On 09/05/2015 08:15 PM, Justin August wrote:
If you're getting accurate and objective data then the question of "best" goes
out the window. You're then able to talk about the objective attributes that you prefer.
Objective attributes don't necessarily mean anything. If all you have
is ob
If you're getting accurate and objective data then the question of "best" goes
out the window. You're then able to talk about the objective attributes that
you prefer.
-J
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from
Even if you could do that, it's only a relatively meaningless fraction
of the story, because it doesn't get at how much AMOUNT of ATTRIBUTE is
GOOD for WHAT and WHOM.
You could probably pretty easily quantify tube stiffness. But can you
get agreement on how much stiffness is best?
On 09/05/
I mused about ideas like this a while ago. It would be fantastic to develop
objective methods of observation and measuring the properties of frames. Then
you could adjust the tubes, lengths and buts based on the properties that it
gives you when mounted upon it. Like this material gives you AMOU
On 09/04/2015 11:33 PM, velomann wrote:
I thought this was fascinating. would love to hear framebuilders chime
in. I would think rider weight would be a significant factor.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/new-research-unlocks-secrets-of-steel-tubing-189907
The article itself
I thought this was fascinating. would love to hear framebuilders chime in.
I would think rider weight would be a significant factor.
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/new-research-unlocks-secrets-of-steel-tubing-189907
Mike
--
You received this message because you are subscribed t
