I know you were joking, but this is exactly the kind of bro-science that people start quoting like it's gospel at some point. We have 167.5 to 175 cranks in our house. Shimano does not trim the ends of their short cranks (at least not in the lower end groupsets) so the crank weight is the same whether you get "shorter" or "longer" drillings in your cranks.

FSA does the same on some of their cranks. I have 165 and 170 Gossamers, the arms are identical except for where they're drilled. Makes a lot of sense from a manufacturing point of view, you only have to have 1 forging to cover the 4 main crank lengths...

Dang. Will you measure them on a digital scale and post the pics? Thank you in advance.

Wow. Just wow. So they make a crank shorter by simply drilling the hole "shorter". That would be the simple way and cost wise way to mass produce those cranks.

For some reason, the optimist in me wants to think that every gram is being considered when delivering us a competitive bicycle part.

BigEndian and Warbird thank you. Are you two from the same tribe? :)

Wow. Just wow. So they make a crank shorter by simply drilling the hole "shorter". That would be the simple way and cost wise way to mass produce those cranks.

For some reason, the optimist in me wants to think that every gram is being considered when delivering us a competitive bicycle part.

BigEndian and Warbird thank you. Are you two from the same tribe? :)

Dave, Frank and now Noel, the Axis of Stupid is now complete.

Yes we have a thread of what seems random ideas and thoughts with no consistency in regard to outcome now overflowing into another thread of lack of understanding where the key concern is the unchanging weight of cheap cranksets.

Oh... If you can't have some fun and roll with the humor of the topic, why write such unkind words that lack charity? Just roll your eyes like you would do in real life and move on without responding.

Sometimes I think the ST forum is an outlet for the "smart" people to bash others. Something they can't do in real life without getting fired and losing friends.

Oh... If you can't have some fun and roll with the humor of the topic, why write such unkind words that lack charity? Just roll your eyes like you would do in real life and move on without responding.

Sometimes I think the ST forum is an outlet for the "smart" people to bash others. Something they can't do in real life without getting fired and losing friends.

Really nice summary! Makes me think there should be some sort of a "rate" feature where other STers could rate your posts and responses. Scale could be from Very Helpful to Total Troll. Members reaching a certain percentage of troll ratings would be suspended for a time.
Dan?
Cheers,
Jim


the sociology of forums is the same for all forums..
subaru forum,
https://forums.nasioc.com/...thread.php?t=2124899

their version of the Lavender Room is the OT, for which the advice,
" Stay Out of OT.
Until you have a very, very firm grasp on the rest of these rules, do not ever go to the Off-Topic section of this forum.
Actually, it's crowded in there. Don't go in. Seriously. You'll get your feelings hurt and there's a lot of people in there. I'm not even kidding, man.
Too many people complain about how mean everyone here is - well, yeah. That's like going to a biker bar, getting your ass beat in a bar fight, and saying that people are all horrible and that motorcycles make people into tools of Satan."

generally,
https://blog.discourse.org/...civilized-discourse/

agree, it would be good to have some kind of formalized trust/reputation system here..

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

I don't think that sort of malevolence is common here. What you may be seeing is people sick of bashing their head against a wall letting some of their frustration show. If you ask technical questions or enter a debate but then ignore rational and/or technically competent reasoning, expect to elicit frustration and anger.
Many STers have some level of technical competence either in the field of triathlon or in some other arena with some aspect of crossover (for example, I'm an engineer and aerodynamicist which gives me decent understanding of cycling related topics but my sporting experience and expertise is relatively limited). Plenty STers are experts in the triathlon disciplines so there tends to be good information available once any topic reaches critical viewership and gets several posters involved in a discussion. Most who come on here and ask questions or offer theories, will get a mixture of responses ranging from silly nonsense, helpful suggestions or references but limited knowledge, competent and rational input but without direct experience in the field and finally directly applicable expert knowledge. It's often clear which is which, but not always. Most posters take what they can from the feedback and appreciate the efforts of contributors. If the answers don't make sense to them, they'll ask further questions, or perhaps realise the source is not entirely reliable. The big problem, and the behaviour that I believe irritates the hell out of some here, is those who pose as experts while actually talking nonsense, or just guessing. And others who pose as legitimate posters looking for information or rational discussion while actually they're just looking for entertainment and attention. Some of these like H2Ofun/Dave put enormous work and time into it and post such a large volume of nonsense that IMO it impacts the whole value of the forums. Some posters are massively egotistical, some are massively inconsistent, some are belligerent and insulting, some are delusional, others are simply trolls......and some well known posters appear to be all of these rolled into one.
In my opinion, much of the "bashing" you see is responses to these specific posters which you have not yourself recognised and thus you think the responses unjustified.

On the other hand, I think there are also some legitimately unpleasant and unjustified posts. I don't think they're as prevalent as you suggest.

You are going on and on and on. It's like you are feeling under appreciated, on a forum?

Your comments are no way to attract new people or differing people with new ideas or differing ideas than the dogma that some of you adhere to. I've experienced churches and religions more open than some on this forum. Don't be consumed by it. Don't have new people afraid to mention something that they are noticing or experiencing for the first time.

I have noticed many/most readers just let something go or keep their remarks short if they think it is stupid. They don't go on and on about what they think is stupid.

We don't need ST police or censors. If it starts though, let them go back through every dumb thing that's been said and edit it out. That might be a good use of their time.

OK

I appreciated your post. It was bang on.

Ditto. IT is one of the few people that inhabits Dave's planet. Interesting that he says something about somebody "going on and on" yet starts satellite threads to continue Dave's nonsense. The ignored list grows.