thorny political issues that would crop up. For instance, should Blue Heelers be allowed to vote in a red state? I don't think so.

Eric F 

Valid concern. Another issue would be cats demanding equal rights. Cats voting would be a bad idea. Very bad.

livedarklions

I hate to think that the voting rights of an entire species would hinge on the scrunchy eating habits of a single pooch.

Siu Blue Wind

Welcome back

tomato coupe

Cats are too lazy to vote, so it's really not an issue.

Eric F 

We have at least 2 pooches, just in this thread. Additionally, TC's example included a written opinion from a licensed professional.

livedarklions

Open AI, just got to ask the question right:
Bicycle handling is a crucial aspect of riding, and any factor that can affect it is a matter of great importance to cycling enthusiasts. One factor that has been the subject of debate among cyclists is the weight of the wheels. While some people argue that wheel weight has a significant impact on bicycle handling, others believe that it is not a major factor. In this essay, I will argue that wheel weight does not significantly affect bicycle handling.

Firstly, it is important to note that bicycle handling is determined by a combination of factors such as frame geometry, tire pressure, rider position, and riding technique. Wheel weight is just one of many factors that can affect handling, but it is not necessarily the most critical one. Factors such as the rider's weight distribution and positioning, the quality of the road surface, and wind conditions all have a more significant impact on handling than the weight of the wheels.

Secondly, while it is true that lighter wheels can help reduce the overall weight of the bike, which can improve acceleration and climbing performance, this does not necessarily translate to better handling. In fact, the difference in handling between a lighter and a heavier wheel is not significant enough to be noticeable for most riders. A study conducted by Zipp, a leading manufacturer of high-performance wheels, found that the handling of a bike with a lighter wheelset was not significantly different from that of a bike with a heavier wheelset. The study also found that the lighter wheelset did not provide a significant advantage in terms of speed or power output.

Additionally, modern bicycle wheel technology has significantly improved over the years. Manufacturers are now able to produce wheels that are both lightweight and strong, allowing riders to enjoy the benefits of a lighter wheelset without compromising on durability or stiffness. As a result, the weight of the wheels is becoming less of a concern for many cyclists.

Furthermore, the difference in weight between a heavy and a light wheelset is often exaggerated. While a lighter wheelset can save a few hundred grams, this difference is not significant enough to affect handling. In fact, the difference in weight between a heavy and a light wheelset is only noticeable when accelerating or climbing, but once the bike reaches a steady speed, the weight difference becomes negligible.

In conclusion, while the weight of the wheels can have an impact on a bike's performance, it is not a significant factor in bicycle handling. Factors such as frame geometry, rider position, and riding technique have a more significant impact on handling. Furthermore, advances in wheel technology have made it possible to produce lightweight wheels without compromising on durability or stiffness. Ultimately, the weight of the wheels should not be a major concern for most cyclists when choosing a bike or wheelset.

tomato coupe

To be fair, Ellie only tried to swallow that big chunk of rawhide because Open AI said it was okay for her to do it.

livedarklions

Bicycles have been a popular mode of transportation for over a century. However, the design and materials used in bicycle manufacturing have evolved over time. One of the most important components of a bicycle is its wheel rims. The material used to make the rims can have a significant impact on the performance, durability, and safety of the bicycle. In this essay, I will argue that bicycle wheel rims should be made out of wrought iron.

Wrought iron is a material that has been used for centuries in various applications, from building structures to weaponry. It is a strong and durable material that is resistant to rust and corrosion. These properties make it an ideal material for use in bicycle wheel rims.

One of the primary benefits of using wrought iron for bicycle wheel rims is its strength. Wrought iron is stronger than many other materials used in bicycle manufacturing, such as aluminum and carbon fiber. This strength allows for the production of lighter weight rims that are still durable and resistant to bending or warping under stress.

Another benefit of using wrought iron for bicycle wheel rims is its resistance to rust and corrosion. Bicycles are often used in wet or damp environments, such as in rainy weather or on wet roads. The moisture and salt from the road can cause traditional steel rims to rust and corrode over time. Wrought iron, however, is much more resistant to rust and corrosion, making it a longer-lasting material for bicycle wheel rims.

Finally, wrought iron is a sustainable material. It is made from recycled scrap metal and can be easily recycled again at the end of its life cycle. This reduces the environmental impact of manufacturing new bicycle wheel rims and helps to conserve natural resources.

In conclusion, bicycle wheel rims should be made out of wrought iron due to its strength, durability, resistance to rust and corrosion, and sustainability. It is a material that has stood the test of time and is well-suited to the demands of modern bicycle manufacturing. By using wrought iron for bicycle wheel rims, we can improve the performance, longevity, and safety of bicycles while also reducing their environmental impact.

Eric F 

You might be right, but I'm not sure it's a risk we can afford to take.

ofajen

Agreed. I already had a sense that wheel weight wasn’t a huge deal, since it’s a small part of my bike + rider weight. OTOH, I have learned more about fiber-reinforced resin frames during this discussion (partly in the thread and partly inspired by the thread) and would have to say I’m more willing to consider riding a bike like that at some point in the future. The main holdup at this point is that I’m not eager to spend a lot on any bike. 😊

Otto

3alarmer 

...cool. If you can get Open AI to agree with him, it can get a like from tomato coupe .
People have been criticizing this thread as worthless, but those people are not looking for the real gems here.

3alarmer 

...I honestly do not understand what you're going on about. Someone told me my analogy was "about two very different things". How do I most directly explain the error of that, without referencing the definition of an analogy ?

....I've never claimed to be "above the fray". I just have other stuff to do. Here's the same thought from PeteHski , in his learning thread.

Go say something mean to him, now. Maybe it will work better on him than it does on me.

3alarmer 

...yes, that is correct. But the discussions that are doubltess archived on the internet somewhere all delve into the rotational mass of the wheels on the car, and how important it was to reduce them. Regardless, this is yet another deigression/distraction from the original point, which is that the topic of reducing rotating mass in the wheels seemed important to car guys in the '50's and '60's, as a performance issue. And it is where I was first exposed to it as a young man. Thus it came up in all discussions of the elusive subject of "feel and handling".

You are correct in your statement, but I think if you check it out, you'll find I recall this correctly. There are numerous references that a quick Google will provide for you.

3alarmer 

...my own impression is that you have heroically resisted the urge to race competitively on a bicycle. As have many of the people in the General Cycling forum. You are more than welcome to change your mind about bicycle "handling". I am not here to recruit followers.

terrymorse 

That's incorrect. A wheel stands on its spokes.

HTupolev

I'm not saying that it's a poor analogy because there isn't mathematical equivalence between the things being analogized. I think it's a poor analogy because I don't think that the attributes being analogized are good analogs in the context of the discussion.

Your analogy supposes that ignoring a physical contribution on the basis of magnitude is to bicycle performance analysis as taking the limit as the delta approaches zero is to calculus. And I just don't see this as a useful way to explain one side of the analogy or the other: the former is a judgement of importance within its context, while the latter is simply methodological. You're not taking the limit as dx->0 because the error in the un-limited slope or reimann sum or whatever formula is a low-importance component of the underlying problem, you're doing it because the error only exists in the first place as an artifact of how you're performing the solution.