Re: Patching TPU innertube

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:00:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 1/2/2025 10:35 AM, Frank Krygowski 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.
 
 

>
I'm not so sure about all that.
>
For example, the #2 currently most expensive French vintage
is the 1907 Heidsieck & Co. Monopole Diamant Bleu, going for
about $275000 per bottle. It does have an unique history and
I choose this example because extant quantity is well known:
>
"The above bottle was part of the cargo of the Swedish
schooner Jönköping which was sunk of the coast of Finland in
1916 by a German U-boat.
>
In 1997 the wreck was located and was salvaged. Of the
original cargo of 4400 bottles of 1907 Heidsieck, Goüt
Américain, some 2000 bottles were recovered by the salvage
crew. Some bottles were tasted and the champagne was found
to be in excellent condition, having withstood the pressure
and been preserved in the dark, ice-cold water
1 bottle per lot"
>
https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5150758
>
2000 bottles, all in, is not 'millions'.  Highly desirable
($$$) but not recovered from shipwrecks French vintages were
not produced by the millions, not even close.
>
Although this is an oddity in some regards, it does amply
reflect price relationship to scarcity which, as with
baseball cards or Ferraris, is well established.
>
Regarding bicycles, evaluation of handling among quality
examples is highly individual.  (for 'among quality
examples', almost all road riders will take any year Cinelli
Supercorse over even the best Murray Ohio.)  Each rider has
not only different muscular, skeletal, proportion
differences but also different riding position and weight
distribution (all within a finite range but not exactly
alike) and each rider also has preconcieved criteria. For
example, one man's snappy is another's twitchy, stable to
one rider is sluggish to another, etc.
>
Attempts to quantify that will fail.
>
Oh by the way. the absolutely best riding frame I ever owned
was a 1976 Pogliaghi Italcorse 56cm. (pretty, too). Never
should have sold it. Other riders may find that model
wonderful but many others merely call them acceptable.

I'm pretty sure, however, that people change the way they ride as they
mature and grow older, so, perhaps, based upon how long ago you owned
that bike, it may not suit you all, today.