[CR]Re: we are truly out of the mainstream....

(Example: Framebuilders:Jack Taylor)

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 11:12:14 -0600
From: "Mitch Harris" <mitch.harris@gmail.com>
To: "Tom Dalton" <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <873166.38091.qm@web55905.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <8801bb250708030716j79e4e0f4obb6983d4ab29db3f@mail.gmail.com>
cc: Classic Rendezvous <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
cc: Classic Rendezvous
Subject: [CR]Re: we are truly out of the mainstream....

On 8/3/07, Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mitch Harris <mitch.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Tom Dalton wrote:
> > Mitch Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > On 8/2/07, John Barron wrote:
> > >
> > > It would be romantic if old bikes were as fast as new bikes, wouldn't
> it?
> > > Well, without getting too worked-up about this, I'll tell you all that
> my
> > > experience shows that a $3,000 Heuer watch from the 60's doesn't keep as
> > > good a time as a $9.99 quartz watch bought today; a $100,000 Ferarri
> from
> > > the 60's doesn't perform, overall, as well as a $22,000 Camry bought
> > > today.
> > >
> > >
> > > To which Mitch Harris replied:
> > >
> > > Faulty analogies, each.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitch, please, you must be kidding us! If you sincerely believe that
> John
> > > is mistaken, you've got to do much better in rebutting his comments than
> > to
> > > say, in effect, "you're wrong." John is a respected member of this list
> > and
> > > has made a contribution that is, if nothing else, provocative. If you
> feel
> > > that his analogies are flawed, you are encouraged to provide a reasoned
> > > explanation, but to just tell John that he's wrong come off as just a
> bit
> > > childish. Don't you think?
> > >
> > > In my opinion, John's post was a breath of fresh air. We can turn CR
> into
> > a
> > > forum for discussing coefficients of drag, frictional losses,
> hysteresis,
> > > and the laws of thermodynamics, and we likely would still be no closer
> to
> > > agreeing on just how much faster bikes are today than they were in the
> > > on-topic timeframe. But, to outright deny, as some list members appear
> to
> > > do, that racing bikes today are faster than on-topic bikes is plain
> nuts.
> > > Is any of "that stuff" necessary to enjoying the ride? Is the difference
> > > all that huge? Is it worth the money? Would it be a real advantage for
> > > "my" style of riding? Is a modern bike worth the lost charm? Our answers
> > to
> > > these questions are what make us, in the context of this list, who we
> are.
> > > I suppose even adhering to the bizarre belief that an on-topic bike is
> > just
> > > as fast as a modern wonderbike is also what makes some of us who we are,
> > but
> > > it's an attitude that sure is tough for me to understand.
> >
> > Sorry, Tom, if I offended you (or John?). Not intended. And my reply
> > referred--explicitly--only to the analogies offered and not to the
> > larger points in John's post. My reply seems pretty self-explanatory:
> > faulty is a reference to logic and the analogies are right there. I'd
> > be glad to say more if it really were interesting or necessary but
> > it's hard to believe it is. And besides, I've been trying to write
> > fewer long-winded posts. Like you said, John's contribution was
> > provocative, and yours sounds intended to be (engagingly?) provocative
> > too--referring to those who hold a different opinion as "plain
> > nuts"--so the conversation ought to be able to tolerate a laconic
> > comment on logic.
> >
> > Mitch Harris
> > Little Rock Canyon, Utah
> >
> >
> > Mitch,
> >
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > P.S. Were I taking your approach, I would avoid being "long winded" and
> just
> > leave my message at that above, with no additional supporting information.
> But Tom, you have taken exactly that approach. You keep saying I'm
> wrong but you don't offer any explanation why those analogies I
> referred to are apt--and the only point I made was to say that the
> analogies were not apt--but you don't offer an actual argument for why
> I'm wrong. You refer below to beliefs that "fly in the face of fact"
> but you don't offer any fact or any support or any of the evidence
> that you demand of others. BTW, I hope you're not referring to me when
> you mention those beliefs because I didn't state my belief on the
> large issues here; again, I only pointed out the faulty analogies. And
> I hope you don't feel that I've criticized your email for being
> long-winded; I actually am trying to write fewer long-winded posts
> myself. Nor did I mean to criticize you for being provocative, and in
> fact suggested that you were being engagingly provocative.
> Mitch Harris
> Little Rock Canyon, Utah
> Mitch,
> I think you may be a bit confused.

Thanks for you concern but I'm not confused. My only point was about the aptness of the analogies, and my pointing out the problem was sufficient for my point. Again, I'm sorry if you took that as pre-emptory. If you're asking me to explain what's wrong with the analogy, I can do that if you like. If you're asking me to explain whether I think contemporary or vingate bikes are faster, I'm less interested in that argument as there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding there, perhaps on both sides.

Mitch Harris Little Rock Canyon, Utah

The argument has moved past whether or
> not John's analogies are wrong. Actually, directly between you and me, that
> never was the argument, because while I did not personally believe that the
> anologies were flawed, I only pointed out that you were wrong to shoot down
> John's contribution with zero supporting evidence. I'd like to know your
> arguments.
> My last message was a parallel example that first simply stated that you
> were wrong (to dismiss John's analogies without explanantion), just as you
> did to John regarding the analogies themselves. I next appended a
> post-script argument as to why I believe are wrong, to exemplify what I
> think you should have done for John. My argument was that you can not
> justify your insubstantial approach by calling it laconic, and by saying
> that you don't want to be longwinded. Laconic would suggest that your
> comment was at once spare and substantial. The comment really was only
> spare, because it amounted to nothing more than alleging that John was
> wrong. Again, I did not say that your wrong to find fault if John's
> analogies (though I may, once I know your reasons), but that you are wrong
> to do so without supporting argument. While I did say that I find merit
> with John's analogies, I did not pretend that this in itself, was a
> counterargument to your point that they are flawed. Before I argue back on
> that matter you'll need to present your argument in the first place.
> As to saying that the referenced belief flies in the of fact, I will point
> to Moser's hour record, one of the primary events defining the end of the CR
> timeframe. Moser's more modern bike was faster than Merckx's older bike.
> The record fell almost entirely because of this. Then there was Boardman's
> record, with aero bars. Boardman used a faster bike than Moser's, and the
> record fell, in part because of the bike. We all know that newer bikes are
> faster. One can't say, "well, yes, but you're talking major equipment
> revolutions, and I meant 753 vs. monocoque CF, as used by 50 year old guys
> in century rides. Things like aero wheels and aero bars are what make
> modern racing bikes, modern racing bikes. If we compare old and modern
> bikes that are as similar as possible, of course the gap tend toward zero.
> I've already seen arguments here about "of equal weight" and so forth.
> What's the point? Let's look at the actual stuff used by actual racers for
> whom the gear is designed (the intended buyer is another matter, as a Sunday
> ride in the park these days will show).
> Tom Dalton
> Bethlehem, PA USA