| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 40 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:14:03 |
| Calls: | 291 |
| Files: | 910 |
| Messages: | 76,495 |
I got a snake bite puncture on one of my TPU innertubes. I
haven't bought one of the commercial patch kits, so I
thought I would try a blob of Aquaseal. Known for it's
usefulness in repairing neoprene stuff and more, I thought I
would give it a go.
I tried to rough up the TPU innertube surface, but the
sandpaper didn't seem to have much if any effect. I cleaned
it with a little Windex, and after that had dried and I had
rubbed it some more with clean tissue paper, I applied a
drop of Aquaseal to each hole.
I have the stuff that takes about a day to solidify. I left
the tube undisturbed for at least 12 hours, though I can't
recall exactly how long, before putting it back in the wheel
and inflating.
This is on my gravel bike, with 40mm tyres that I inflate to
40-45psi.
The repair has held for a few hundred kilometers at least,
and now I have put different tyres on the bike, so I
inspected the repairs.
The blobs of glue seem to have spread and flattened a bit,
but otherwise have appeared to bond well and not leaked.
On 12/29/2024 6:58 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 12/28/2024 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/28/2024 12:32 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 26 22:10:15 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2024 5:32 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The issue for me is that while Gravel tires absolutely do feel
more supple
with TPU tubes, these are tires while some claimed sidewall
protection,
these aren?t like Trail etc MTB tires which have reinforced
noticeable
stiff sidewalls is aren?t floppy, each tire is 1kg or so.
Hence I wonder if a upgrade to TPU tubes would be noticeable...
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If >>>>> someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept
track of
terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good >>>>> information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with
negligible
wind, of course.
Frank, what do you believe the difference in terminal velocity would
be with 1/2% decrease in rolling resistance on a 5% slope which is
almost entirely set by the tires? For crying out loud, you claim to
be a mechanical engineer! Aerodynamic drag would be 100 times the
rolling resistance.
I'm breaking my recent resolution to skip responding to you, Tom.
It's normally a futile endeavor.
But as to your question: Aerodynamics was the specific reason I
specified a _gentle_ downhill. I think the best might be one that
would give a terminal speed of 12 to 15 mph, since at those speeds
aero drag is at least roughly the same magnitude as rolling resistance.
I question this: I suspect resultant drag at 15 MPH is significantly
higher than the resultant drag from rolling resistance, but since the
resultant drag 15 MPH in terms of watts is likely in the low single
digits, the difference between that and a few tenths of a watt from
rolling resistance is imperceptible.
And yes, I expect the differences would be difficult to detect. Which
raises the question: If the differences are difficult to detect, are
they really worth worrying about? Are they really worth the expense,
and the hassle of changing one's equipment?
If you're racing, perhaps so. Otherwise, it seems not.
Even if you're racing, the law of diminishing returns applies heavily.
For a pro, certainly it matters. For us amateur age groupers, benefits
from tire selection get lost in the noise.
If you get to your coffee shop fifteen seconds earlier, do they give
you a prize? ;-)
"benefits from tire selection get lost in the noise."
For me as well and I think probably for most of us. Excluding the
absolute junk at the lower end of the range is plenty enough selection
for an acceptably pleasant ride.
Am Thu, 26 Dec 2024 22:10:15 -0500 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 12/26/2024 5:32 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The issue for me is that while Gravel tires absolutely do feel more supple >>> with TPU tubes, these are tires while some claimed sidewall protection,
these aren’t like Trail etc MTB tires which have reinforced noticeable >>> stiff sidewalls is aren’t floppy, each tire is 1kg or so.
Hence I wonder if a upgrade to TPU tubes would be noticeable...
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences.
To be honest, I don't care about this difference. I carry a TPU tube in
the saddlebag because it takes up a lot less space than a standard butyl
tube and because I don't anticipate needing it for anything other than a fallback in case the tubeless tire doesn't get sealed by the sealant.
On 12/29/2024 7:58 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 12/28/2024 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/28/2024 12:32 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 26 22:10:15 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2024 5:32 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The issue for me is that while Gravel tires absolutely do feel more >>>>>> supple
with TPU tubes, these are tires while some claimed sidewall
protection,
these aren?t like Trail etc MTB tires which have reinforced noticeable >>>>>> stiff sidewalls is aren?t floppy, each tire is 1kg or so.
Hence I wonder if a upgrade to TPU tubes would be noticeable...
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If >>>>> someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of >>>>> terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good >>>>> information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible >>>>> wind, of course.
Frank, what do you believe the difference in terminal velocity would
be with 1/2% decrease in rolling resistance on a 5% slope which is
almost entirely set by the tires? For crying out loud, you claim to
be a mechanical engineer! Aerodynamic drag would be 100 times the
rolling resistance.
I'm breaking my recent resolution to skip responding to you, Tom. It's
normally a futile endeavor.
But as to your question: Aerodynamics was the specific reason I
specified a _gentle_ downhill. I think the best might be one that
would give a terminal speed of 12 to 15 mph, since at those speeds
aero drag is at least roughly the same magnitude as rolling resistance.
I question this: I suspect resultant drag at 15 MPH is significantly
higher than the resultant drag from rolling resistance, but since the
resultant drag 15 MPH in terms of watts is likely in the low single
digits, the difference between that and a few tenths of a watt from
rolling resistance is imperceptible.
True, the slower the terminal speed, the better for judging rolling resistance, or attempting to separate it from aero drag.
Part of my thinking was to test at the rider's typical riding speed. I suspect almost all of us here typically ride faster than 12 mph. In any
case, results of tests at one's typical riding speed would give the best indication of the difference tires, tubes, etc. would make for that rider.
And yes, I expect the differences would be difficult to detect. Which
raises the question: If the differences are difficult to detect, are
they really worth worrying about? Are they really worth the expense,
and the hassle of changing one's equipment?
If you're racing, perhaps so. Otherwise, it seems not.
Even if you're racing, the law of diminishing returns applies heavily.
For a pro, certainly it matters. For us amateur age groupers, benefits
from tire selection get lost in the noise.
Agreed. Assuming one stays away from really terrible tires, that is.
On 12/28/2024 12:43 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2024 2:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Given what I've read about violins (Stradivarius can't be told from
modern ones in blind hearing tests)
horseshit. Someone with training and experience can most certainly
tell the difference in the tonal quality between a Stradivarius and
even a high quality modern violin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-
modern-violins-blind-sound-check
Which doesn't support your claim. You wrote "Stradivarius can't be
told from modern ones in blind hearing tests", The article states:
"the 82 listeners in the test reported that the new violins projected
better"
"asked subjects which of the two violins in a pairing they preferred.
Listeners chose the new violins over the old"
Yes, they could tell the difference.
This question has been studied many, many times, for decades. The
consistent results are that players or audience can't tell the difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-
tell.html
https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail- distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/violinists-cant-tell- the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones
https://money.com/expensive-price-tag-cheap-wine-brain-placebo-effect/and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the
brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive),
more horseshit. Someone with training and experience can certainly
tell the difference in the flavor profiles, especially if you tried
to dupe them with a Gallo.
Which again doesn't support the claim that people couldn't tell the
difference. It also doesn't state what qualifications the tasters had,
if any. I've had crappy $100 bottles of wine and excellent $25 bottles
of wine. Flavor preference is not the same than as "can't tell the
difference".
If "telling the difference" is the same as "succumbing to the placebo effect," you've got a point.
Otherwise, no.
On 12/30/2024 10:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/28/2024 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, I yield. They could tell one violin did not sound precisely like
On 12/28/2024 12:43 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2024 2:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Given what I've read about violins (Stradivarius can't be told
from modern ones in blind hearing tests)
horseshit. Someone with training and experience can most certainly >>>>>> tell the difference in the tonal quality between a Stradivarius and >>>>>> even a high quality modern violin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-
modern-violins-blind-sound-check
Which doesn't support your claim. You wrote "Stradivarius can't be
told from modern ones in blind hearing tests", The article states:
"the 82 listeners in the test reported that the new violins projected
better"
"asked subjects which of the two violins in a pairing they preferred.
Listeners chose the new violins over the old"
Yes, they could tell the difference.
This question has been studied many, many times, for decades. The
consistent results are that players or audience can't tell the
difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-
tell.html
Paywalled
https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-
distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles
"The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists
could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the
soloists seemed to prefer the new violins, the researchers report online
today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Yes, they can tell the difference.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/violinists-cant-
tell- the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones
The science.org piece also references the test noted here.
Which again doesn't support the claim that people couldn't tell thehttps://money.com/expensive-price-tag-cheap-wine-brain-placebo-effect/ >>>>and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the
brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive),
more horseshit. Someone with training and experience can certainly >>>>>> tell the difference in the flavor profiles, especially if you tried >>>>>> to dupe them with a Gallo.
difference. It also doesn't state what qualifications the tasters
had, if any. I've had crappy $100 bottles of wine and excellent $25
bottles of wine. Flavor preference is not the same than as "can't
tell the difference".
If "telling the difference" is the same as "succumbing to the placebo
effect," you've got a point.
Do you really think it does?
Otherwise, no.
we disagree. You're claim was "can't tell the difference". Everything
you posted to this point notes differences were detected - maybe not to
conventional wisdom, but differences were detected nonetheless.
another. But they could not tell which was the Strad, which was really
my point.
IOW, they could not detect the supposedly unduplicable sound quality,
the factor that causes Strads to sell for millions of dollars more than >modern violins.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 04:08:40 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 23:16:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/30/2024 10:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/28/2024 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, I yield. They could tell one violin did not sound precisely like >>>another. But they could not tell which was the Strad, which was really
On 12/28/2024 12:43 PM, zen cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2024 2:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Given what I've read about violins (Stradivarius can't be told >>>>>>>>> from modern ones in blind hearing tests)
horseshit. Someone with training and experience can most certainly >>>>>>>> tell the difference in the tonal quality between a Stradivarius and >>>>>>>> even a high quality modern violin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall- >>>>>>> modern-violins-blind-sound-check
Which doesn't support your claim. You wrote "Stradivarius can't be >>>>>> told from modern ones in blind hearing tests", The article states: >>>>>>
"the 82 listeners in the test reported that the new violins projected >>>>>> better"
"asked subjects which of the two violins in a pairing they preferred. >>>>>> Listeners chose the new violins over the old"
Yes, they could tell the difference.
This question has been studied many, many times, for decades. The
consistent results are that players or audience can't tell the
difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-
tell.html
Paywalled
https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-
distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles
"The consistency of results from session to session showed that soloists >>>> could definitely distinguish one violin from another. However, the
soloists seemed to prefer the new violins, the researchers report online >>>> today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Yes, they can tell the difference.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/violinists-cant-
tell- the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones
The science.org piece also references the test noted here.
Which again doesn't support the claim that people couldn't tell the >>>>>> difference. It also doesn't state what qualifications the tastershttps://money.com/expensive-price-tag-cheap-wine-brain-placebo-effect/ >>>>>>and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the >>>>>>>>> brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive),
more horseshit. Someone with training and experience can certainly >>>>>>>> tell the difference in the flavor profiles, especially if you tried >>>>>>>> to dupe them with a Gallo.
had, if any. I've had crappy $100 bottles of wine and excellent $25 >>>>>> bottles of wine. Flavor preference is not the same than as "can't
tell the difference".
If "telling the difference" is the same as "succumbing to the placebo >>>>> effect," you've got a point.
Do you really think it does?
Otherwise, no.
we disagree. You're claim was "can't tell the difference". Everything
you posted to this point notes differences were detected - maybe not to >>>> conventional wisdom, but differences were detected nonetheless.
my point.
IOW, they could not detect the supposedly unduplicable sound quality,
the factor that causes Strads to sell for millions of dollars more than >>>modern violins.
Even after seeing the election results last november, some people
continue to believe that "studies" based on sample polling produce
accurate data.
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.
My younger brother wanted to be a concert phoniest, practiced from the
time he was 5 years old until he graduated from collage. He told me
that playing a piano in the front room of your home and playing on the
stage of a recital hall was a totally difference sound and in fact if
the hall was full or empty made a difference.
So what does 1 minute in a hotel room tell you?
On Sat Dec 28 18:25:31 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:would be 100 times the rolling resistance.
On 12/28/2024 12:32 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 26 22:10:15 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/26/2024 5:32 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The issue for me is that while Gravel tires absolutely do feel more supple
with TPU tubes, these are tires while some claimed sidewall protection, >>>>> these aren?t like Trail etc MTB tires which have reinforced noticeable >>>>> stiff sidewalls is aren?t floppy, each tire is 1kg or so.
Hence I wonder if a upgrade to TPU tubes would be noticeable...
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If >>>> someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of >>>> terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good
information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible >>>> wind, of course.
Frank, what do you believe the difference in terminal velocity would be with 1/2% decrease in rolling resistance on a 5% slope which is almost entirely set by the tires? For crying out loud, you claim to be a mechanical engineer! Aerodynamic drag
I'm breaking my recent resolution to skip responding to you, Tom. It's
normally a futile endeavor.
But as to your question: Aerodynamics was the specific reason I
specified a _gentle_ downhill. I think the best might be one that would
give a terminal speed of 12 to 15 mph, since at those speeds aero drag
is at least roughly the same magnitude as rolling resistance.
And yes, I expect the differences would be difficult to detect. Which
raises the question: If the differences are difficult to detect, are
they really worth worrying about? Are they really worth the expense, and
the hassle of changing one's equipment?
If you're racing, perhaps so. Otherwise, it seems not.
If you get to your coffee shop fifteen seconds earlier, do they give you
a prize? ;-)
What is a "gentle" downgrade? are you unaware that a bucycle will accelerate to the speed at which opposing forces equal the accelerating forces?
Rolling resistance of tires is almost always a tiny component of this calculation. Jobst would have taken you apart for that comment.
On 12/30/2024 10:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/28/2024 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:OK, I yield. They could tell one violin did not sound precisely like
On 12/28/2024 12:43 PM, zen cycle wrote:Paywalled
On 12/27/2024 9:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/27/2024 2:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Given what I've read about violins (Stradivarius can't be told
from modern ones in blind hearing tests)
horseshit. Someone with training and experience can most
certainly tell the difference in the tonal quality between a
Stradivarius and even a high quality modern violin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-
modern-violins-blind-sound-check
Which doesn't support your claim. You wrote "Stradivarius can't be
told from modern ones in blind hearing tests", The article states:
"the 82 listeners in the test reported that the new violins
projected better"
"asked subjects which of the two violins in a pairing they
preferred. Listeners chose the new violins over the old"
Yes, they could tell the difference.
This question has been studied many, many times, for decades. The
consistent results are that players or audience can't tell the
difference.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/science/a-strad-violinists-cant-
tell.html
"The consistency of results from session to session showed that
https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-
distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles
soloists could definitely distinguish one violin from
another. However, the soloists seemed to prefer the new violins, the
researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences."
Yes, they can tell the difference.
The science.org piece also references the test noted here.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/violinists-cant-
tell- the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones
Do you really think it does?
Which again doesn't support the claim that people couldn't tellhttps://money.com/expensive-price-tag-cheap-wine-brain-placebo-effect/ >>>>and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the
brain if tasters are told the wine is expensive),
more horseshit. Someone with training and experience can
certainly tell the difference in the flavor profiles, especially
if you tried to dupe them with a Gallo.
the difference. It also doesn't state what qualifications the
tasters had, if any. I've had crappy $100 bottles of wine and
excellent $25 bottles of wine. Flavor preference is not the same
than as "can't tell the difference".
If "telling the difference" is the same as "succumbing to the
placebo effect," you've got a point.
Otherwise, no.we disagree. You're claim was "can't tell the
difference". Everything you posted to this point notes differences
were detected - maybe not to conventional wisdom, but differences
were detected nonetheless.
another. But they could not tell which was the Strad, which was really
my point.
IOW, they could not detect the supposedly unduplicable sound quality,
the factor that causes Strads to sell for millions of dollars more
than modern violins.
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.
These tests have been performed many, many times since the 1800s in
various environments. The most frequent result by far is that
multi-million dollar Strads are not magic.
From one of the articles I cited, which you apparently did _not_ read:
" During 1 week in 2012, they invited 10 professional soloists to
Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, and assembled 13 new violins and nine old >Italians, including six Stradivariuses and two made by Guarneri del
Ges·s. The researchers did not tell the musicians that they would be
playing old and new instruments and instructed them to suppose they were >picking an instrument to use on a tour.
"The violins were winnowed to six old and six new in a double-blind
listening test judged by the soloists. Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested
out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and
one in a 300-seat auditorium. (Soloists could also play their own
instruments for comparison.) After each session, the soloists picked his
or her four favorites fiddles and rated them on scale of zero to 10 for >qualities such as articulation, projection, and playability. Finally,
after the second session, each subject had to guess whether instruments
in a small selection that included some of their favorites were old or new."
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
So what does 1 minute in a hotel room tell you?
It tells you whatever the people who pay for the study want to tell
you.
Nothing can be known. All is mystery. Ommmmm...
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:(...)
Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested
out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and
one in a 300-seat auditorium.
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for
their part in "study."
Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.
Who else would do it?
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:00:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:(...)
Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested
out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and
one in a 300-seat auditorium.
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
Note that there were TWO 75 minute sessions. I know little about
string instruments, but I assume that they are much like playing a
piano, with which I'm more familiar. I need about 5 minutes to become accustomed to the keyboard and 10 additional minutes to "warm up"
which is mostly loosening the finger muscles. However, playing the
remaining 60 minutes, in one sitting, seems rather excessive,
especially without intermission: <https://www.hellosimply.com/blog/piano-culture/piano-recital/>
Besides an intermission, some time should be allocated for the
musician to tune his violin and apply the necessary rosin.
Do you have a link to the source of this test? This seems to be your
source: <https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles>
It's behind a paywall but is easily bypassed. There doesn't seem to
be any new information on the testing details. So, I go to the
source:
"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins" <https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1323367111>
Same except in PDF format: <https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
It will take me a while to find time to dig through that article. Also
see the Supporting Info at: <https://www.pnas.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.1323367111&file=pnas.201323367si.pdf>
Offhand and from skimming, it looks like they did the best that would
be done with the time and instrument limitations.
One interesting comment from the article:
"I played the Avery Fisher Stradivarius for 6 years," she says, "and
it took me 3 years just to get accustomed to it."
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:12:31 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for
their part in "study."
Look at the top of the page for the authors (not the musicians)
employer. They're all universities and research organizations. ><https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
My guess(tm) is that the musicians were very anxious to participate in
the study and likely were working for the cost of lunch and
transportation. I couldn't find anything in the article or in the
supporting information that mentions payment.
Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.
I'm not so sure they would benefit from a test no matter that outcome: ><https://www.corilon.com/us/library/master-portraits/contemporary-violin-makers>
"Many contemporary violin makers feel as if they are overshadowed by
their famous predecessors, and as a matter of fact peopleÆs
fascination with historic masterpieces can make it difficult to
appreciate the outstanding achievements of our times. But we do not
need any blind tests which pair of historic Italian violins against >contemporary violin makers' instruments to understand that we live in
a time of abundance. Our day and age may not be as strongly
characterized by trail-blazing innovations, but there is still a high >standard of artisanry amongst nowadays violin makers, and this
standard can hold its own against that of the golden days."
It's not like the demand or market for rare historical violins is
going to disappear because of one test. It's also risky funding such
a test. If the test shows that modern violins are best in a test
funded by violin manufacturers, there would be immediate accusations
that it was rigged in favor of the manufacturers. That's a great way
to instantly destroy their reputation.
Who else would do it?
Professional musicians, academics, teaching institutions,
universities, FundMe campaign, or authors of books on music.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:12:31 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for
their part in "study."
Look at the top of the page for the authors (not the musicians)
employer. They're all universities and research organizations. <https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
My guess(tm) is that the musicians were very anxious to participate in
the study and likely were working for the cost of lunch and
transportation. I couldn't find anything in the article or in the
supporting information that mentions payment.
Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.
I'm not so sure they would benefit from a test no matter that outcome: <https://www.corilon.com/us/library/master-portraits/contemporary-violin-makers>
"Many contemporary violin makers feel as if they are overshadowed by
their famous predecessors, and as a matter of fact people’s
fascination with historic masterpieces can make it difficult to
appreciate the outstanding achievements of our times. But we do not
need any blind tests which pair of historic Italian violins against contemporary violin makers' instruments to understand that we live in
a time of abundance. Our day and age may not be as strongly
characterized by trail-blazing innovations, but there is still a high standard of artisanry amongst nowadays violin makers, and this
standard can hold its own against that of the golden days."
It's not like the demand or market for rare historical violins is
going to disappear because of one test. It's also risky funding such
a test. If the test shows that modern violins are best in a test
funded by violin manufacturers, there would be immediate accusations
that it was rigged in favor of the manufacturers. That's a great way
to instantly destroy their reputation.
Who else would do it?
Professional musicians, academics, teaching institutions,
universities, FundMe campaign, or authors of books on music.
On 12/31/2024 1:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:00:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:(...)
Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested >>> out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and >>> one in a 300-seat auditorium.
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
Note that there were TWO 75 minute sessions. I know little about
string instruments, but I assume that they are much like playing a
piano, with which I'm more familiar. I need about 5 minutes to become
accustomed to the keyboard and 10 additional minutes to "warm up"
which is mostly loosening the finger muscles. However, playing the
remaining 60 minutes, in one sitting, seems rather excessive,
especially without intermission:
<https://www.hellosimply.com/blog/piano-culture/piano-recital/>
Besides an intermission, some time should be allocated for the
musician to tune his violin and apply the necessary rosin.
Do you have a link to the source of this test? This seems to be your
source:
<https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles>
It's behind a paywall but is easily bypassed. There doesn't seem to
be any new information on the testing details. So, I go to the
source:
"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1323367111>
Same except in PDF format:
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
It will take me a while to find time to dig through that article. Also
see the Supporting Info at:
<https://www.pnas.org/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.1323367111&file=pnas.201323367si.pdf>
Offhand and from skimming, it looks like they did the best that would
be done with the time and instrument limitations.
One interesting comment from the article:
"I played the Avery Fisher Stradivarius for 6 years," she says, "and
it took me 3 years just to get accustomed to it."
Well, it's important to consider that The Experts are never
wrong about cycling lane position or about separated paths
but they know nothing about musical instruments.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:07:18 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 11:43:02 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:12:31 -0500, Catrike Rider >>><soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for >>>>their part in "study."
Look at the top of the page for the authors (not the musicians)
employer. They're all universities and research organizations. >>><https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
My guess(tm) is that the musicians were very anxious to participate in >>>the study and likely were working for the cost of lunch and >>>transportation. I couldn't find anything in the article or in the >>>supporting information that mentions payment.
Why would they disclose that?
Most research papers require a conflict of interest statement, ><https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/asjsur_coi.pdf>
which in turn required the disclosure of every organization that
financially contributed to the project. About 20 years ago, that
changed to simply stating that there was no conflict of interest
involved. For example, from the Neuro-Oncology Journal: ><https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2940661/>
I was rather surprised when I didn't see a conflict of interest
statement in the published research report.
They're professionals, are they not? They play violins for money.
Not always. Expenses are usually covered by whatever organizations
are involved. Charitable events are usually done this way. I don't
believe that there's a hard dividing line between professional and
amateur in music, like there is in athletics.
Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.
I'm not so sure they would benefit from a test no matter that outcome: >>><https://www.corilon.com/us/library/master-portraits/contemporary-violin-makers>
"Many contemporary violin makers feel as if they are overshadowed by >>>their famous predecessors, and as a matter of fact peopleÆs
fascination with historic masterpieces can make it difficult to >>>appreciate the outstanding achievements of our times. But we do not
need any blind tests which pair of historic Italian violins against >>>contemporary violin makers' instruments to understand that we live in
a time of abundance. Our day and age may not be as strongly
characterized by trail-blazing innovations, but there is still a high >>>standard of artisanry amongst nowadays violin makers, and this
standard can hold its own against that of the golden days."
It's not like the demand or market for rare historical violins is
going to disappear because of one test. It's also risky funding such
a test. If the test shows that modern violins are best in a test
funded by violin manufacturers, there would be immediate accusations
that it was rigged in favor of the manufacturers. That's a great way
to instantly destroy their reputation.
IMO, the test did exactly what it was set up to do.. indicate that
some unknown brand modern violins sound as good as the classics.
I estimated that it would take me at least a full day to read the
entire report which I consider necessary to make a determination of
what the actually did. I've analyzed quite a few RF (radio frequency) >exposure reports that failed to prove anything. Looking at the NNTP
headers, you replied to my comments about 1 hr after I posted them.
Either you are a very fast reader, you didn't read the report, or I
screwed up the time zone calculation which doesn't matter because it's
only 3 hrs. I also haven't read the entire report. Therefore, I'll
reserve my judgment until I have time read and analyzed it.
Who else would do it?
Professional musicians, academics, teaching institutions,
universities, FundMe campaign, or authors of books on music.
Studies like that cost money. It costs money to publish and disburse
the data. People don't spend money unless they expect to get something
out of it.
Yeah, I'm a cynic.
I'm usually a cynic. The difference is that I reserve judgment until
I'm moderately certain that I'm right. If I'm not certain, and need
to made an immediate determination, you'll see something like "my
guess(tm)" in the prefix. It's a clue that I'm open to correction.
Bingo. I didn't see this the first time I skimmed the article:
"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins" ><https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
At the bottom of Pg 7229 is a somewhat misplaced "Acknowledgements"
section, which includes:
"And, finally, we are grateful to the Centre National de la Recherche >Scientifique and UniversitΘ Pierre et Marie Curie for funding this
experiment and to the Violin Society of America for additional
financial support."
The following implies that at least some of the dealers, makers,
players, and collectors were not charging rent for the instruments or >charging for their time. Unfortunately, there's no clear indication
if money did or did not change hands.
"We thank all dealers, makers, players, and collectors
for their kindness and trust in making available these valuable
instruments."
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 11:43:02 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 14:12:31 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Wow, 10 professional soloists. I wonder how much they were paid for
their part in "study."
Look at the top of the page for the authors (not the musicians)
employer. They're all universities and research organizations. >><https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1323367111?download=true>
My guess(tm) is that the musicians were very anxious to participate in
the study and likely were working for the cost of lunch and
transportation. I couldn't find anything in the article or in the >>supporting information that mentions payment.
Why would they disclose that?
They're professionals, are they not? They play violins for money.
Most likely, some modern violin manufacturer(s) foot the bill.
I'm not so sure they would benefit from a test no matter that outcome: >><https://www.corilon.com/us/library/master-portraits/contemporary-violin-makers>
"Many contemporary violin makers feel as if they are overshadowed by
their famous predecessors, and as a matter of fact peopleÆs
fascination with historic masterpieces can make it difficult to
appreciate the outstanding achievements of our times. But we do not
need any blind tests which pair of historic Italian violins against >>contemporary violin makers' instruments to understand that we live in
a time of abundance. Our day and age may not be as strongly
characterized by trail-blazing innovations, but there is still a high >>standard of artisanry amongst nowadays violin makers, and this
standard can hold its own against that of the golden days."
It's not like the demand or market for rare historical violins is
going to disappear because of one test. It's also risky funding such
a test. If the test shows that modern violins are best in a test
funded by violin manufacturers, there would be immediate accusations
that it was rigged in favor of the manufacturers. That's a great way
to instantly destroy their reputation.
IMO, the test did exactly what it was set up to do.. indicate that
some unknown brand modern violins sound as good as the classics.
Who else would do it?
Professional musicians, academics, teaching institutions,
universities, FundMe campaign, or authors of books on music.
Studies like that cost money. It costs money to publish and disburse
the data. People don't spend money unless they expect to get something
out of it.
Yeah, I'm a cynic.
On 12/31/2024 2:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:00:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:(...)
Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested >>> out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and >>> one in a 300-seat auditorium.
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
Note that there were TWO 75 minute sessions. I know little about
string instruments, but I assume that they are much like playing a
piano, with which I'm more familiar. I need about 5 minutes to become
accustomed to the keyboard and 10 additional minutes to "warm up"
which is mostly loosening the finger muscles. However, playing the
remaining 60 minutes, in one sitting, seems rather excessive,
especially without intermission:
<https://www.hellosimply.com/blog/piano-culture/piano-recital/>
Besides an intermission, some time should be allocated for the
musician to tune his violin and apply the necessary rosin.
Do you have a link to the source of this test? This seems to be your
source:
<https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles>
It's behind a paywall but is easily bypassed. There doesn't seem to
be any new information on the testing details. So, I go to the
source:
"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1323367111>
I didn't read through all the information there, mostly because I've
read tons about this issue, and violin acoustics in general, over the >decades. Our department had a budget line item for Library purchases,
and I think the most expensive item I ever requested was for a book on
violin construction written by a team of two brothers who were part time >luthiers, one of whom was a machinist, the other a degreed Mechanical >Engineer. Their innovation, as described in one of my journal articles,
was the construction of several measuring tools to consistently measure >bending and torsional resistance along different axes of violin tops and >backs - an operation generally carried out with bare hands and judgment.
But over the decades, articles on violin acoustics, etc. have appeared
in many technical journals, plus popular scientific publications like >Scientific American. I probably have phototcopies of some of those
articles in my pre-internet filing cabinet.
Again, comparisons of Strads (and the like) vs. top quality modern
violins have taken place since at least the 1800s. Dedicated experts in >acoustics, instrument construction, materials, etc. have been very
curious about this issue for a long, long time. Look up Ernst Chladni
and the use of Chladni Patterns to analyze the vibration of complex
plates, like violin tops and backs.
But that matters little here. Our little local "skeptic" is perfectly >convinced that he (who has probably never played a violin) knows as much >about violin acoustics as Chladni or Stradivari or any other acoustic
expert; and that what he doesn't know is just a matter of opinion, with
every opinion being equally correct; and that all tests are biased, in >particular those that give results that are at odds with his
predetermined but ignorant opinions.
On 12/31/2024 2:22 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 13:00:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski...
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:(...)
Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and tested >>> out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small room and >>> one in a 300-seat auditorium.
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
Note that there were TWO 75 minute sessions. I know little about
string instruments, but I assume that they are much like playing a
piano, with which I'm more familiar. I need about 5 minutes to become
accustomed to the keyboard and 10 additional minutes to "warm up"
which is mostly loosening the finger muscles. However, playing the
remaining 60 minutes, in one sitting, seems rather excessive,
especially without intermission:
<https://www.hellosimply.com/blog/piano-culture/piano-recital/>
Besides an intermission, some time should be allocated for the
musician to tune his violin and apply the necessary rosin.
Do you have a link to the source of this test? This seems to be your
source:
<https://www.science.org/content/article/elite-violinists-fail-distinguish-legendary-violins-modern-fiddles>
It's behind a paywall but is easily bypassed. There doesn't seem to
be any new information on the testing details. So, I go to the
source:
"Soloist evaluations of six Old Italian and six new violins"
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1323367111>
I didn't read through all the information there, mostly because I've
read tons about this issue, and violin acoustics in general, over the decades. Our department had a budget line item for Library purchases,
and I think the most expensive item I ever requested was for a book on
violin construction written by a team of two brothers who were part time luthiers, one of whom was a machinist, the other a degreed Mechanical Engineer. Their innovation, as described in one of my journal articles,
was the construction of several measuring tools to consistently measure bending and torsional resistance along different axes of violin tops and backs - an operation generally carried out with bare hands and judgment.
But over the decades, articles on violin acoustics, etc. have appeared
in many technical journals, plus popular scientific publications like Scientific American. I probably have phototcopies of some of those
articles in my pre-internet filing cabinet.
Again, comparisons of Strads (and the like) vs. top quality modern
violins have taken place since at least the 1800s. Dedicated experts in acoustics, instrument construction, materials, etc. have been very
curious about this issue for a long, long time. Look up Ernst Chladni
and the use of Chladni Patterns to analyze the vibration of complex
plates, like violin tops and backs.
But that matters little here. Our little local "skeptic" is perfectly convinced that he (who has probably never played a violin) knows as much about violin acoustics as Chladni or Stradivari or any other acoustic
expert; and that what he doesn't know is just a matter of opinion, with
every opinion being equally correct; and that all tests are biased, in particular those that give results that are at odds with his
predetermined but ignorant opinions.
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.
These tests have been performed many, many times since the 1800s in
various environments. The most frequent result by far is that
multi-million dollar Strads are not magic.
From one of the articles I cited, which you apparently did _not_ read:
" During 1 week in 2012, they invited 10 professional soloists to
Vincennes, a suburb of Paris, and assembled 13 new violins and nine
old Italians, including six Stradivariuses and two made by Guarneri
del Gesús. The researchers did not tell the musicians that they would
be playing old and new instruments and instructed them to suppose they
were picking an instrument to use on a tour.
"The violins were winnowed to six old and six new in a double-blind
listening test judged by the soloists. Then, each of them donned dark
goggles so they couldn't distinguish the instruments by sight and
tested out these top fiddles in two 75-minute sessions, one in a small
room and one in a 300-seat auditorium. (Soloists could also play their
own instruments for comparison.) After each session, the soloists
picked his or her four favorites fiddles and rated them on scale of
zero to 10 for qualities such as articulation, projection, and
playability. Finally, after the second session, each subject had to
guess whether instruments in a small selection that included some of
their favorites were old or new."
If you read that before, you should have taken notes when reading "75
minute sessions" and "300-seat auditorium."
It tells you whatever the people who pay for the study want to tell
So what does 1 minute in a hotel room tell you?
you.
Nothing can be known. All is mystery. Ommmmm...
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. I object to buying and selling a few things, like vice presidents, but free commerce in violins is something I favor.
-snip-
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference
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.
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 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."
Then we were off to the races, with a surprising number of experts
telling us all about violins.
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 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."
Then we were off to the races, with a surprising number of experts
telling us all about violins.
On 12/22/2024 8:30 PM, James wrote:
I got a snake bite puncture on one of my TPU innertubes. I
haven't bought one of the commercial patch kits, so I
thought I would try a blob of Aquaseal. Known for it's
usefulness in repairing neoprene stuff and more, I thought I
would give it a go.
I tried to rough up the TPU innertube surface, but the
sandpaper didn't seem to have much if any effect. I cleaned
it with a little Windex, and after that had dried and I had
rubbed it some more with clean tissue paper, I applied a
drop of Aquaseal to each hole.
I have the stuff that takes about a day to solidify. I left
the tube undisturbed for at least 12 hours, though I can't
recall exactly how long, before putting it back in the wheel
and inflating.
This is on my gravel bike, with 40mm tyres that I inflate to
40-45psi.
The repair has held for a few hundred kilometers at least,
and now I have put different tyres on the bike, so I
inspected the repairs.
The blobs of glue seem to have spread and flattened a bit,
but otherwise have appeared to bond well and not leaked.
Good choice. I knew nothing about the subject before
snooping around just now. It seems Aquaseal active
ingredient is methylenediphenyl diisocyanate which is
compatible to TPU polyurethane.
https://www.nrs.com/assets/downloads/msds/msds%202291%20aquaseal.pdf
https://polyurethanes.basf.us/files/pdf/2019-MDI-Handbook_EL.pdf
Making a reliable bond unlike a simple contact adhesive such
as a stick-on patch.
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/22/2024 8:30 PM, James wrote:
I got a snake bite puncture on one of my TPU innertubes. I
haven't bought one of the commercial patch kits, so I
thought I would try a blob of Aquaseal. Known for it's
usefulness in repairing neoprene stuff and more, I thought I
would give it a go.
I tried to rough up the TPU innertube surface, but the
sandpaper didn't seem to have much if any effect. I cleaned
it with a little Windex, and after that had dried and I had
rubbed it some more with clean tissue paper, I applied a
drop of Aquaseal to each hole.
I have the stuff that takes about a day to solidify. I left
the tube undisturbed for at least 12 hours, though I can't
recall exactly how long, before putting it back in the wheel
and inflating.
This is on my gravel bike, with 40mm tyres that I inflate to
40-45psi.
The repair has held for a few hundred kilometers at least,
and now I have put different tyres on the bike, so I
inspected the repairs.
The blobs of glue seem to have spread and flattened a bit,
but otherwise have appeared to bond well and not leaked.
Good choice. I knew nothing about the subject before
snooping around just now. It seems Aquaseal active
ingredient is methylenediphenyl diisocyanate which is
compatible to TPU polyurethane.
https://www.nrs.com/assets/downloads/msds/msds%202291%20aquaseal.pdf
https://polyurethanes.basf.us/files/pdf/2019-MDI-Handbook_EL.pdf
Making a reliable bond unlike a simple contact adhesive such
as a stick-on patch.
Yup interesting stuff, I’d not persisted with TPU tubes, as on the Gravel bike tubeless has solved that, and TPU seem to puncture just as easily as butyl
I’ve toyed with idea of the MTB as with that and it’s burly tires punctures
aren’t a thing, but on the other hand would one notice the difference with a TPU tube in terms of feel?
Hence I’ve chosen to not fix what isn’t broke for time being.
Roger Merriman
On 12/26/2024 9:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/22/2024 8:30 PM, James wrote:
I got a snake bite puncture on one of my TPU innertubes.á I
haven't bought one of the commercial patch kits, so I
thought I would try a blob of Aquaseal.á Known for it's
usefulness in repairing neoprene stuff and more, I thought I
would give it a go.
I tried to rough up the TPU innertube surface, but the
sandpaper didn't seem to have much if any effect.á I cleaned
it with a little Windex, and after that had dried and I had
rubbed it some more with clean tissue paper, I applied a
drop of Aquaseal to each hole.
I have the stuff that takes about a day to solidify.á I left
the tube undisturbed for at least 12 hours, though I can't
recall exactly how long, before putting it back in the wheel
and inflating.
This is on my gravel bike, with 40mm tyres that I inflate to
40-45psi.
The repair has held for a few hundred kilometers at least,
and now I have put different tyres on the bike, so I
inspected the repairs.
The blobs of glue seem to have spread and flattened a bit,
but otherwise have appeared to bond well and not leaked.
Good choice. I knew nothing about the subject before
snooping around just now. It seems Aquaseal active
ingredient is methylenediphenyl diisocyanate which is
compatible to TPU polyurethane.
https://www.nrs.com/assets/downloads/msds/msds%202291%20aquaseal.pdf
https://polyurethanes.basf.us/files/pdf/2019-MDI-Handbook_EL.pdf
Making a reliable bond unlike a simple contact adhesive such
as a stick-on patch.
Yup interesting stuff, IÆd not persisted with TPU tubes, as on the Gravel
bike tubeless has solved that, and TPU seem to puncture just as easily as
butyl
IÆve toyed with idea of the MTB as with that and itÆs burly tires punctures >> arenÆt a thing, but on the other hand would one notice the difference with >> a TPU tube in terms of feel?
Hence IÆve chosen to not fix what isnÆt broke for time being.
Roger Merriman
"not fix what isnÆt broke"
Good plan. Which is why I'm riding the current version of
the 300g tubulars I rode 50+ years ago.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 09:45:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/26/2024 9:20 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 12/22/2024 8:30 PM, James wrote:
I got a snake bite puncture on one of my TPU innertubes. I
haven't bought one of the commercial patch kits, so I
thought I would try a blob of Aquaseal. Known for it's
usefulness in repairing neoprene stuff and more, I thought I
would give it a go.
I tried to rough up the TPU innertube surface, but the
sandpaper didn't seem to have much if any effect. I cleaned
it with a little Windex, and after that had dried and I had
rubbed it some more with clean tissue paper, I applied a
drop of Aquaseal to each hole.
I have the stuff that takes about a day to solidify. I left
the tube undisturbed for at least 12 hours, though I can't
recall exactly how long, before putting it back in the wheel
and inflating.
This is on my gravel bike, with 40mm tyres that I inflate to
40-45psi.
The repair has held for a few hundred kilometers at least,
and now I have put different tyres on the bike, so I
inspected the repairs.
The blobs of glue seem to have spread and flattened a bit,
but otherwise have appeared to bond well and not leaked.
Good choice. I knew nothing about the subject before
snooping around just now. It seems Aquaseal active
ingredient is methylenediphenyl diisocyanate which is
compatible to TPU polyurethane.
https://www.nrs.com/assets/downloads/msds/msds%202291%20aquaseal.pdf
https://polyurethanes.basf.us/files/pdf/2019-MDI-Handbook_EL.pdf
Making a reliable bond unlike a simple contact adhesive such
as a stick-on patch.
Yup interesting stuff, Id not persisted with TPU tubes, as on the Gravel >>> bike tubeless has solved that, and TPU seem to puncture just as easily as >>> butyl
Ive toyed with idea of the MTB as with that and its burly tires punctures
arent a thing, but on the other hand would one notice the difference with >>> a TPU tube in terms of feel?
Hence Ive chosen to not fix what isnt broke for time being.
Roger Merriman
"not fix what isnt broke"
Good plan. Which is why I'm riding the current version of
the 300g tubulars I rode 50+ years ago.
Changing something that improves functionality isn't the same as
fixing something that isn't broken.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 12/26/2024 5:32 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
The issue for me is that while Gravel tires absolutely do feel more supple >> with TPU tubes, these are tires while some claimed sidewall protection,
these aren’t like Trail etc MTB tires which have reinforced noticeable
stiff sidewalls is aren’t floppy, each tire is 1kg or so.
Hence I wonder if a upgrade to TPU tubes would be noticeable...
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible
wind, of course.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference
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.
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.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the
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.
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.
On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 07:09:05 -0500, Catrike Rider
<soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 22:50:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/1/2025 7:49 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Krygowski's problem is that at the same time he complains about people >>being duped into buying things they don't need by clever marketers, he
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: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
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.
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. >>
is regularly duped by clever marketers, himself. In his case, the
clever marketers take the form of data analysts or people with a
similar title.
The data analysts, like the advertising marketers are assigned the job
of telling people how they should evaluate things. The usual method of >>doing that is to convince them that a number of people evaluate
something thus and so and since many people are group thinking
followers, they quickly fall in line.
It's sad that while humans are blessed with the power of reasoning, so
many choose coherence above critical thought.
"Look at the data," Krygowski says, "there are many people who agree
with me, why don't you?"
Life is hard for a group thinker who needs to follow the data
analysts' directions while the people he associates with directly
won't fall in line.
Frankie says (above) that "The default posture of you three is that
I'm wrong no matter what I say. You won't let yourself admit anything else."
Which simply isn't true. I label him wrong when he makes one of his
stupid statements.
For ample, he condemned the AR as a weapon "designed to kill people". >Disregardinmg the fact that the Federal Government doesn't agree with
him as if they did one would need a Federal License to buy or own one,
which you do not.
I then posted a list of every firearm designed by the Springfield
Armory as an "army rifle" i.e., a gun actually designed to kill people
and guess what, old Frankly didn't know what I was talking about,
which illustrates just how much he knows about firearms built to kill
people with. Which demonstrates just how qualified he is to discuss
such items.
So hew we have a bloke babbling about a subject that he knows nothing
about and complaining that no one pay attention to what he says.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference >>>>>> between Strads and modern violins.á It's not important to my point, >>>>>> which is that *someone* can tell the difference, even if it
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.
requires an
electron microscope.á That is all that is required to explain the
difference in price.á 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.á 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.á Paying large amounts for
something that may not be objectively better certainly seemed to bother >>>> you.á 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.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell
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.
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.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell
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.
the difference
between Strads and modern violins.á It's not important
to my point,
which is that *someone* can tell the difference, even
if it requires an
electron microscope.á That is all that is required to
explain the
difference in price.á 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.á 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.á Paying large
amounts for
something that may not be objectively better certainly
seemed to bother
you.á 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 J÷nk÷ping 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, Goⁿt
AmΘricain, 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.
On 1/2/2025 12:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
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.
YOU can't see any other purpose. That's merely a description of your
limited knowledge and mindset.
On 1/2/2025 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 10:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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...
:-) THAT'S an understatement!
... it does amply reflect price relationship to scarcity
which, as with baseball cards or Ferraris, is well
established.
Yes, as I said when I referenced Mickey Mantle cards. But
that has nothing to do with the fact that violins are
available from ~$100 to many millions of dollars. Scarcity
doubtlessly affects the price of Strads, but it can't affect
the choices between a $300 fiddle and a $2,000 fiddle, since
both are available right now. https://www.sharmusic.com/collections/best-seller-product? sort_by=price-descending
The expectation is the $2000 one will sound better - and I
expect it might. But I think violins get into the same
"diminishing returns" situation as bikes. I'm skeptical that
many can tell, in a blind test, whether a $20,000 fiddle
sounds better than a $30,000 one. And in high end road bikes
of similar construction and componentry, I think the
situation is much the same.
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.)
Please remember, I've tried to limit discussion to devices
that were at least roughly similar. Murrays were never
anything like Cinellis.
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.
Hmm. So there wouldn't be near-universal agreement that it
was better than the Pogliaghi that was next down in the
price range? ;-)
Murrays were never anything like Cinellis.
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:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell
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.
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.
On 1/2/2025 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 10:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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...
:-) THAT'S an understatement!
... it does amply reflect price relationship to scarcity
which, as with baseball cards or Ferraris, is well
established.
Yes, as I said when I referenced Mickey Mantle cards. But
that has nothing to do with the fact that violins are
available from ~$100 to many millions of dollars. Scarcity
doubtlessly affects the price of Strads, but it can't affect
the choices between a $300 fiddle and a $2,000 fiddle, since
both are available right now. https://www.sharmusic.com/collections/best-seller-product? sort_by=price-descending
The expectation is the $2000 one will sound better - and I
expect it might. But I think violins get into the same
"diminishing returns" situation as bikes. I'm skeptical that
many can tell, in a blind test, whether a $20,000 fiddle
sounds better than a $30,000 one. And in high end road bikes
of similar construction and componentry, I think the
situation is much the same.
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.)
Please remember, I've tried to limit discussion to devices
that were at least roughly similar. Murrays were never
anything like Cinellis.
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.
Hmm. So there wouldn't be near-universal agreement that it
was better than the Pogliaghi that was next down in the
price range? ;-)
On 1/2/2025 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 10:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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
J÷nk÷ping 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, Goⁿt AmΘricain, 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'.á 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...
:-) THAT'S an understatement!
... it does amply reflect price
relationship to scarcity which, as with baseball cards or Ferraris, is
well established.
Yes, as I said when I referenced Mickey Mantle cards. But that has
nothing to do with the fact that violins are available from ~$100 to
many millions of dollars. Scarcity doubtlessly affects the price of
Strads, but it can't affect the choices between a $300 fiddle and a
$2,000 fiddle, since both are available right now. >https://www.sharmusic.com/collections/best-seller-product?sort_by=price-descending
The expectation is the $2000 one will sound better - and I expect it
might. But I think violins get into the same "diminishing returns"
situation as bikes. I'm skeptical that many can tell, in a blind test, >whether a $20,000 fiddle sounds better than a $30,000 one. And in high
end road bikes of similar construction and componentry, I think the
situation is much the same.
Regarding bicycles, evaluation of handling among quality examples is
highly individual.á (for 'among quality examples', almost all road
riders will take any year Cinelli Supercorse over even the best Murray
Ohio.)
Please remember, I've tried to limit discussion to devices that were at
least roughly similar. Murrays were never anything like Cinellis.
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.
Hmm. So there wouldn't be near-universal agreement that it was better
than the Pogliaghi that was next down in the price range? ;-)
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:I did read the thread.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference
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.
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 expressed some skepticism, saying "Given what I've read aboutThe issue you introduced with violins and wines is price. Not much
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."
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.
On 1/2/2025 5:11 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:30:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 12:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
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.
YOU can't see any other purpose. That's merely a description of your
limited knowledge and mindset.
<LOL> So, what are all the other purposes that you say I missed?
You really don't deserve response, but:
Most people really interested in science are not in it for monetary
return. Your assumption that it's all about money just indicates your
own mindset.
I just had dinner with a retired biologist and naturalist. He still
actively attends conferences to further his knowledge, still writes for >publication, etc. His greatest passion is learning and passing on
knowledge. He makes no money at it, and never really did make a lot of
money.
Jim Papadopoulos is currently one of best researchers advancing the >scientific knowledge of bicycling. He's definitely not doing it for money.
There are people who study volcanoes, people who study bird migration,
people who study ancient music, and people who study countless other
topics, simply out of curiosity, of love of learning, or of desire to >increase mankind's knowledge.
I get that you're not one of them. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
I suspect that some of the people studying perception of violin sounds
are interested in advancing the technology of violins. Some of them
might be doing it hoping to personally make money by selling violins
they produce. But I very much doubt those people are in the majority.
On 12/27/2024 3:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If
someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of
terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good
information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible
wind, of course.
The difference I was talking about was feel, than any speed/rolling
resistance gains which apparently one does also gain.
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.
On 12/27/2024 3:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If
someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of
terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good
information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible
wind, of course.
The difference I was talking about was feel, than any speed/rolling
resistance gains which apparently one does also gain.
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.
On 12/27/2024 3:54 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'd be interested in people's personal measurements of differences. If
someone here had access to some long, gentle downhill and kept track of
terminal coasting speed using different tires, different tubes, but
otherwise identical equipment, terminal coasting speeds might be good
information.
It would be best to test in consistent temperatures and with negligible
wind, of course.
The difference I was talking about was feel, than any speed/rolling
resistance gains which apparently one does also gain.
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.
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 21:40:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 12/27/2024 2:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/27/2024 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Given what I've read about violins (Stradivarius can't be told from
modern ones in blind hearing tests)
horseshit. Someone with training and experience can most certainly tell
the difference in the tonal quality between a Stradivarius and even a
high quality modern violin.
https://www.science.org/content/article/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check
and wines (cheap wines really light up pleasure centers in the brain
if tasters are told the wine is expensive),
more horseshit. Someone with training and experience can certainly tell
the difference in the flavor profiles, especially if you tried to dupe
them with a Gallo. >>https://money.com/expensive-price-tag-cheap-wine-brain-placebo-effect/
I notice hat you didn't quote the portion of your reference that
states
"One big grain of salt? Neuroscientists don't all agree that using
brain structure to infer behavior or personality makes for sound
scienceùand Plassmann and Weber acknowledge in their study that some >researchers are skeptical of that methodology in general."
On 1/2/2025 10:09 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
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:I did read the thread.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote: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
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.
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 expressed some skepticism, saying "Given what I've read aboutThe issue you introduced with violins and wines is price. Not much
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."
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.
Prices in our society, insofar as it functions, are negotiated, not
assigned. Sometimes just by large numbers of people deciding to buy or
not, but still.
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.
That's fairly clear, but it reads like a burlesque of the engineering
mentality. Reminds me a bit of a guy with whom I shared an apartment
while in grad school. His position was that food should never cost more
than $0.79 per pound, that being the price of a whole chicken at the
grocery store. A few years after he got his degree and went back to
France (of all places) I heard that he had committed suicide. Still
makes me sad sometimes.
Suppose I apply your logic to paintings, which are expected to look nice
hanging on a wall. I might have a painting that looks very much like
one done by Jan Vermeer -- similar perspective, colors, composition,
brushstrokes. It might be difficult for anyone to tell that it was not
actually painted by Vermeer. Alas, were that to be discovered the price
would collapse.
Perhaps if it turned out to be a genuine fake Van Meegeren it might have
enough historical weight to be worth at least something:
https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/best-vermeers-forger-and-his-fakes/
Is this rational? I don't know, but that is how the market works.
A violin, particularly one more that three centuries old, is not just a
practical means of making sounds. It is a historical artifact and a
work of art. That it plays about as well as the best modern instruments
is remarkable. If you don't value these things, (and there is no reason
you should), then you're just not part of the market. A few hundred
examples is a tiny number when one Chinese city supposedly produces more
than one million violins every year. Really high quality modern violins
seem to go for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so millions for a
Stradivarius doesn't seem absurd.
Wine is another example where the really expensive bottles really are
quite rare -- every vintage year in every vinyard is different, and
every year of aging makes a difference as well. Can most people taste
the difference between an excellent bottle and a really valuable one?
Likely not, but most people are again just not part of that market.
There is a more quotidian example of big differences in wine pricing,
though, and that is buying a bottle of wine in a nice restaurant.
Likely you will play three or four times what you would in a store, but
people do that every day. They like to drink their wine with good food,
in a celebratory atmosphere, and maybe even show off. Is it rational,
when they could buy better tasting wine for less and stay home drinking
it out of dixie cups in their underwear? Once again, I don't know.
I agree that it's hard to compare bicycle components by feel, especially
when relying on memory, but I don't think that violins or wine are close
to being analogous. No one trains his butt to feel the subtle
difference in bike ride the way wine tasters develop their senses, or
pays as much attention to the exact sensory experience of road vibration
as musicians do to the sound of music.
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.
Surely part of the trouble here is that the most expensive wasn't
supposed to be the most pleasant to ride, it was supposed to be
the fastest. That also may not have been true, but at least it's closer
to being measurable.
Thanks for a much more reasonable reasonable response than most.
Naturally, I especially liked "I agree that it's hard to compare bicycle >components by feel," since that was the point I was trying to make, and
to illustrate by analogies with violins and wines.
On 1/2/2025 12:21 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
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.
YOU can't see any other purpose. That's merely a description of your
limited knowledge and mindset.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
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:I did read the thread.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 12/31/2024 6:25 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:I have no opinion on whether violin players can tell the difference
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.
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 expressed some skepticism, saying "Given what I've read aboutThe issue you introduced with violins and wines is price. Not much
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."
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.
Prices in our society, insofar as it functions, are negotiated, not
assigned. Sometimes just by large numbers of people deciding to buy or
not, but still.
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.
That's fairly clear, but it reads like a burlesque of the engineering mentality. Reminds me a bit of a guy with whom I shared an apartment
while in grad school. His position was that food should never cost more
than $0.79 per pound, that being the price of a whole chicken at the
grocery store. A few years after he got his degree and went back to
France (of all places) I heard that he had committed suicide. Still
makes me sad sometimes.
Suppose I apply your logic to paintings, which are expected to look nice hanging on a wall. I might have a painting that looks very much like
one done by Jan Vermeer -- similar perspective, colors, composition, brushstrokes. It might be difficult for anyone to tell that it was not actually painted by Vermeer. Alas, were that to be discovered the price would collapse.
Perhaps if it turned out to be a genuine fake Van Meegeren it might have enough historical weight to be worth at least something:
https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/best-vermeers-forger-and-his-fakes/
Is this rational? I don't know, but that is how the market works.
A violin, particularly one more that three centuries old, is not just a practical means of making sounds. It is a historical artifact and a
work of art. That it plays about as well as the best modern instruments
is remarkable. If you don't value these things, (and there is no reason
you should), then you're just not part of the market. A few hundred
examples is a tiny number when one Chinese city supposedly produces more
than one million violins every year. Really high quality modern violins
seem to go for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so millions for a Stradivarius doesn't seem absurd.
Wine is another example where the really expensive bottles really are
quite rare -- every vintage year in every vinyard is different, and
every year of aging makes a difference as well. Can most people taste
the difference between an excellent bottle and a really valuable one?
Likely not, but most people are again just not part of that market.
There is a more quotidian example of big differences in wine pricing,
though, and that is buying a bottle of wine in a nice restaurant.
Likely you will play three or four times what you would in a store, but people do that every day. They like to drink their wine with good food,
in a celebratory atmosphere, and maybe even show off. Is it rational,
when they could buy better tasting wine for less and stay home drinking
it out of dixie cups in their underwear? Once again, I don't know.
I agree that it's hard to compare bicycle components by feel, especially
when relying on memory, but I don't think that violins or wine are close
to being analogous. No one trains his butt to feel the subtle
difference in bike ride the way wine tasters develop their senses, or
pays as much attention to the exact sensory experience of road vibration
as musicians do to the sound of music.
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.
Surely part of the trouble here is that the most expensive wasn't
supposed to be the most pleasant to ride, it was supposed to be
the fastest. That also may not have been true, but at least it's closer
to being measurable.
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.
On 1/2/2025 5:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 3:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/2/2025 1:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/2/2025 10:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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...
:-) THAT'S an understatement!
... it does amply reflect price relationship to scarcity
which, as with baseball cards or Ferraris, is well
established.
Yes, as I said when I referenced Mickey Mantle cards. But
that has nothing to do with the fact that violins are
available from ~$100 to many millions of dollars.
Scarcity doubtlessly affects the price of Strads, but it
can't affect the choices between a $300 fiddle and a
$2,000 fiddle, since both are available right now.
https://www.sharmusic.com/collections/best-seller-
product? sort_by=price-descending
The expectation is the $2000 one will sound better - and
I expect it might. But I think violins get into the same
"diminishing returns" situation as bikes. I'm skeptical
that many can tell, in a blind test, whether a $20,000
fiddle sounds better than a $30,000 one. And in high end
road bikes of similar construction and componentry, I
think the situation is much the same.
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.)
Please remember, I've tried to limit discussion to
devices that were at least roughly similar. Murrays were
never anything like Cinellis.
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.
Hmm. So there wouldn't be near-universal agreement that
it was better than the Pogliaghi that was next down in
the price range? ;-)
Nope. No such thing.
Sante Pogliaghi didn't build anything 2d class or 'low
price' at that time.
<sigh> OK. But I think most manufacturers did have a range
of models, varying in price. I think most consumers expected
the more expensive models should "feel" better, or perhaps
be faster, or whatever. I think they expected that whether
they could actually "feel" it, or more likely not.
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
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.
As Andrew has pointed out, there are exceptions. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Strange, but your reading comprehension does seem a bit faulty..
I write, "people have a preconceived price that they feel an item is
worth", and you leap into the stadium and talk about people who buy at excessive costs, basically to show off.
Isn't that what I said, or don't you think that the big flashily car
in the drive is doing what it was bought for?
"See over there? That guy must have a whole bunch of money. See the
big electric car in the drive?
(But it looks like he went a bit overboard as I notice he don't drive
it much. Rides his old bicycle to the library...")
On 1/2/2025 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/2/2025 7:30 PM, John B. wrote:
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.
As Andrew has pointed out, there are exceptions. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Strange, but your reading comprehension does seem a bit faulty..
I write, "people have a preconceived price that they feel an item is
worth", and you leap into the stadium and talk about people who buy at
excessive costs, basically to show off.
Isn't that what I said, or don't you think that the big flashily car
in the drive is doing what it was bought for?
"See over there? That guy must have a whole bunch of money. See the
big electric car in the drive?
(But it looks like he went a bit overboard as I notice he don't drive
it much. Rides his old bicycle to the library...")
Perhaps you mistake Mr Krygowski's point.
Veblen value, resale value, aesthetic value all add or
subtract to customer satisfaction besides performance,
utility etc. The relative and absolute significance varies
individually, by a lot, but they are all truly factors as
anyone in sales knows well.
On 1/3/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
My purchase of my Corsa went the opposite way. As an
I suspect that individual expectation and taste affect
other purchases. For another example, I bought my first
Corvair impulsively. I wasn't looking for a car and the
seller was short of cash. I took to the handling and road
feel right away, before I knew much of the Corvair
platform's features and foibles.
engineering student interested in cars, I was very happy
that American automotive industry had finally done something
more interesting and creative than "engine in front, solid
axle rear." And I liked the looks of the 2nd generation
Corvairs.
When I could finally afford to buy a car, I actually looked
for some used European sports car, but I couldn't find one
that was not rusted out or otherwise in bad shape. I did
find a good Corvair, and was very happy with my choice.
But regarding "feel," the Corsa was as different from other
Detroit offerings as your Pogliaghi was from a Schwinn
single speed cruiser. As I've tried (and tried!) to make
clear, most of my remarks have been about people judging
between two products that are quite similar.
On 1/3/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
My purchase of my Corsa went the opposite way. As an engineering student >interested in cars, I was very happy that American automotive industry
I suspect that individual expectation and taste affect other purchases.
For another example, I bought my first Corvair impulsively. I wasn't
looking for a car and the seller was short of cash. I took to the
handling and road feel right away, before I knew much of the Corvair
platform's features and foibles.
had finally done something more interesting and creative than "engine in >front, solid axle rear." And I liked the looks of the 2nd generation >Corvairs.
When I could finally afford to buy a car, I actually looked for some
used European sports car, but I couldn't find one that was not rusted
out or otherwise in bad shape. I did find a good Corvair, and was very
happy with my choice.
But regarding "feel," the Corsa was as different from other Detroit
offerings as your Pogliaghi was from a Schwinn single speed cruiser. As
I've tried (and tried!) to make clear, most of my remarks have been
about people judging between two products that are quite similar.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:39:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
My purchase of my Corsa went the opposite way. As an engineering student
I suspect that individual expectation and taste affect other purchases.
For another example, I bought my first Corvair impulsively. I wasn't
looking for a car and the seller was short of cash. I took to the
handling and road feel right away, before I knew much of the Corvair
platform's features and foibles.
interested in cars, I was very happy that American automotive industry
had finally done something more interesting and creative than "engine in
front, solid axle rear." And I liked the looks of the 2nd generation
Corvairs.
When I could finally afford to buy a car, I actually looked for some
used European sports car, but I couldn't find one that was not rusted
out or otherwise in bad shape. I did find a good Corvair, and was very
happy with my choice.
But regarding "feel," the Corsa was as different from other Detroit
offerings as your Pogliaghi was from a Schwinn single speed cruiser. As
I've tried (and tried!) to make clear, most of my remarks have been
about people judging between two products that are quite similar.
I bought a new new '66' Corvair Monza coup. A friend let me drive his
Porche 911. I was very impressed, but I couldn't afford a 911, and
frankly, the Corvair was better looking than the early 911s.
I traded it when I decided I needed a pickup truck. I don't know how
anyone gets along without a pickup truck or a van.
On 1/3/2025 11:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/3/2025 10:39 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...
As I've tried (and tried!) to make clear, most of my
remarks have been about people judging between two
products that are quite similar.
Yes and there's the rub. Similar to whom?
Or backing up a bit, some people pay a lot for
Stradivarius violins or rare vintages or what have you
_for their own reasons_ by their own criteria. Those
criteria go beyond utility, resale value etc. Even your
comments include, "...I liked the looks...".
About Strads: Similar to whom? Similar to experts.
More detail: The Strad tests have been done for and by
people who were in the upper echelon of classical violin
skill and/or appreciation - that is, both players and
listeners.
A fiddler at my level would never even be allowed to handle
a Strad. And supposedly, since Strads are the most common
model for emulating by modern builders, one generally can't
tell if one is holding a Strad or a modern copy. (Some
modern luthiers take pains to replicate "aging" on their
violins.) (Oh, and there are millions of machine-made
violins with fake Stradivarius labels inside them. You can
look that up.)
As long as we're on the topic, I highly recommend the film
_The Red Violin_. It's the story of a similar ancient violin
through the ages. The ending is very relevant to this
discussion.
On 1/3/2025 11:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/3/2025 10:39 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:...
As I've tried (and tried!) to make clear, most of my remarks have been
about people judging between two products that are quite similar.
Yes and there's the rub. Similar to whom?
Or backing up a bit, some people pay a lot for Stradivarius violins or
rare vintages or what have you _for their own reasons_ by their own
criteria.á Those criteria go beyond utility, resale value etc. Even your
comments include, "...I liked the looks...".
About Strads: Similar to whom? Similar to experts.
More detail: The Strad tests have been done for and by people who were
in the upper echelon of classical violin skill and/or appreciation -
that is, both players and listeners.
A fiddler at my level would never even be allowed to handle a Strad. And >supposedly, since Strads are the most common model for emulating by
modern builders, one generally can't tell if one is holding a Strad or a >modern copy. (Some modern luthiers take pains to replicate "aging" on
their violins.) (Oh, and there are millions of machine-made violins with
fake Stradivarius labels inside them. You can look that up.)
As long as we're on the topic, I highly recommend the film _The Red
Violin_. It's the story of a similar ancient violin through the ages.
The ending is very relevant to this discussion.
On 1/3/2025 11:21 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:39:50 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/3/2025 9:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
My purchase of my Corsa went the opposite way. As an engineering student >>> interested in cars, I was very happy that American automotive industry
I suspect that individual expectation and taste affect other purchases. >>>> For another example, I bought my first Corvair impulsively. I wasn't
looking for a car and the seller was short of cash. I took to the
handling and road feel right away, before I knew much of the Corvair
platform's features and foibles.
had finally done something more interesting and creative than "engine in >>> front, solid axle rear." And I liked the looks of the 2nd generation
Corvairs.
When I could finally afford to buy a car, I actually looked for some
used European sports car, but I couldn't find one that was not rusted
out or otherwise in bad shape. I did find a good Corvair, and was very
happy with my choice.
But regarding "feel," the Corsa was as different from other Detroit
offerings as your Pogliaghi was from a Schwinn single speed cruiser. As
I've tried (and tried!) to make clear, most of my remarks have been
about people judging between two products that are quite similar.
I bought a new new '66' Corvair Monza coup. A friend let me drive his
Porche 911. I was very impressed, but I couldn't afford a 911, and
frankly, the Corvair was better looking than the early 911s.
I traded it when I decided I needed a pickup truck. I don't know how
anyone gets along without a pickup truck or a van.
Good point.
I'm unimpressed with the genre (I owned a $100 pickup for
four years as a winter vehicle and had no complaints, but I
didn't love it either).
Conversely, Ford and GM pickups trade #1 and #2 for most
popular vehicle in USA and have led that list for decades so
someone besides you sees value in them. And of that value,
the manufacturers clearly and openly admit their margins are
higher on pickups than other vehicles.
p.s. to Mr Krygowski: They aren't all black.
On 1/3/2025 1:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/3/2025 11:21 AM, Catrike Rider wrote:
I don't know how
anyone gets along without a pickup truck or a van.
Good point.
I'm unimpressed with the genre (I owned a $100 pickup for four years as
a winter vehicle and had no complaints, but I didn't love it either).
Conversely, Ford and GM pickups trade #1 and #2 for most popular vehicle
in USA and have led that list for decades so someone besides you sees
value in them.
Fashion is weird and powerful. Fashion has people devoting hours to
watching game shows on TV, putting high maintenance wooden decks on the
back of their houses, buying the same big fancy outdoor grill as their >neighbors, buying bikes with more gears than they ever use, bikes with >super-narrow tires... oops, no, now it's much wider tires, etc.
Fashion drives the sale of lots of pickup trucks. Not all, admittedly,
but it certainly boosts sales.
How do people live without a pickup truck? Well, I built a utility
trailer decades ago. I use it maybe once per year.
Most people would use
one even less, but they still buy pickup trucks, just in case the bags
of mulch won't fit in their trunk someday.
On 27/12/24 02:20, Roger Merriman wrote:
Yup interesting stuff, I’d not persisted with TPU tubes, as on the Gravel >> bike tubeless has solved that, and TPU seem to puncture just as easily as
butyl
I’ve toyed with idea of the MTB as with that and it’s burly tires punctures
aren’t a thing, but on the other hand would one notice the difference with >> a TPU tube in terms of feel?
Hence I’ve chosen to not fix what isn’t broke for time being.
I swap tyres fairly often on my gravel bike. Some 30mm road slicks,
40mm light gravel, 45mm for rougher gravel, etc. I don't want to be
messing around with liquid sealant.