Like I said in my earlier post, not all paper can transfer to real life/shop, but in this case I feel it does unequivocally. Jobst is just the most known proponent of this 'theory', not the only one. I think people are just put off by Jobsts' delivery method. :) No one has yet come close to providing data on *how* treaded road tires provide more grip. (Marketing depts. don't count.) Nor has anyone explained how or why Jobst is wrong in his theory. I hear a lot of generalizations, but no theory to the contrary that makes any sense. The small handful of others who have tested and have consistent data that explain their position holds more water than, " well, I have friends that use these tires and say xx..."
The fact that brands still carry them is hardly proof of their merit. They are still produced because that's what people expect and are comfortable with. We also see a slew of pretty colored tires on the market as well. I won't even get into that debate. The pattern may look really cool and retro but it provides no benefit road bikes.
I have been practicing for a long time in the real world and have had the benefit of being on both sides of the fence with this issue. The 'theory' stands in my opinion. This topic has gone on too long and is corrupting an otherwise great list. I'm going riding.
cheers
-m
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Jerome & Elizabeth Moos <
jerrymoos@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> My problem with Jobst Brandt is that I think he is too much a
> theoretician. As an engineer myself, I believe the difference between a
> scientist and an engineer is that a scientist has a deep understanding of
> what ought to work in a perfect world, while an engineer has a grasp of what
> actually works and what does not in the real world. There is certainly a
> need for scientists in the world, but like many of my colleagues, I am quite
> content to be on the engineering side of the divide, and have no desire to
> be a "scientist". Brandt seems to me to talk more like a scientist than an
> engineer. Most of what he says is undoubted correct in theory, but a lot of
> it, in my opinion, turns out to be irrelevant in actual practice. Sometimes
> it is even wrong in practice. What theoreticans often overlook is that even
> a perfectly expounded and correct theory can be so overshadowed as to be
> rendered moot in actual practice by other factors that the theoretican
> hadn't thought of. That
> is the role of technical experience, which teaches one that sometimes,
> "It shouldn't work, but it does." or "It ought to work, but it doesn't." or
> "In practice it doesn't make a damn bit of difference."
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Moos
> Big Spring, Texas, USA
>
>
> dean 53x13 <dpcowboy54@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For those who don't yet drink the KoolAid...and I, for one, was a
> reasonable skeptic...Jobst Brandt 'gets it'. He is a logical thinker and
> backs up most of what he thinks with good math and logic. Strong mind, stout
> heart.
> Dean Patterson
> Alpine, CA USA
>
> Earle Young wrote: Car tires = 35 psi or so, large contact patch
> bike road tires = 75 psi minimum, closer to 100 usually, small contact
> patch
>
> You are comparing apples and orangutangs.
>
> Something to remember: When Jobst and conventional wisdom disagree,
> Jobst will be the one with solid research to back up his position.
>
> Earle Young
> Madison, Wisconsin, USA
> Offering expert wheelbuilding services for classic and modern bikes
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Dean Patterson
> Alpine, CA, USA
> DPCowboy
>
> ---------------------------------
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
> Total Access, No Cost.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
--
Mike Scammon
Menlo Park, Ca.