Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Catrike Rider Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Patching TPU innertube Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 17:34:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: <87h66it8m4.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <87ed1m3uqp.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 23:34:20 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="490a11b1ffa7d43139ad4d384d0b9c1e"; logging-data="3727756"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zDXQtbTXsKkY5PIxZl8aMkuym6VmNYJM=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:m0+FR0WbV4RKCispnLmCRoLBEfU= Bytes: 6097 On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:27:54 -0500, 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? ;-) So, apparently, some people make their choices based on their own criteria, while others, like you, buy onto the group thinkers' selections.