On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 19:40 +0000, Allingham II, Thomas J wrote: > It seems to me that what you've just said, Steve -- and I think it's > all you've said -- is that you personally (and subjectively) value the > incremental benefit in climbing/pedaling efficiency (relative to the > efficiency of your Saluki) more than you value whatever is given up in > other desirable characteristics of a bicycle (which in your subjective > view may be very little; others might take a different view) to > achieve that incremental efficiency. We can objectively measure that > incremental pedaling efficiency. It's a lot harder (I think I would > say impossible) to make an objective judgment of the net value to all > riders (as opposed to any one individual rider) of the costs and > benefits of any isolated design decision. >
I said there's a real, objective difference. It's not just "subjective." I'm not imagining it. It's real. Now as to trade-offs and costs vs benefits: I'm unaware of having given up anything as a result of this change. I won't even call it a trade-off, because that implies you're giving up something to get something else. I'll come right out with it: the notion that all stiffness is good, and that infinite stiffness is infinitely good is just plain wrong. There's no doubt that for some loadings, some frames will have insufficient stiffness and that some additional amount will provide just enough; but going beyond that point into the realm of "more" does not provide additional benefit, even though it is measurable. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en-US. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
