BurningLegs
Guru
That's certainly one view.
Another is that you could say it's come to something when on a forum dedicated to an activity we have difficulty discussing how the activity makes us feel.
(Clearly Un)Notable Wheel Differences
- Thread starter bpsmith
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That's certainly one view.
Another is that you could say it's come to something when on a forum dedicated to an activity we have difficulty discussing how the activity makes us feel.
winjim
Straddle the line, discord and rhyme
The discussion was never about how the activity makes one feel. It was about how one perceives a particular component behaving when performing the activity.
True enough.
It was never about how one perceives a component behaving, by reading about another of its kind on the internet and deciding that all components of this type are one and the same as every other of its kind, without ever having ridden them.
We already have that but it's called "Cycle Chat"
winjim
Straddle the line, discord and rhyme
But it is interesting to compare what you experience in practice, with what theory tells you should be happening. Any differences you perceive between the wheelsets will have contributions from the actual mechanical performance of the component, and also from your own desires, expectations, placebo effect and what have you. You said yourself that you weren't expecting to notice any difference and were asking for other people's experiences, although that request seems to have been overshadowed somewhat.
It's a complex issue and the question is, how much of what you perceive is down to mechanics and how much is down to psychological effects? And if what you perceive can't be explained by the theory, then is the theory wrong, or is there something else going on as well/instead?
It's all really interesting and worthy of discussion and I think we should appreciate the contributions from all parties, be they riders or engineers or both. But the engineers need to accept that the riders do perceive an effect, and the riders need to accept that at least part of that perceived effect may not be mechanical but rather psychological.
Yellow Saddle
Guru
- Location
- Loch side.
That's perfectly acceptable and understandable. My first car was such a piece of junk, that 80kph felt like 180kph. It was great experience, but there was always the speedometer that reminded me of reality. I don't think you'll find any negative reaction on this forum to someone who posts and says that she rode bike XYZ and it felt wonderful, fast and confidence-inspiring, or something to that effect. The problem comes when someone says they jumped on a new bike and it WAS faster than the other bike and cornered as if on rails, without any reasonable sort of proof or back-up. When such a claim contradicts sensible measurement, it will and should be challenged.
Then, it is perfectly reasonable that both parties insist on clarification, proof and interpretation, and debate the points using good technique. You'll find that this scenario never happens. It seems to me that the intangible claims are always defended using glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering.
Can’t argue there @winjim. I did ask for other peoples opinions, and genuinely want them. I guess it’s all about the delivery of the responses and the obvious reactions.
As you say, sometimes perception is wrong, other times it’s the science that’s wrong. People need to expect both possibilities.
As you say, sometimes perception is wrong, other times it’s the science that’s wrong. People need to expect both possibilities.
That's the crux. When I was fairly new here I said I'd managed to skid my front wheel on tarmac on my new MTB with hydraulic disks, and the good Mr Saddle called me out on it (I was a bit taken aback by his robust style at the time, being a newbie here, but I've since come to respect his knowledge and his willingness to back up his assertions - and he's one of my favourite posters now). He was right - in truth, in my enthusiasm, I'd mis-described the surface.
So yes, when people make claims that don't sound plausible, opening up a discussion and asking for objective justification is a good thing to do. But I do think we can sometimes be a bit kinder to newcomers and to those who don't quite understand what they're saying sometimes.
Oh, and to pick up on that last sentence about "glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering", that is what I think came to a peak of absurdity in the hi-fi world, hence my earlier analogy.
Yellow Saddle
Guru
- Location
- Loch side.
Point taken. Thanks.
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?
Leaving aside the sensible approach to be kind to those new to the forum, there's a slight problem with the latter grouping: it's not obvious to start with whether they "don't quite understand" or not. Perhaps responses early in a thread should go with "I'm not sure you quite understand" as opposed to a more direct observation.
winjim
Straddle the line, discord and rhyme
Define "performance".
huwsparky
Über Member
- Location
- Llangrannog
Without going back to the start of the thread I think @bpsmith was going to do some testing on his wheels and post his findings.
It was merely pointed out initially that there's no way he could accurately measure anything meaningful.
Let's face it, by saying a wheelset is faster up a certain climb than another is going to impossible to quantify. Say wheelset A is 200g lighter than wheelset B. Plop a 75kg rider on that there's absolutely no way you'd be able to feel a performance gain between wheelsets. Think about it...
Yellow Saddle
Guru
- Location
- Loch side.
No, he did go for a ride and did post "findings".
1. Earth is flat. If you sail far enough, you’ll drop off the end of it.
2. Skinnier road tyres are faster than wider ones.
3. All bicycle wheels are the same.
