Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

[Carbon Fiber] Would this bike scare you?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

[Carbon Fiber] Would this bike scare you?

Old 12-02-22, 01:37 PM
  #176  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
Well no, energy is not lost, it's just turned into heat. But we were talking about rims (I thought). There's a little bit of energy lost due to atmospheric resistance on the surface of a rotating rim, and the deeper the rim, the more is lost, but that's a very small amount of loss that's only due to rotation. Vastly more is lost to the spokes just from rotation. What you're saying is true, but it has nothing to do with rim weight. In all the cases you point out, less energy is lost to an aero rim, no matter its weight. Though one must also point out that next to the losses due to the bike and its rider, the contribution of the rims is quite small.

....if you go back to the beginning, and read this thread (something I would not expect you to do, because a lot of it is extraneous trolling, that contributes little to the discussion), you will discover that I have never said otherwise, and in fact got into this topic from simply recommending to the OP that in her particular event, a modern, aero wheelset might be the best way to improve her performance times. I even went out of my way to provide a link to a guy's blog that said exactly that.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer

As was suggested earlier, the most bang for your buck in making any bicycle go faster is in your wheels and tires.


Then the hoard appeared.

Originally Posted by Lombard
This is very misleading. The rolling weight argument is way overblown. Sure, less rolling weight will make you accelerate faster and therefore make you feel faster. However, once up to speed, weight is weight.


Later on:

Originally Posted by 3alarmer
. Everyone, beginner or self styled expert, rides on wheels. And with the advent of newer materials tech and the R+D guys assigned to find a way to make an essentially un-aerodynamic package more aero. wheels have been all aero'd up for about the past 20 years, dating back to the exploding Spinergy wheels that damaged a few people. All the aero wheel designs add some weight at the rim, so suddenly the discussion boards were full of this.

It's been a very long time since I bothered to calculate something like this, because aero wheels are all the rage, and they do seem to work, even if I don't use them. Offsetting advantages and disadvantages with them make them the obvious choice, when permitted in the rules for your event, and there is no drafting or quick maneuvering involved.

But all other things being equal (and they are not in this case), putting a pound of additional weight onto your bike by using tires that weigh that much more on your rims, will slow you down quite a bit more than sticking it in your pockets. Try it yourself, if you don't believe me.




It's odd how things get twisted in a discussion like this on teh Beikforooms. I think there's something in the water here. It's a pack mentality that contributes little to actual exchange of ideas. nttaawwt, it reminds me of the glory days in the road forum.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 12-02-22, 01:51 PM
  #177  
georges1
Steel is real
 
georges1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Not far from Paris
Posts: 2,265

Bikes: 1992Giant Tourer,1992MeridaAlbon,1996Scapin,1998KonaKilaueua,1993Peugeot Prestige,1991RaleighTeamZ(to be upgraded),1998 Jamis Dragon,1992CTWallis(to be built),1998VettaTeam(to be built),1995Coppi(to be built),1993Grandis(to be built)

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 626 Post(s)
Liked 899 Times in 587 Posts
All depends of what kind of money you are ready to invest in a good pair of wheels, if you want to gain weight ,then tubulars are recommended and if you better puncture resistance and more solidity of the rim then clinchers or/and tubeless clinchers are recommended
georges1 is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 01:54 PM
  #178  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
But does it matter where this mass is located? Does it take more energy to increase speed if you put the mass on the wheel? Yes. First, let's look at mass on the frame of the bike. If I add something to the frame the total mass increases. This means that I would need more work to increase the kinetic energy. That's pretty straight forward.

What if the extra mass is on the wheel? In that case, I must do two things to increase speed: increase the kinetic energy and increase the rotational kinetic energy of the wheel. If all of the mass on the wheel is located at the rim, I can write the rotational kinetic energy as:



In this expression, mw is the mass of the wheel, R is the radius of the wheel and ω is the angular velocity of the wheel. But if the wheel is rolling and not slipping then there is a relationship between the angular speed of the wheel and the linear speed of the bike (this is how a car speedometer works---or at least the way it used to work).



If I substitute in for ω, I can write the following for the total kinetic energy of the bike (translational plus rotational).



In the translational kinetic energy, mb is the total mass of the bike (including the wheels) but the rotational kinetic energy only depends on the mass of the wheels.

So let's say I add 100 grams to the frame. This would increase the value of mb but not increase the mass of the wheel. The translational kinetic energy would increase by some amount and it would require more energy to accelerate (increase the kinetic energy).

Now let's add 100 grams to the wheel (increasing mw). Since the wheel is part of the bike, this means that the total mass also increases (mb). Both translational and rotational kinetic energy terms will have a 100 gram increase in mass. You will have double the increase in energy by adding mass to the wheel.

So yes, adding mass to the wheel is worse than adding mass to the frame---but only when accelerating. Still, every little bit helps.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/cyclin...-wheels-enemy/
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 01:56 PM
  #179  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
..
...but hey. let's talk more about mountain bike wheels.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 02:46 PM
  #180  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
I ride both a 26er and a 29er. Both are hardtails that weigh fairly close to the same. To me, the difference in handling is not significant. The rollover capabilities of the 29er are definitely appreciated, however.
Well, this this thread has gone off the rails a few times, why not again?

Anyway, I test rode a couple of 29ers and was not impressed by their handling. The difference in handling to me was quite significant.
Lombard is offline  
Likes For Lombard:
Old 12-02-22, 02:47 PM
  #181  
son_of_clyde
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked 30 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...that's very interesting, and much more detailed a calculation than any I've seen put forth elsewhere.


One question, if you will permit me. Your first graph (above), there seems to be no difference at all in the two wheelsets, even accelerating from low speed.

I'm not questioning either your expertise (I don't know you), or your mathematics. But this seems to fly in the face real world experience, even of the staunchest "wheel weight doesn't matter" folks here. All of them have argued that it does, at least, matter in accelerating from a standing start. In fact, a couple of them took great offense at my suggestion we go back to steel as a wheel rim material. Am I reading your graph wrong, or is there some other explanation ? If I am going to be wrong about something, I'd at least like to learn from it. And I freely admit, I learned little about pendulums here.

Is 6 or 7 MPH the magic number where this weight difference no longer matters ? There seem to be no blue line values below that.
In the first graph, it's hard to see because of the scale. The second graph is just a zoomed in section of the first. I think that 250g per wheel just isn't enough to see much difference when considering the low relative mass of the wheels as compared to the whole system. Below is a zoomed in plot of distance vs time at around 20 seconds. The lighter wheels show a gain of about 1 meter - would definitely be worth something in a sprint event on a track. The second plot shows a more zoomed in part of the speed vs time with a bigger weight difference (1kg and 2kg).



son_of_clyde is offline  
Likes For son_of_clyde:
Old 12-02-22, 02:47 PM
  #182  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,501

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3873 Post(s)
Liked 1,920 Times in 1,369 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
....if you go back to the beginning, and read this thread (something I would not expect you to do, because a lot of it is extraneous trolling, that contributes little to the discussion), you will discover that I have never said otherwise, and in fact got into this topic from simply recommending to the OP that in her particular event, a modern, aero wheelset might be the best way to improve her performance times. I even went out of my way to provide a link to a guy's blog that said exactly that.
<snip>
It's odd how things get twisted in a discussion like this on teh Beikforooms. I think there's something in the water here. It's a pack mentality that contributes little to actual exchange of ideas. nttaawwt, it reminds me of the glory days in the road forum.
As you see from the above members also quoting you, you were definitely a participant in that about which you now complain.

But beyond that, IMO you are incorrect in that bolded assertion. If you go back to her earlier threads in the dreaded Road Bike forum, there are photos of her on her current bike. It's pretty obvious that a real TT or tri bike will reduce her wind drag vastly more (IDK, by a factor of 100?) than the drag reduction offered by more aero wheels.

From what I've seen from coasting races during many mountain group rides is that aero wheels are probably the last place to look for lower drag. Meaning that with my crappy V-section rims and 23 BMI, my coasting speed, at ~40 mph, has only been matched by two riders, both of them with better positions than mine, regardless of wheel type. My position is pretty good, but could be better with a smaller frame. I beat most riders down a 2000' descent by a couple minutes. It can't just be my phenomenal courage.

Wring everything you can out of the bike before spending money. The best way is with coasting races. Experiment with position. Every little thing makes a difference. As another poster said above, get low and buy an aero helmet if you have to spend money. And of course, if you have to buy new wheels, go aero. I've had a set in my Amazon saved cart for a couple years. Haven't been able to justify them. Doesn't look like I'll live long enough to wear out my current set.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 03:01 PM
  #183  
Eric F 
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,801

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4839 Post(s)
Liked 7,830 Times in 3,710 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard
Well, this this thread has gone off the rails a few times, why not again?

Anyway, I test rode a couple of 29ers and was not impressed by their handling. The difference in handling to me was quite significant.
There's some differences, but nothing I have to think about or plan differently when I'm riding. I was expecting it to be more significant that it turned out to be. This has been my experience, anyway.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 03:02 PM
  #184  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
Originally Posted by son_of_clyde
In the first graph, it's hard to see because of the scale. The second graph is just a zoomed in section of the first. I think that 250g per wheel just isn't enough to see much difference when considering the low relative mass of the wheels as compared to the whole system. Below is a zoomed in plot of distance vs time at around 20 seconds. The lighter wheels show a gain of about 1 meter - would definitely be worth something in a sprint event on a track. The second plot shows a more zoomed in part of the speed vs time with a bigger weight difference (1kg and 2kg).




...thank you very much.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Likes For 3alarmer:
Old 12-02-22, 03:06 PM
  #185  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
As you see from the above members also quoting you, you were definitely a participant in that about which you now complain.

.
...I think I covered that idea that I'm "complaining" with the "nttawwt" comment. I never complain about anything, because it could always be so much worse.
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 03:30 PM
  #186  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
It's odd how things get twisted in a discussion like this on teh Beikforooms. I think there's something in the water here. It's a pack mentality that contributes little to actual exchange of ideas.
That's your own perception, not reality.

Last edited by Lombard; 12-02-22 at 05:17 PM.
Lombard is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 03:36 PM
  #187  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
There's some differences, but nothing I have to think about or plan differently when I'm riding. I was expecting it to be more significant that it turned out to be. This has been my experience, anyway.
What can I say? Difference strokes for different folks. I just happen to like being able to turn tighter on mountain bike trails and even on carriage trails.
Lombard is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 04:29 PM
  #188  
3alarmer 
Friendship is Magic
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,932

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26250 Post(s)
Liked 10,231 Times in 7,100 Posts
__________________
3alarmer is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 05:18 PM
  #189  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
Yawn.........................................
Lombard is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 05:30 PM
  #190  
vespasianus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: In the south but from North
Posts: 685

Bikes: Turner 5-Spot Burner converted; IBIS Ripley, Specialized Crave, Tommasini Sintesi, Cinelli Superstar, Tommasini X-Fire Gravel

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 396 Post(s)
Liked 376 Times in 210 Posts
Originally Posted by son_of_clyde
In the first graph, it's hard to see because of the scale. The second graph is just a zoomed in section of the first. I think that 250g per wheel just isn't enough to see much difference when considering the low relative mass of the wheels as compared to the whole system. Below is a zoomed in plot of distance vs time at around 20 seconds. The lighter wheels show a gain of about 1 meter - would definitely be worth something in a sprint event on a track. The second plot shows a more zoomed in part of the speed vs time with a bigger weight difference (1kg and 2kg).



So at what point near the start do the curves diverge? The fact that they are so parallel does not make sense to me. Also, how relevant are the axis to this? I mean 27 MPH in 30 seconds?
vespasianus is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 05:41 PM
  #191  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer
.
...two more discussions on this same topic. One for bicycles, and one for cars (which is pretty much where I originally learned this stuff.)
.

Originally Posted by 3alarmer
...and here, for all the world to see, is the sort of writing that set me on the wrong path in this world of wheel weights.

We Can Prove Why Extra Mass on Bike Wheels Is Your Worst Enemy

Both of these articles prove my first point. Is this your fess up moment? If so, I'm really proud of you!
Lombard is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 08:19 PM
  #192  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by son_of_clyde
Looks pretty negligible. This isn't to 30 kph, but rather a 90kg bike/rider modeled with a constant 50N propulsive force (~828W at ~37mph) with CdA = 0.3. Rolling resistance not accounted for. Two wheel weights were considered: light set at 1500g, heavy set at 2000g. All weight concentrated at rim. EOMs used : dxdt(1) = x(2), dxdt(2) = (1/(m + 2*I/r^2))*(F - 0.5*rho*CdA*x(2)^2) with rho (air density) = 1.23 kg/m^2, r (wheel radius) = 0.343m, I (wheel moment of inertia) = mass_wheel*r^2, m (mass bike+rider) = 90kg, and F (propulsive force) = 50N. Many details were not included in this model, so it's not a highly accurate representation of reality.
Suggestion: If you compare a set of 2000g wheels to a set of 1500g wheels, the extra 500g is not located at the wheel radius. If, for instance, the two wheel sets differ only in rim depth (same hubs, spokes, etc.), the effective radius of the added mass will be quite a bit less than the wheel radius. Consequently, the difference in the moment of inertia of the two wheel sets will likely be less than half of what it would have been if the 500g was located at the wheel radius.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 09:16 PM
  #193  
Atlas Shrugged
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1217 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times in 653 Posts
Originally Posted by vespasianus
So at what point near the start do the curves diverge? The fact that they are so parallel does not make sense to me. Also, how relevant are the axis to this? I mean 27 MPH in 30 seconds?
What is also missing from what I can see is there is no comparable with the weight moved to the frame which would also slow acceleration. Frankly I find it strange that there no comparable with a simple model of 500 grams moved from 700c wheels to the frame to a reasonable speed such as 30kmh. I am sure lighter wheels feel more responsive and dynamic but I also am pretty sure that the actual power requirements is negligible. These types of forums become depositories of old myths and wives tales repeated ad nauseam.
Atlas Shrugged is online now  
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
Old 12-02-22, 10:16 PM
  #194  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by vespasianus
So at what point near the start do the curves diverge? The fact that they are so parallel does not make sense to me. Also, how relevant are the axis to this? I mean 27 MPH in 30 seconds?
1. The curves start to diverge immediately, and the gap initially grows linearly in time.
2. The divergence slows as aerodynamic drag becomes a factor. Once aerodynamic drag dominates, the gap between the curves barely changes.
3. The long time (30s) to get to 27mph is a consequence of using constant force (thrust) in the model. Even though the power peaks at 828 W, the power is really low at low speeds. (The power ramps up from zero to about 280 W during the first 10 seconds, and you've only reached 12.5 mph.) The time required to attain 27 mph would likely be quite a bit less if the model used constant power.
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 12-02-22, 11:44 PM
  #195  
son_of_clyde
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked 30 Times in 22 Posts
Originally Posted by vespasianus
So at what point near the start do the curves diverge? The fact that they are so parallel does not make sense to me. Also, how relevant are the axis to this? I mean 27 MPH in 30 seconds?
The curves start to diverge right from the start. I think it just looks like they're parallel because the wheel weight difference in the simulation is so small. Below is a plot with a much bigger wheel weight difference. The 27 mph in 30 seconds is just a result of the 50N (arbitrary and easy) input force used in the simulation.

son_of_clyde is offline  
Likes For son_of_clyde:
Old 12-03-22, 12:02 AM
  #196  
VegasJen
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Liked 533 Times in 292 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard
Well, this this thread has gone off the rails a few times, why not again?

Anyway, I test rode a couple of 29ers and was not impressed by their handling. The difference in handling to me was quite significant.
I keep checking back to see if there's anything new about the question I asked. No new information, but this train wreck is just as entertaining.
VegasJen is offline  
Likes For VegasJen:
Old 12-03-22, 06:59 AM
  #197  
Lombard
Sock Puppet
 
Lombard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,701

Bikes: 2014 Cannondale Synapse Carbon, 2017 Jamis Renegade Exploit and too many others to mention.

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 863 Times in 573 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasJen
I keep checking back to see if there's anything new about the question I asked. No new information, but this train wreck is just as entertaining.
What was your question again?
Lombard is offline  
Likes For Lombard:
Old 12-03-22, 11:17 AM
  #198  
tomato coupe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,879

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3906 Post(s)
Liked 7,182 Times in 2,905 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard
What was your question again?
I vaguely recall her question had a yes or no answer, so you can just wing it and pick one. I'll choose "no."
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 12-03-22, 11:22 AM
  #199  
VegasJen
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2021
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Liked 533 Times in 292 Posts
Originally Posted by Lombard
What was your question again?
VegasJen is offline  
Old 12-03-22, 02:23 PM
  #200  
Camilo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times in 758 Posts
Originally Posted by VegasJen
I keep checking back to see if there's anything new about the question I asked. No new information, but this train wreck is just as entertaining.
Entertaining for sure. It's always entertaining - and perplexing - to me how there are people who can't just make a point, disagree with another's point, and then just move on. What it is in a person's life that causes them to need to win a meaningless argument with strangers online? But what is it with me that causes me to read this irrelevant (to me) drivel, alone at a desk and shake my head at the computer? In case anyone thinks I'm trying to claim any high ground here.
Camilo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.