RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


my guide to peace and happiness on this forum(23 posts)

my guide to peace and happiness on this forumgtx
Jan 10, 2002 2:00 PM
This isn't a forum pact, just more of a guide to peaceful coexistence on this site--basically me learning from my own past errors. I think if you follow these four simple rules, you will stay out of trouble (if that's what you want--of course arguments and flames can be pretty entertaining sometimes). Seems to be working for me so far--I haven't been involved in a spat in close to a week! :)

1. Don't quibble over terminology or spelling.
2. If you think someone is blatantly wrong in their answer, do not correct them directly, simply post your own answer to the original question--surely the original poster can fact check/sort things out from there.
3. Only comment on someone's answer if you essentially agree with them, but may have some more useful/relevant info to ad.
4. (most important) Don't respond to any posts regarding Litespeeds!

Did I leave anything out?
re: my guide to peace and happiness on this forumDog
Jan 10, 2002 2:11 PM
I think that most of the people who want to stay out of trouble, do. I think some people, or some people at some times, invite trouble.

I would add to that if something makes you mad, wait a while before responding. Count to a thousand or something. It's amazing how trivial some things can seem a while later.

Also, don't take everything personally. When someone says you're full of crap, they really just mean "I disagree." At least if you treat it that way, it's hard to get mad.

Have a bit of thick skin, too. Don't let the morons get to you. Some people enjoy just getting a rise out of people. Don't give them the pleasure and they usually go away.

Dog
a few more ...tarwheel
Jan 10, 2002 2:14 PM
5. Don't post a photo of your bike unless you have thick skin and a sense of humor.

6. Don't argue with grzy -- he knows his stuff and has got a mean streak.

7. Opinions are fine, but try to have some basis for them.

8. Don't assume that what works for you applies to everyone else (eg, Campy vs Shimano, aluminum vs steel vs carbon vs ti, stem heights and angles, saddles, etc.)

9. Politics, religion and such are best left to the "Non-cycling" forum or some other venue.

10. Be patient and helpful with the newbies. We were all newbies ourselves at one time.
Why can't I badmouth Litespeeds? nmguido
Jan 10, 2002 2:16 PM
You really are a totalI.M.A.P.N.S.
Jan 10, 2002 3:08 PM
retard. Just thought you needed to know that as retards don't normally have much insight into how retarded they actually are. Who made you the forumn police???
GO SCRATCH YOUR ASS!!!! YOU CO(KSUCKER...........
Ha ha ha ha ha!Huevos Rancheros
Jan 10, 2002 3:10 PM
you funny!

I LOVE MY LITESPEED!

What's the matter guido, jealous 'cause you don't have one?
Yeah, im jealous.guido
Jan 10, 2002 6:53 PM
I want to be able to stomp those three guys, all riding Litespeeds, who've been mercilessly dropping me all Fall!
Read Carefully.....C-40
Jan 10, 2002 3:11 PM
On the Jan. 6th you unleashed an obviously uneducated criticism of my comments on frame sizing. Hopefully you will practice what you preach in the future. If you don't understand the basis for comments, ask for an explanation before criticizing.

I've had to issue an OOP's apology when I misread someone's comment and posted and incorrect comment in response.

I refrain from commenting on a large variety of topics, either because I have no experience with a product in question, or simply don't care about the topic.

I try to help people with sizing problems, because so many people are mathematically challenged or don't understand the different ways that frame sizes are measured. I have been a mechanical engineer and avid cyclist for over 20 years. I'm well qualified to analyze frame geometry.
Ooooh! Frame fit is a fetish of mine, where is this thread?Krill
Jan 10, 2002 4:17 PM
I travel often and must miss lots of interesting discussions. Please point me to the thread so that I may review it. From the posts I have read, GTX is usually very accurate in his assessments.
oh geezgtx
Jan 10, 2002 6:01 PM
the way I saw it, I made a comment directly to Undecided/Lazyrider/Heyitsme/Chronofiend/Californiadreamn/etc.--which was my first mistake by entering a discussing about Litespeeds AND replying to someone who repeatedly posts under different names--and then you replied to me with the "totally off base comment," and then I tried to defend myself (perhaps somewhat sarcastically, having finally figured out the Chronofiend was really Undecided/etc. and probably was jerking both of our chains). In fact if you look at the discussion, I didn't post any response directly to you until you attacked me. I actually AGREED with everything you said (I do have a pretty firm grasp on bike geometry--I think we may differ when it comes to what we consider to be acceptable stem lengths, but this area is fairly subjective). Feel free to review the exchange in all its glory. Or am I "wrong" again? Uneducated? Ouch.

Chronofiend "Curious about what size you think I" 1/7/02 4:22am
C40 you overstatedKrill
Jan 11, 2002 7:12 AM
the injury GTX caused you. It seemed that at every crossroad, you went on the attack.

I will start by saying that stating any specific frame size is optimum or perfect for someone, about whom you know no more than their inseam dimension and their overall height is ludicrous. There are many body dimensions and frame geometry ranges that are important for proper fit and under no circumstances should words like optimum or perfect be used unless those variables are considered. At that, "perfect" is a stretch even for the most expert of fit specialists with a living body on a cycle in front of them.

I read through the entire thread referred to and it seems that the misundertanding started with GTX suggesting something in the 56-58 Center to Top range which you objected to stating that a 55cm, center to top also I assume, would be optimum. Yet you do not account for bottom bracket drop or seattube angle in your objection. A lower bottom bracket decreases standover for any specific seattube length. The same is true for a slacker seat tube angle as we must remember that the seat tube measurements are taken from the center of the bottom bracket, not relative to the ground. In the range commonly found in modern bicycles, these two factors can account for as much as 30mm, possibly even more, in standover differences between bikes of the same center to top seat tube sizes. If one considers center to center seat tube sizes, the difference in top tube diameter also comes into play and can account for a another centimeter difference in standover between old standard bikes and aluminum or titanium frames. Variances in cycling shoes/cleats also account for up to one centimeter in inseam, though in my opinion, this is of only minor importance. In reality, you could both be right and yet you chose to strenuously object stating for fact that GTX's suggestion was wrong, when in fact it was not, and neither was yours. C40, quite frankly I am surprised at you since you claim to be an engineer. Your overconfidence in your own correctness has mislead you here.

I was also astounded to read the comments stating that seat tube angle affects top tube length in that thread and in the Look thread. While what you say is true if one has to move their saddle significantly to compensate for it, it makes no difference if you do not and if a person does have to move their saddle significantly the frame is not a proper fit for them. This is another example of trying to fit a person without knowing more about their physique than their inseam and height. Seat tube angle should be based on femur length and foot length while considering crank arm length and where a cyclist prefers their knee over the pedal. Seat tube length should be based on a person's inseam and standover requirements while considering bottom bracket drop and seat tube angle. Top tube length should be based on a person's torso length and arm length giving special concern to their flexibility and bar positional preferences. To state any frame is perfect without considering the sum of these concerns proves ignorance is bliss. Based on these observations and your comments to GTX of "you unleashed an obviously uneducated criticism of my comments on frame sizing" and your comment "You obviously don't understand the first thing about fitting a frame, or the differences between the various terms like "size" compared to top tube length." Lead me to believe that at the worst you may be a little confused by your own self-aggrandizement and ego and at the least you owe GTX an apology.
C40 you overstatedgtx
Jan 11, 2002 11:10 AM
thanks Krill. Kerry Irons probably had it right by posting the usual formulas and butting out of the picture. It was a fairly ridiculous discussion to begin with because this guy seemed to want validation for buying a $3000 frame that (in my thinking, anyway) was too small.
Very correct,TJeanloz
Jan 11, 2002 2:17 PM
I have tended to avoid sizing topics when they are specific to a person (i.e. "I'm 5'7", what size frame do I need?"), but not when they're general ("Why does Schwinn only make 4 sizes?") for this reason exactly. There is absolutely NO way that a person can get adequate fit advice sight-unseen. I could give you a good range, probably within 3cm, which would vary depending upon exactly the make and model of the bike. And I'd venture to guess that I have more direct, actual fitting experience with real people than almost everybody on this board. Personally, I think it's irresponsible for online diletantes to try to 'size' other people. It won't work. No matter how good you think your measuring is.

The fact remains that I have NEVER seen someone (online) who wants to know their bike size accurately give enough information that a decision could be rendered. Another issue is that there's no accountability; a bike shop lays their reputation on the line every time they fit somebody. Because everybody here is (relatively) anonymous, there's not the same degree of pressure.

Another oft forgotten issue is that all the formulae and secret sizing methods in the world produce only one thing- a developmental starting point. The formulae do not tell you saddle height, stem length, bar width. They give you a good place to start, but they are the beginning of the process, not the end.

This is getting longer than I meant it to be- but it's important to realize that no person online can correctly recommend a size. And it's important for those giving advice (which is why this board exists, after all) to give all the caveats with their advice.
well said nmgtx
Jan 11, 2002 3:01 PM
So C40 the fit emporer has no clothes!a face in the crowd
Jan 11, 2002 4:06 PM
Can you explain the seat angle thing again? nmTriScum
Jan 13, 2002 8:29 AM
Any help here? Any at all? Anybody? nmTriScum
Jan 14, 2002 11:21 AM
Wait a minute...mr_spin
Jan 10, 2002 4:01 PM
"Only comment on someone's answer if you essentially agree with them"

Just posting this reply breaks that rule.

A forum isn't supposed to be for the mutual admiration (or humiliation) of its participants. It's to create a dialog on issues. If I disagree with your answer, I reserve the right to say so. If I agree, I reserve the right not to say so.
yeah, but...gtx
Jan 10, 2002 6:18 PM
not a "rule"--and anyway, rules are meant to be broken. :)
GTX is the biggest Flamer here!!!RaRa-Retard
Jan 10, 2002 4:13 PM
Flaming homosexual that is. Not that there is anything wrong with that. By the way, how is that new Fleet Enema Dildo Saddle you bought??? Thinking about picking one up.

Regards
Liberace
Sniff, I'll miss this place...Crankist
Jan 11, 2002 6:25 AM
re: guide to peace and happiness on this forumStarliner
Jan 11, 2002 1:48 PM
some more thoughts-

skip threads like the latest "cyclists are durfs"
skip threads that never have a solution (Shim vs. Cmpy, etc)
when being critical, try to criticise the message, not the messenger
know when to quit and let go of a thread
look for and read contributions from those who I enjoy and respect the most
try to balance seriousness with amusement
keep in mind and be thankful for that I have a life separate from this forum
Expect to be misunderstoodTig
Jan 11, 2002 3:15 PM
What is typed can lose its meaning from what the author intended. The lack of a voice with tone deflection to help clarify the true meaning, combined with the need to limit the size of a post make for some major communications problems. Attitude of the reader can inject additional, unexpected meaning as well.

Also know that no matter how much or how little a person says about themselves, we will still not know them as much as we think we do.

Taking a personal attack by someone who knows absolutely nothing about you is not easy to deal with using civility. This is something I'm learning!