going more than 15mph

[themutiny]

Hmm....

At the risk of being flamed, I would make the following comments.

Nick/Tony/John are all correct in their observations. Technically (I think) Nick and John are correct, but for the purposes of this forum, Tony makes a valid point.

I do not frequent forums generally, and indeed I lurked on this one for two years before I actually joined. I still remember the trepidation of my first post.

The reason that I joined is that unlike other forums, there seemed to be a degree of camaraderie (or something similar) that I hadn't observed before. Try some of the IT techie forums - it's all about one-upmanship. Most distasteful...

Anyhoo:

I have noticed a worrying tendency developing - point scoring, pedantry and in some cases thinly veiled insults creeping in. I believe that Tony has absented himself from this forum in the past - I don't know the reason why, but I would hazard a guess that he got fed up with his genuinely well-intentioned advice being criticised in an unwarranted manner. I'm also guessing that the forum was all the poorer for his absence.

In the interests of balance, I have also noted that Tony is never wrong - and that ain't right either. Only our wives are infallible

Please don't interpret my comments as critical of anyone, as that certainly isn't my intention, but please guys - be a bit nicer to each other?

Of course it may just be the cut and thrust of forum politics, which, as a relative newbie I am ignorant of. If this is the case then I quit.

On a completely different and off thread topic. Have you seen Avatar in 3D?

I am gobsmacked that such a technologically advanced 'thing' can be produced, but we still can't produce the right batteries for our bikes ;-)

.

 

[flecc]

In the interests of balance, I have also noted that Tony is never wrong - and that ain't right either. Only our wives are infallible

Nothing there to upset me Nick, and you are quite right, it simply isn't possible that I'm never wrong.

It's true that I fight my corner vigorously to defend my intentions, but it's also true that I've many times acknowledged being wrong and apologised on each of those occasions. It's a pity that I haven't kept to links to those since the number ogf occasions might surprise.

However, I fight my corner when I intend to be somewhat inaccurate for simplicity's sake, and that frequently happens. As my responses above clearly show, I was well aware of the fact that John was right and knew the facts before anyway. So although I was technically wrong, I insist I was right to post in the way I did for simplicity and adequate understanding.

So will I post with technical precision as my main objective in future? No, I absolutely will not since it isn't effective in imparting sufficient understanding to the largest number.

Anyway, what on earth is the point of my posting technical precision at the cost of loss of effectiveness, just to please the few who already know the technical precision anyway?
.

 

[themutiny]

Hi Tony

If I didn't make myslef clear, I was defending your stance. I did my best to indicate that the quoted comment was tongue-in-cheek?

Cheers, Nick

 

[Tiberius]

In the interests of balance, I have also noted that Tony is never wrong - and that ain't right either. Only our wives are infallible

Hi Nick,

Throwaway comment or not, you may have hit the nail on the head. I always say the best jokes work because they have an element of truth in them.

Like John, I have no interest in winding anyone up. But I am concerned by some goings-on on a forum that I like, that has been very helpful to me, and through which I've made a number of good friends.

Tony,

When John pointed out the mistake about torque, you responded quite sharply to him. You subsequently accused him of upbraiding you, spoiling your reputation and point scoring. I read it just as a simple correction of a slip.

You then argued that the slip was intentional, in the interests of simplifying things for the audience. I don't find that plausible - it would have been far simpler to leave the word torque out.

You posted things like "when maximum power coincides with the torque curve that the hill climbing is optimal" which, forgive me, is just technobabble. Sentences like that also destroy the argument about simplification for the audience.

You argued that the audience actually wants to hear things like that rather than the scientific truth. It is interesting that a couple of people chimed in to agree, but that's still no justification for feeding them wrong information.

You claim a dual competency in being able to talk to the common man and talk accurately. Many of us have that, but its not a licence to say whatever we like. Its easy enough to simplify things and still be accurate.

In short, you seem to have done everything you can to avoid saying sorry, I made a little slip.

Now, it is very good that you are on here. Your contribution is invaluable; I have benefited many times from your help and advice. But it is not good if people become afraid to post for fear of crossing you.

I think John deserves an apology.

Nick

 

[Straylight]

As a lighting technician, who often works with utterly non-technical creatives and administratives, I know only too well the need for an interpretive ability in order to convey the point of complex ideas to those who have no need of interest in the reasons behind them (usually about why it's impossible to bend light in mid air ). Conversely between my peers, there is again little need to go into the precepts, as they're immediately obvious to anyone who works with them every day.

Everything in between, to me, falls into the category of dull academia, being a necessary evil to have to get one's head round, to enable access to the ability to tinker with the fun stuff. There is already a vast resource on the web relating to such detail for any one who cares to look.

For me, ebiking is about the experience of actually riding the thing, the technicalities only come to my attention when there's something I want to improve, or (heaven forfend) something goes wrong. At which point, I, like many others, am liable to come somewhere like this, and ask a specific question hoping that someone else here has come across the situation before.

On the other hand, it is occasionally fun to explore the possibilities of how to improve the experience generally, but I don't take such daydreaming seriously, and certainly don't expect to have anything approaching an original idea, as I know there are far more specialised minds already pondering the problem.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that we are, on the whole, an end user group, and as such I've found the support and information invaluable, along with the general good humour, and sense of perspective of it's participants. We do, however have to be somewhat self editing in order to preserve what keeps people coming back, and be aware that in posting here, we are showing anyone interested in purchasing one of these remarkable machines, what they might turn into So can we please cut the crap, and keep it fun?

 

[Mussels]

As a lighting technician, who often works with utterly non-technical creatives and administratives, I know only too well the need for an interpretive ability in order to convey the point of complex ideas to those who have no need of interest in the reasons behind them (usually about why it's impossible to bend light in mid air ).

Ahem, keep it technically accurate please.

 

[Straylight]

Well, I'm sorry I'm the one to have to tell you this, but....umm, no-one's actually built a working light-sabre yet......

Maybe I should have said "not yet possible" - damn, semantics are such a minefield aren't they?

 

[eddieo]

what the frack is going on here!

Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot
Fighting in the captain's tower
While calypso singers laugh at them
And fishermen hold flowers
Between the windows of the sea
Where lovely mermaids flow
And nobody has to think too much
About Desolation Row
(B Dylan)

What E bikes are you guys actually riding these days?

 

[flecc]

Throwaway comment or not, you may have hit the nail on the head. I always say the best jokes work because they have an element of truth in them.

This reference to my always professing to be right doesn't match with the times I've apologised in here for errors. Only the day before yesterday I acknowledged that my poor choice of words led to a misunderstanding, accompanying that with an embarrassed smiley. Here's the link.

You then argued that the slip was intentional, in the interests of simplifying things for the audience. I don't find that plausible - it would have been far simpler to leave the word torque out.

I am not a liar Nick, it was intentional as it has been every time I've used the same explanation for a very long time. The next answer also applies. I'm sorry you can't understand the explanatory value of using all the terms without precisely defining and accurately using them, but I do.

You posted things like "when maximum power coincides with the torque curve that the hill climbing is optimal" which, forgive me, is just technobabble. Sentences like that also destroy the argument about simplification for the audience.

Of course it's technobabble to you Nick, though I prefer the more accurate description, approximation, and that's precisely the intention. I understand that your scientist's mind may not be able to conceive of anyone not wanting precise explanations and preferring something approximate and not entirely accurate that enables them to understand enough for their purposes, but if that's the case, it's your problem, not mine.

You argued that the audience actually wants to hear things like that rather than the scientific truth. It is interesting that a couple of people chimed in to agree, but that's still no justification for feeding them wrong information.

Of course they want to hear things like that! Those couple of people (actually three in the interests of accuracy. ) who chimed in to agree are representative of the great majority of the population. Most people do not want the complexities of full technical understanding and are not concerned about precise accuracy. They just want enough information to understand and the frequency of the support I get on this issue shows how clearly that is true.

All too often I see in here and elsewhere how the accurate technical answer doesn't serve. The majority of the population simply "switch off" when receiving precise technical answers, and often struggle with simplified but still accurate ones. That's why BBC 2 and such programs as Horizon only attract minority audiences.

Therefore I will continue to answer in my more universely effective way until such time as these disputes force me out of the forum.

I don't owe John an apology for the method of answering questions that I use since it's intentional and effective. However, I'm more than happy to apologise if the impatience of my response caused hurt since that was not my intention.

It arose from my frustration at the repeated failure of appreciation of why I post as I do. Sadly it seems you still do not understand, but I'm happy that the many who appreciate my answers do.
.

 

[Straylight]

I do appreciate a good sense of perspective - don't you? Helps to see the relative significance of things, and say, in the final analysis "hang the sense of it, being happy is the best we can hope for"

 

[flecc]

Hi Tony

If I didn't make myslef clear, I was defending your stance. I did my best to indicate that the quoted comment was tongue-in-cheek?

Cheers, Nick

I did understand Nick and thanks for the support which is greatly appreciated, but you gave me that chance to try to clarify a couple of things. Probably a waste of time though.
.

 

[Alex728]

As a lighting technician, who often works with utterly non-technical creatives and administratives, I know only too well the need for an interpretive ability in order to convey the point of complex ideas to those who have no need of interest in the reasons behind them (usually about why it's impossible to bend light in mid air ). Conversely between my peers, there is again little need to go into the precepts, as they're immediately obvious to anyone who works with them every day.

I work in telecoms/networking and end users still "pick up" a phone and "hang up" or even "ring off" when they are finished with their call, rather than "seizes and clears", and telephones rarely have handles at the side of them to turn the magneto these days!, nor separate receivers to "hang" on a switch hook..

And if I tell users that we have a "PABX with linked numbering scheme with levels 2 and 3 provisioned to different CCUs" they will shake their heads and say "I'm hooly confoosed, bor", so I just say "extensions 200-299 got to one exchange, 300-379 to another, and we don't need extra codes to dial to other buildings"..

I would have immediately thought it was obvious you cannot bend light in mid-air, but I do come from an engineering background and I used to do lighting/sound for raves until a few years ago (not in East Anglia though in case any coppers are reading ). I often had to explain basic engineering to young people such as DJ's and musicians - what I am saying is we just cannot assume that everyone has tech/science knowledge.

 

[john]

I don't owe John an apology for the method of answering questions that I use since it's intentional and effective.

Quite so, no apology needed.

However, I'm more than happy to apologise if the impatience of my response caused hurt since that was not my intention.

Thanks for that flecc, I think there was some hurt on both sides and I too apologise for any upset I might have caused.
Cheers, John

 

[flecc]

Thanks for that flecc, I think there was some hurt on both sides and I too apologise for any upset I might have caused.
Cheers, John

Thanks John, there really is no need for the apology since I inadvertantly provoked a situation.

As for the subject of disagreement, perhaps you can treat it in the same way as the informed treat Jeremy Clarkson's regular use of "torques" as a unit of measure, with mild amusement while understanding that the uninformed masses are happy to accept that as a measure, calculated as "lots of" or "lots and lots of".
.

 

[daniel.weck]

Good vibes...

I have a positive message for you guys:

EDIT: just read the latest replies, well done for Flecc and John to be so level-headed !

I came to this forum because of its healthy dose of scientific / geeky facts but also because of the pragmatic / hands-on approach demonstrated by its members. I enjoy reading, learning and exchanging information with the likes of Nick/Tiberius, Tony/Flecc, and many other contributors (sorry for not naming all of you explicitly, my memory is failing me ).

I love the fact that the wealth of data contained in this forum is picked-up near-instantly by external web search tools (e.g. Google), which in turn justifies why we should display a strict attitude when it comes to content correctness and relevancy. There's no need to pollute the web space with yet another sterile ego-stirring debate, or with some dividing pedantic comments about brands, cost, etc.

Editorial "accidents" like that inevitably happen, but please, let's try to keep the tone down, have a chuckle about it all, and move onto the next interesting discussion Cycling is fun, healthy, efficient, and most importantly, it's one of the few remaining truly human-centric activities in our busy individualistic consumerist world. To make sure that this forum remains a friendly place that welcomes people of all ages and of all aspirations, let's keep the bad feelings away and focus on the good things we share.

I'm relatively new to the e-biking scene, but here's what I feel about the evolution of this forum: traditionally, it seems that the more technically-inclined members of the community provide the advice/feedback necessary to keep discussions alive. This makes this forum a place worth coming to, and a place worth coming *back* to. The "guru" status of Flecc is not so much due to his knowledge / experience, but more to do with how much time he spends sharing it here. He is courteous and patient even when things get repeated over and over again (just do a search on: hub versus bottom bracket motor ).

Now, as the community is growing and as e-biking is becoming cheaper / more popular, this forum will need to adjust to a flow of new voices, and to a shift in demographics too. I think this will happen naturally, but there will always be times when ill-informed or misguided people argue about silly things. More often than not, these micro-events will be based on misunderstanding though, not worth more attention than the time it takes to finish a bag of popcorn

Till next time, cheers.
Daniel

 

[Alex728]

IThe "guru" status of Flecc is not so much due to his knowledge / experience, but more to do with how much time he spends sharing it here.

it is simply a setting on the vbulletin forum software used on this and many other internet forums, you get it after a certain number of posts. I have the same status on a VOIP/telecoms forum..

 

[daniel.weck]

it is simply a setting on the vbulletin forum software used on this and many other internet forums, you get it after a certain number of posts. I have the same status on a VOIP/telecoms forum..

I know, I am not referring to this though.

 

[eddieo]

I went out cycling today. Colder then yesterday. Thermals back on tomorrow

At times I exceeded 15 mph (thanks to traffic info signs)

Does this make me a bad person?

 

[flecc]

it is simply a setting on the vbulletin forum software used on this and many other internet forums, you get it after a certain number of posts. I have the same status on a VOIP/telecoms forum..

Not this time Alex! The only posting steps here are junior member and at 100 posts, senior member.

I kicked off the posting on this forum as the first member and was the first, and for a while, the only problem solver. One thing that cropped up was the administrator experiencing a battery failure which his bike supplier couldn't solve immediately, but after I advised the supplier what to do the battery was brought back into action. The administrator was so pleased he added the Guru title.
.

 

[ELECTRIC AVENUES]

A motor geared for a top speed of 15mph will provide more assistance on hills than a motor geared for 22mph, a faster top speed is not directly related to hill climbing ability.
How does an ammeter measure speed accurately?

More Amps drawn by Voltage = more power {Watts} generated. Its what 50A controllers are for.

What I should have said was " they have the Cycle Analysts to prove it".....

I do maintain my original point. A bike with a 22Mph capability will show a return of around 15Mph on rubbish roads and into a headwind.

I think people should be allowed to have huge power on tap- it is a natural part of the engineering psyche. Private enthusiasts push more envelopes than your average Royal Mail employee.

How they use that power is up to them. I believe in responsible use. Before too long, if enough of people misbehave on their bikes we will end up with draconian legislation being introduced by some moron in Whitehall.

I also like having a bit of power to put discipline on morons like Jeremy Clarkson, a man who is so palpably anti-cyclist as to be perfectly offensive and repugnant.