Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 11:35:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 1/2/2025 8:30 AM, AMuzi 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.

>
Yes, scarcity affects price. A Mickey Mantle baseball card has no higher
intrinsic value than any other baseball card. That really doesn't affect
my points above.
>
Unlike Mickey Mantle cards, the purported valuable characteristic of
Strads is not rarity (there are hundreds of them); it's sound quality.
The purported valuable characteristic of very expensive wines is not
rarity (there are probably millions of such bottles); it's flavor.
>
Those who disagree with me should give us links to a few studies where
observers in blind comparison tests consistently said "Ah! THAT one is
the Strad!" I've been reading about this issue for decades, and I've
never heard of such results.
>
And Andrew, I'm curious about your thoughts on the "feel" of closely
comparable bike frames, or closely similar tires. Not tubulars vs.
clinchers, or road slicks vs. knobbies. Say, parallel models of
Continental vs. Michelin.

Scarcity, as an element of demand is not necessarily determined by the
number of units in existence. There is also the factor of how willing
an owner is willing to part with them, and that is partly determined
by the owners SUBJECTIVE evaluation of it's value.

Now, as for the various and sundry studies, tests, and sample polling,
I think it safe to say that people do not finance them without a
purpose. In the case of he aforementioned tests of violins and wines,
I can't see any other purpose than an attempt to coercively devalue
the more expensive units.