Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 07:30:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 1/1/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 1/1/2025 7:49 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>

On 1/1/2025 6:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>

On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:

On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:54:03 +0700, John B.
<slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

>
I read Frankie's violins. If I remember the test
correct it was
carried out in a hotel room and the test players got
to play each
instrument for something like 1 minute.

>
Perhaps you should read more than one article before
wading into a
discussion you know nothing about.

I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the
difference
between Strads and modern violins.  It's not important
to my point,
which is that *someone* can tell the difference, even if
it requires an
electron microscope.  That is all that is required to
explain the
difference in price.  Even if the preference is
completely unrelated to
the sound actually produced by the violins.
A preference for old violins based completely on history
and emotion
may
be a problem for you, but it makes perfect sense to
economists.  The
multi-million dollar price seems to be the biggest issue
for you; I'm
not sure why.

>
It's not an issue for me, and I didn't say it was. I'll
never attempt
to buy a Strad, and I'll never expect to get millions if
I sell one of
my fiddles.
>
But since this is Usenet, so you can read back to see the
flow of the
thread. We got into this kerfuffle from Roger's statement
that "feel"
of a tire can be important, apart from rolling resistance.

>
I did read the thread.
>

I expressed some skepticism, saying "Given what I've read
about
violins (Stradivarius can't be told from modern ones in
blind hearing
tests) and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure
centers in the
brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive), I'm
somewhat
skeptical of a lot of "feel" judgements regarding bike
tires - and
bikes."

>
The issue you introduced with violins and wines is price.
Not much was
made of price differences with bike tires, although if you
can't tell
the difference cheaper is always better.  Paying large
amounts for
something that may not be objectively better certainly
seemed to bother
you.  If that's not really the case then perhaps you
should review your
communication style.

 
OK, I'll try again - not that I'm hopeful.
 
I mentioned price because in our society, it's common to
assign a higher price to things that are reputed to be
better. Price is thus considered a signifier of higher quality.
 
What characteristic of a violin is thought to be signified
by a high price? Its sound. More expensive violins are
expected to sound better, and much more expensive violins
are expected to sound much better.
 
What characteristic of a wine is thought to be signified by
a high price? Its flavor. More expensive wines are expected
to taste better, and much more expensive wines are expected
to taste much better.
 
But do super expensive violins sound better? Do super
expensive wines taste better? It's not obvious! Sound and
taste are not directly measurable. They are "soft"
properties, entirely subject to the judgment of the
observer. So can observers _really_ tell "better" from
"worse" in a way that corresponds to price?
 
Nope. With violins, it's been shown dozens of times by
careful tests that listeners do not consistently rank the
sound of Strads far better than violins costing one five
hundredth as much. In careful blind tests, wines have gotten
similar results.
 
I think the same likely applies to the "feel" of bicycle
bits, at least among close competitors. Many of us have been
around here long enough to remember the blind test results
of several bike frames made from different grades of steel
tubing, back in those days of steel. Road test "experts"
couldn't agree on what "felt" best, and often ranked the
cheapest as the best riding. I suspect the same would be
found for the "feel" of roughly similar tires.
 
In a sense, on this particular issue I'm agreeing with Mr.
Tricycle, who claims over and over that almost _everything_
is subjective.
 
But again, I'm not hopeful that he or you or John will agree
with me regarding judgments of "feel." The default posture
of you three is that I'm wrong no matter what I say. You
won't let yourself admit anything else.
 

>
I know nothing of violins and very little of wine (aside
from generally of the various Italian regions).
>
But I do know that price curves are parabolic not linear and
that scarcity is an equal if not higher input than quality.
>
And as always Veblen value.
>
In short, price is a complex indicator and not always
dispositive for quality. Individuals also apply complex and
individual criteria, often with limited knowledge, in their
own way, which is often not universalizable.

Years ago I participated in a study of what was termed "anticipated
value".

In a shop selling "out doors" stuff we marketed a small 1 cylinder
outboard motor, just right for a small, 1 - 2 man fishing boat. We
changed the sales price from time to time and recorded the volume sold
at the new price . We found that there was a small price range where
the largest number of motors were purchased. This was called
"anticipated value", or in other words people have a preconceived
price that they feel an item is worth, and if the price is much higher
or lower they don't buy.
 
--
Cheers,

John B.