Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 143
  1. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vindiggitydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    It's not amazing - my experience is different than your opinion.
    Not meant as a dis......

  2. #77
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.

    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 05-18-2012 at 04:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  3. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    You're very confident of what others are perceiving and when they're being delusional. OneBadWagon and I have posted some of our experiments and findings. Its true that we can't prove we're not fooling ourselves. On the other hand, have you conducted any experiments or are you just eyeballing the geo numbers and announcing what you think looks significant?
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My interest has largely been the effect of shortening chainstays upon standing climbs. On my Niner, I shortened the CS .5" w/o changing the WB one iota and then rode trails I've ridden 100+ times. The CS was ~3% shorter. Please tell me if I should have been able to tell a significant difference in climbing and handling.
    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.

  4. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    I quoted the comments that I responded to and am not interested in your misrepresentation of my position. If making the basic observation that 10mm, or even 1/2 inch, is a trivial change to overall wheelbase then my "eyeballing" should be celebrated, not condemned. It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are. He is no scientist and I suspect neither are you.


    That is a difference subject than OneBadWagon's turning radius. Go bait someone else.
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.

    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".


    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.

  5. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I've decided that I'm going to sell my bike that has shorter chainstays and wheelbase. You've convinced me that all bikes ride the same, and there is no reason for me to have any preference at all. Since we've determined that according to you, chainstay length, wheelbase, and to a certain extent fit measurements don't matter, I'm saving myself a lot of money. Please keep our little secret long enough for me to make my money back out of two bikes that I previously thought rode great.
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Hopefully you can share some more enlightenment on components next. I'd previously been using parts that I found had good feel and good durability. I'm waiting with bated breath for you to fill me in on the next round of "My opinion is better than yours 2012".
    I've offered no opinion. That's your domain.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You've chosen to ignore plenty of my points, and misconstrue / manipulate many of the others. There's no point in discussing things with you. I could tell you that i average 1mph faster on my bike with shorter CS/Wheelbase, and you'd say that was ******** too. Have a nice day sir.
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far.

    It's fine if you wish to wallow in ignorance, just don't inflict it on others.

  6. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    Well, you've said:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable. I also said that I didn't want a bike that was long in both regards due to wheelbase, which is the reason I don't ride XXL bikes.


    The point that you don't seem to understand is that given the choice to somehow cram the ST and ETT that I want onto a frame with a 22.5" wheelbase would be ideal. I'd love to have a bike as maneuverable as a "normal" bike, but since my height precludes that, I have to worth with what I can. You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.

    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.

    You said
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Grossly misrepresenting what others say is a sign of a weak mind. This clearly makes you angry but that's not my fault. Next time, don't say stupid things and try to learn something.
    following these statements:
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Yeah, because 10mm out of 1100+mm is crucial.
    Please show me where I said it was crucial. You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Dramatic? Hardly.
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    A half inch of wheelbase may be "notable" in some respects but not in others. Just because 1/2 inch of extra BB distance may have an effect on some handling traits doesn't mean other traits are "dramatically" different. A bike's turning radius is determined by its wheelbase, but a difference of less than 1% results in a change of less than 1%. A minute difference, not a dramatic one.
    Do you ride a bike with a 45" wheelbase? Please answer the question. It has a lot of bearing on your opinion on the subject, since your entire argument is flavored on what does or doesn't make a difference on XL+ bikes. What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same. I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.

    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal. If I had liked the way my long chainstay bike rode, I would have never purchased another frame! It rode like crap, so I looked at the differences between it and the frame previous. Guess what the difference was? .4" shorter Chainstays and a slightly slacker HTA. By your mentality, none of that matters, but since I'm out riding my bike everyday, and riding the one that I don't like makes me enjoy that time just a little less, I gladly made a change. Just as I would make a change to a bike that I felt was too twitchy, or too soft in the bottom bracket, or anything else I didn't like.

    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true. This isn't internet speculation, this isn't me letting my mind run wild, this is me riding bikes back to back and picking the ones that I like more. If I like the one that has a shorter wheelbase and shorter chainstays, but overall the rest of the geometry is very similar, then call me crazy, but I'm going to have to say that those variables are the deciding factor.


    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj
    Yes it would be, but an approach like that would be right up your alley. As for "manipulating points", look at you. Go ahead and tell some more outright lies, it's done so much good so far..
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.

    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?

  7. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Completely ignoring that I said that reduced wheelbase AND reduced chainstay length had a cumulative benefit that is noticeable.
    It isn't a cumulative benefit when it is one change. You also said "dramatic", then changed it to "noticeable" when you got caught.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You are the only schmuck I've ever seen on the internet or elsewhere that will spout forth about a reduction in wheelbase not having a difference in the feeling of what motorcyclists would call "flickability", or a reduced turning radius, decreased steering effort and a more playful feeling bicycle.
    I have said nothing like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The fact that you won't address any of my questions directly only further proves that you have no interest in the discussion and only look to be swinging your e-dick around.
    Again, look who's talking. The biggest e-dick here is you. I have, in fact, addressed your absurd statements more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please show me where I said it was crucial.
    Where did I say you said that?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    You start trying to put words in my mouth here, a practice which you obviously use to flavor the readers interpretation.
    Tiny intellect on display again. Flavoring the interpretation is your game, not mine. You said the difference was "dramatic".

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I thought you said that you weren't offering opinions? Here's a little snippet of subjective information. Thanks for stopping by.
    Claiming a 1% difference is subjectively small isn't opinion, it's well established fact. You just can't accept it because you want to believe otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    What would constitute "dramatic"? To me, any tangible benefit is a benefit just the same.
    Creating special meanings for words in another tactic of the desperate. It doesn't matter what I believe constitutes "dramatic", the word means what it means. If you wish to communicate, learn the language. Your illiteracy may be the problem here, but it's not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    I didn't say that jesus came down and blessed my shorter CS/WB bike, just that it handled better. And it does, and you have provided zero evidence that a bike with shorter chainstays and wheelbase wouldn't handle better, because there isn't any.
    I've provided as much as evidence as you, I just don't make indefensible claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The only straw you're grasping at is the linear relationship to wheelbase and turning radius, ignoring the easier maneuverability/easy to manual nature of a bike with a shorter back end and belittling any rider opinion, because it's anecdotal.
    It's you that's ignoring that linear relationship because (a) it's a fact, and (b) it disproves your position. The easier "manual nature" of the bike is a different subject, and I won't let you change the subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    By your mentality, none of that matters, ...
    I do not have that mentality, you just wish to represent me that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    The simple fact of the matter is that I can tell the difference between two of the bikes that I currently own. It is a very real difference, and just because you don't care to believe that doesn't make it any less true.
    That has nothing to do with your claim that small CS length differences result in dramatic differences in maneuverability. You are welcome to offer your retraction on that statement; I'm not interested in your other b*llsh*t.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Please tell me where I'm manipulating points. I'm simply trying to find out how big of a change in geometry are us feeble minded riders supposed to notice.
    Have done so repeatedly. It's funny that someone so eager to tell the feebleminded how it is should say something like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Care to support any of your previous statements, or is this just more diarrhea of the keyboard coming from your end?
    What more do you need? It's clear you are neither able nor interested in learning here.

  8. #83
    get down!
    Reputation: appleSSeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,141
    I guess this goes to show you that whether the chain stays on a bike are long or short, people can still be @ssholes
    Rudy Projects look ridiculous

    visit my blog, BEATS, BIKES & LIFE

  9. #84
    Moderator Moderator
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,953

    For those who are interested

    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt
    Waltworks Custom Bicycles
    Park City, UT USA
    www.waltworks.com
    waltworks.blogspot.com

  10. #85
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,311

    you're all conducting a case study, but ignore all your findings

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Your experiments are all blind, I assume, to preclude the very powerful and well documented effects of confirmation bias. Right?
    As I'm sure you know, blind and double blind testing, particularly when human interpretation is involved, is a crucial component of experimental protocol for a reason. Without it, most results are considered worthless.
    Nobody can make an argument against what you think you feel/see/hear. Getting defensive if questioned is a typical response. That's why these discussions usually dont go anywhere.
    If I told you I saw a unicorn ****ing a leprechaun trail side, you'd probably be suspicious.
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Oh, and you also changed the fit of your Niner in that experiment. Of course, that has no effect on your results.
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!
    ride natty ride

  11. #86
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    It's a simple fact, no experiment necessary. Wheelbase does affect maneuverability but it takes more than 1% for a "dramatic" dfifference. The fact that OneBadWagon doesn't understand that should tell everyone how tainted his opinions are.
    Yes, it's a fact. I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment.. I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing. What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional."
    Last edited by Ryder1; 05-18-2012 at 03:06 PM. Reason: screwed up the quote
    ride natty ride

  12. #87
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    7,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I generally agree with you. You deleted this portion of my post: "Its true that [OneBadWagon and I] can't prove we're not fooling ourselves." And it's because one rider's experience is not conclusive that I read/post in threads like this one. I want to read other people's experiences like those by OneBadWagon, Lynx and Leel. Yes, Lynx may be deluding myself, but until I see blind data of seasoned riders, I'll consider his and others' experiences. A collection of testimonies, while still not journal-ready data, is more reliable than a sample size of one.

    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others. The data must derive directly from the ride itself, not selective math calculations. Would a bike journalist reviewing a frame analyze the frame's geo and carbon layup and not bother to build and ride it? A 1% delta may sound insignficant, but I would need to add 4.4" to my chainstay to increase the WB by 10%. And if tonight I somehow alter my bike to have 22" stays, I'm not going to sit around caculating the WB delta. I'll go ride the thing!

    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced. And any single change causes multiple variables.Solution? Ride it!
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  13. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    What I don't find helpful is the use of arbitrary math in a vacuum to form a "fact argument" while not doing any testing and ignoring/ridiculing the experiences of others.
    This didn't happen, of course. The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability. Pointing out that a 1/2" amounts to 1% is in no way "math in a vacuum". It is exactly the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    A 1% delta may sound insignficant...
    And it is...with respect to the subject at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yeah, exactly my point. The math quickly appears futiley when multiple variables are introduced.
    This was your failure, not mine. I did not introduce additional variables nor change the subject as you did. In fact, I resisted those things...and for a reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I just think its not very useful - especially when you can conduct the experiment..
    It is incredibly useful and there would be no experiment that would shed more light on the subject. Experiments aren't needed for everything, that's why we have educations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    I don't see how you can take a number on a page and become convinced what a rider is or should be experiencing.
    Because I think logically and am familiar with the concept of "just noticeable differences" that Walt referred to earlier. A change of this nature as small as 1% would not be noticeable without some means of discriminating. Just because there are people who don't understand this on MTBR doesn't mean it can't be understood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1
    What does a 2% delta feel like? 3%? How do you make that leap, that nexus? It seems like you're just shrugging, and saying, "looks small to me; person X is obviously delusional.
    Start here. There is a science to this and not everyone is ignorant of it.

    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability. People love to talk about CS length and it's effect on turning, most of which is ridiculous. CS length affects the behavior of the bike when out of the saddle, it's effect on turning is grossly overblown.

  14. #89
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    I think a safe assumption is that everyone here rides mountain bikes. "Ride it!" is not a novel concept. There is no "math in a vaccum." We all ride bikes. Some of us also think analytically. We talk about bikes in analytical terms because we like both of those things. It doesn't mean I'm sitting in a lab somewhere poking a bike with forceps. I'm sitting at my desk in a kit cooling off from my early afternoon ride.
    I myself mostly ride singlespeed with sliders, so I have a pretty solid base of comparative riding on differing chainstay lengths.
    I don't quote all of every post I respond to... just the parts I'm responding to... for clarity.
    Most people here seem to respond better to stuff like, "flickability was way high, bro" than any type of quantitative look at things. The thing is, "flickability" doesn't mean anything... or at least it doesn't mean anything that I can understand when two different people use it.
    The irony in the whole thing is... I (almost) only ever talk about bikes analytically here on mtbr... which is where people inevitably say, "go ride your bike." Well... I just got back.
    I'm not saying, "just ride." I'm saying "ride AND analyze". My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).
    ride natty ride

  15. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    My criticism is of the "analyze and don't ride" camp (not that you're part of that camp - I was simply continuing my thought).
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome. I know that one and one makes two and I don't need an experiment each time I need that answer. If you need an experiment to understand that, by all means do it but don't come here afterward claiming the answer is three. The answer is what it is whether you realize it or not.

    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?

  16. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JoshM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    439
    This whole thread sucks a bunch of e-dick.

    Who let you guys on the internet anyways?

  17. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    820
    I just went from 18.3" chainstays to 17.3", with an increase of 1" in the top tube, with a 72-69.5 HA. Bike felt more sprightly and eager to change direction than the one before. I can't believe how much the handling improved...or maybe I just can't believe how bad the handling was on the old bike.

  18. #93
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,311

    asking the same question twice

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    The claim made was that a 1/2" difference in wheelbase made a "dramatic" difference in turning ability.
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Just to be doubly clear, I never said that riders couldn't tell the difference in CS length. I have taken no position on that. I said that riders couldn't notice a 1% difference in wheelbase in regard to turning ability.
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?
    ride natty ride

  19. #94
    Old school BMXer
    Reputation: Blaster1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,678
    Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
    There is a lot of science in determining the "just noticeable difference" in all areas of human perception (commercially, this is a great way to, say, make your candy bars just enough smaller that you spend less on ingredients, but customers don't notice). I doubt anyone has done this with bikes, but for most stimuli, humans are pretty bad at judging differences in magnitude (regardless of sense) of <10%.

    If you have a lot of expertise with something (say, you're the QC guy who picks up and weighs each candy bar and you've done it 10,000 times) you can get quite a bit better at it, but off the top of my head I'd say that most people are not "expert" to the point that they'll notice a 10mm difference (or more) in most bike dimensions (I include myself in that category, btw, so don't get offended).

    If you want to try testing your visual just noticeable difference ability, you can do it online (but it will take you a while, you have to do 200 comparisons!)
    Weber's Law of Just Noticeable Difference (Edit: apparently you need to be a psych student to log in and do this, sorry)

    That said, the fact that you can't *feel* the difference between 420 and 435mm chainstays does NOT mean you are wrong to prefer the shorter ones. That would be akin to saying that the smaller candy bar is just as good as the bigger one - it's not, even if you can't quickly tell the difference by look or feel.

    Some benefits/drawbacks of shorter chainstays are indisputable - with an infinitely long chainstay, you'd never be able to lift the front wheel, for example. A chainstay length of zero, on the other hand, would make it impossible to keep the front end down on almost any climb. I could go on and on but the bottom line is that picking shorter (because you're short, or you want to be able to wheelie just a little easier, or whatever) chainstays isn't wrong, even if the differences you think you notice are mostly in your head.

    -Walt
    That was the only sensible post that I could tolerate to read the entire post.
    May the air be filled with tires!

  20. #95
    EXORCIZE
    Reputation: Ryder1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    Your ongoing personal attacks are tiresome.
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    When you try a new bike, do you try every size in order to know what you like best, or do you rely on your personal fit experience? Does using your experience put you in the "analyze and don't ride" camp? Do you start over again every time you make a purchase? If you like a 100mm stem, do you try every stem length again when you switch models? How could you know without an experiment?
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.
    ride natty ride

  21. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.



    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.

    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays. Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.

    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.

  22. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Perhaps you two (and I) don't disagree all that much. If OBW narrowed his claim and said that shortening a bike's CS by .5" (and therefore its WB by .5") causes a dramatic change in tight stuff, would you say his claim was necessarily false?
    He has said exactly that and I already responded. I say it is not dramatic and generally not even noticeable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Still not clear to me. I don't see how you can be entirely agnostic towards CS length while making a universal (?) statement about WB. Question: Are you saying that your statement holds true even in instances when the 1% comes soley from shortening the chainstay (e.g. sliding dropouts forward)?
    CS length defines the relationship between the BB and the rear axle. It only affects WB if you assume the front-center stays the same. It would be equally valid to assume that altering CS length changes the front-center because WB stays the same. People don't typically think like that but I do. With interdependent dimensions, you can't change one thing without changing another; you need to understand what effects are attributable to what.

    CS length has no influence on steering. Wheelbase and steering geometry do. CS length can change body position and body position can influence the perception of steering. There is a difference between how a bike turns and how you perceive it. I liken that the the difference between the front and rear seat of a roller coaster. You may like the feel of being further back on the bike, but you can move further back on a bike with longer stays, too. People can be very close-minded when it comes to fit. Once you stand, though, your seated fit becomes irrelevant.

    I am not agnostic regarding CS length, I just haven't expressed opinions here regarding standing handling. Standing vs. sitting is at the heart of the issue, not wheelbase and turning radius.

  23. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    I don't see how I attacked your person. I summarized your method as I understood it and actually made a point not to personally refer to the method as being yours. That's as impersonal as I can get.
    You objectively summarized me as an "analyze and don't ride" person based on what? What did you hope to accomplish with that description and why did you think it so important to tell MF that he didn't fit that description so as not to offend him? It's hard in that context not to take that comment as a personal insult because that's precisely what it is. It is unfounded as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryder1 View Post
    Yes, I still experiment quite a bit. Based on past testing and working conclusions from that testing, some types of testing are no longer necessary (I've owned a medium frame and several XL frames and now have the basic size question fairly narrowed down). Of my current build, stem and bar dimensions are TBD. I'm also going back to 175mm crank which will be interesting. And I'll be trying the fork at different lengths. I'll be sure to post every detail about every change I make and each dramatic difference I find.
    So it should be easy to understand that the issue here is that you don't know why this is so easy to know without further experimentation.

    If developers took the "always start over from scratch" approach, we would never have progress in anything, bicycles or even the wheel. We build on past knowledge and achievements and do that through education. Some of us have that education and others do not. Forums make it appear that those groups are on equal footing, and people who lack basic knowledge often believe temper tantrums can get them their way.

  24. #99
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,246
    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Don't mind craig, who has been blatantly attacking everything about my argument and me personally while failing to address my initial claim of a bike that was .5" shorter in BOTH WHEELBASE & CHAINSTAYS is quicker steering than a comparable bike with .5" longer wheelbase and chainstays.
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.

    Yes, I have been attacking your argument because it is delusional and you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Since I must absolutely be making up my assertion that I can tell the difference, he's made no bones about attacking my intellect, because we disagree on something subjective.
    The personal attacks start with you, you are absolutely making up your assertion, and this is not a subjective matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by OneBadWagon View Post
    Craigsj, you're doing everything that you claim I'm doing in this thread, and you look like a chump because of it. There's no reason to continue posting here, as you've already made your mind up to the difference (or lack of) in handling between two of MY bikes.
    Yes, this is called "tit-for-tat". Look it up. Everything you do to me comes back at you and will continue. You will never dominate an argument with me by being a bigger a-hole. I can play your game too. As for looking like a "chump", look who's talking. At least I know what I'm talking about and I couldn't care less about your bikes.

  25. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by craigsj View Post
    You cannot change one without the other unless you make another change. These changes are one in the same. They are interdependent measurements.
    Of course they are interdependent, when talking about two different frames with comparable specs otherwise. However when you have two frames that are virtually identical, with the most notable difference being a half inch off of the CS length, thus a half inch off of the wheelbase, it's a bit easier to compare. How ****ing hard is it for you to understand that?

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •