Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Before I ask the question, understand, this is NOT a knock on John Cobb or his findings. I believe he truly is one of the most informed folks on the planet regarding cycling aerodynamics. He's probably spent more time in the wind-tunnel than some spend on their bikes. Therefore I am certainly not questioning his expertise.
HOWEVER, it seems we can't escape the growing authority afforded JC on all cycling things aerodynamic. Even when others perform testing, the inevitable question raised is whether it agrees with JC's findings. Every time we have any question on aerodynamics and fitting here, it seems JC's name pops up. And not only does it pop up, but the tone is almost universally in JC's favor, regardless of the merit of the alternative evidence. Despite the fact that JC rarely reports the details of his testing and often publishes generalized statements regarding his findings, people are according all sorts of things to him that are inaccurate representations of his research. If someone reported that JC said using knobby tires on the rear was fastest, it seems some folks would jump on this report with little regard for the actual facts surrounding what he said. JC said it, so it must be so. So sayeth JC. Just attaching his name to any product must mean its the best. You could slap JC's name on a set of standard brake calipers and folks would believe that they were the most aerodynamic merely because they had JC's name on them. Look at how people are absolutely fawning all over the new Oval products.
Of course this branding is nothing new. You can still slap Jordan's name on a pair of Nikes and people will buy them by the thousands and actually believe that they play better basketball in them. Again, I'm not knocking JC in any way here. But he's not the only game in town, and folks would be wise to check out all the facts. Some folks are too ready to just push the "I believe" button whenever JC speaks.
Last edited by:
TriBriGuy: May 30, 03 7:44
It seems to be human nature to make legends out of ordinary people.
I don't know John personally but have been guilty of quoting him several times on this forum. There are so very few people doing work on bike aerodynamics who else is there to use as a reference. He's probably the most experienced guru that we have in this field. Whether or not he's always right or his findings are always unbiased is a question that can only be speculated.
I'd noticed the same thing. Perhaps it is a reflection of some people's focusing on excessive technical detail rather than spending the time doing the hard training. Everybody is always looking for shortcuts eg the numerous diet fads, exercise machines et al.
However, it may alternatively be a reflection of humankind's nature for increased knowledge and the resultant elevation of those who are seen to provide an answer.
Where's my fence?
"Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a man's form or likeness so true as his speech." - Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries made upon Men and Matter.
Personally I like to take the information I read from Cobb, Dan, Tom and everyone else and incorporate what works for me. Having said that, Cobb's stuff is aimed at aerodynamics on the bike only. That's great, but I still have to run afterwards. While my rear-mounted water bottle holder is not the most aero thing around, I need for a 1/2 IM race cause I don't want to start the run being dehydrated. Same with fitting information. Dan and Tom are vast human libraries of practical and useful information, but if it doesn't work for you, why do it because someone else said so? I do understand the meaning behind your post, but I personally just take all of this information as learning more about a sport I'm very interested in. Going on the recommendations of JC or anyone else, you would probably laugh your butt of at my bike. But that's another story.
- Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke
I think why most people tend to like to quote John Cobb is that he seems to be nuetral, (I.E. doesn't work directly for a bike company) I wouldn't say he is completely, because he now helps design products and has an invested interest in making those products look good. Now I don't think he lies about any of his findings or anything, but we should tend to remember he is also a business man.
Oh, and what's wrong with Jordans? I just got a very comfortable pair for twenty bucks. And as a gopher I come nowhere near dunking, but sure do feel special.
-
I don't work here, I just live here
You bring up a very good point ZG. Cobb is becoming less and less "nuetral" as he expands the branding of his name. That's not to say that he is any more or less objective in his testing. But at this point is he any more or less nuetral regarding the Oval forks or aero bars than, say Gerard is regarding the P3 or Zipp is regarding their wheels?
One thing I didn't mention but provides a background to my original post is that there are often significant differences in testing protocol between JC's research and anothers regarding the same problem. They are often different enough that comparing the results of each test is little more than comparing apples to oranges. Each test may be completely valid given its controls and parameters, yet say something completely different about the problem based on these differences. For sake of reference, I'll refer to the post on JC's rear wheel cut-out tests. Folks in that thread are comparing JC's work with Cervelo's and others. The differences between the testing appear to be great enough that neither test invalidates the other despite significant differences in their findings. But JC's test says that cut-outs don't mean much, so Cervelo must be wrong, at least that's the unspoken sentiment (though what JC actually tested is being hotly debated. I didn't read the actual report so I can't say). That's what I'm getting at, though. Folks seem willing to subordinate all other research to JC's, regardless of whether the respective research directly corollates or not.
I have been knowing JC for over twenty years and believe me when I tell you he is as regular of a guy as there is out the. Perhaps he is a world class tinkerer, but he has never claimed to be a guru about anything.
His dad owned a garage and he liked go fast cars as a kid. Won a national championship in slot car racing. Using his motor skills with the assist of a
a flow bench to tune gocarts, chainsaws and an odd motorcycle or two to national and world titles.
He had a tinkering for bicycles and opened a shop in his garage and almost went broke a couple of times in the bike business. He wondered how besides a superior athlete to make bikes go faster and went to A&M to see. He is not an engineer but an artist by training (BA in Art) from Baylor, I think). He always told me he doesn't claim know about the science of aerodynamics, but hires some world class folk that do. (A&M engineers and students after all it is a research facility).
If you ever want to test this theory, if you can catch him (man his travel schedule sucks), show up to the shop with a bag of donuts and talk or go out for Mexican food.
My own opinion as to why some people object to him is take all the questions an average bike shop guy gets ,multiply it by about 100 and repete it for ten years or so . Yea I am sure he gets tired sometimes, but I have seen him show way more patience with some people than I would have given. Amazing how you can see some people come in loaded for bear and hammer on some point of trivia. Aloha G
Absolutely! I've met JC very briefly a few years ago but I believe he'd be the first to tell you that he doesn't know 1/2 of what he wishes he did about things. He really is a regular guy, who just happens to have a passion for all things cycling.
actually, i have noticed something different, on this very forum. when JC makes a remark which reflects the accepted tri-wisdom status quo he is indeed deified. when he says something apart from the tri-consensus he is called out and suspician is cast upon him. i have observed this numerous times, and find it funny.
Hmm, I think you are completly wrong, in fact, I know your completly wrong. Your whole post makes me suspicous.
-
I don't work here, I just live here
hate to be rude but what exactly is your point? the dude spends gobs of time in a wind tunnel working on cyclist of every type. joe midpack to lance aremstrong. he knows aero. i don't think anyone can really point out to me a time when he was horribly wrong or lying about data.
as far as his name being on products he helped design wouldn't you complain if he didn't. i think it makes since for him to back up what he says.
also i have seen him turn water into gatorade and raise the dead. so turn your back to jesus and worship the other jc.
customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Those are salient points about skepticism, gullibility, and the result of following either extreme. I see the crotchety type of skepticism in some posts here. Crotchety flies all over the attitude that comes across, mixed with gobs of elitism and condescention. Although I learn from this interaction, it certainly isn't a pleasant experience, I even sense that the unpleasantness is a purposeful attempt. You, on the other hand, present your arguements cleanly without debasing any members of the audience. You also seem receptive to new ideas, although you aren't going to swallow anything that doesn't fit your science or experience, and when a new experience doesn't meet your science, you seem to be willing to delve into the science behind the experience to see if you can find what science might be new there. My guess is that you are a much happier scientist than some! John Cobb seems like a happy scientist, also.
The scientists I know that actually take science to new levels of understanding have very open minds, and are very happy people. The others tend to become more like technicians, and get trapped in their own private walls built upon mounds of paper that support their understanding of the areas they choose to study. They really don't seem to want to escape from their self-imposed prison, either. It must be somehow comforting to them to feel that they know everything about a subject, rather than to admit, even to themselves, that there's a chance they don't know everything.
I hope you'll keep on helping us as we learn while visiting this site.
Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)
My point never was for even one second to question John Cobb, his research, or his motives or to sully his name in any way. My point is that, if you read through this and other forums you will read all sorts of stuff "quoted" from JC that is either misquoted, or he just plain never said in the first place. Folks seem to throw his name around to bolster whatever argument they want to make. Because he is indeed so respected, being able to tie his name in lends creedence to any argument on the subject. The funniest instance was a thread on another forum where one respondent used JC's position to argue one side of the issue, then, a few days later, and obviously without reading the other post, someone used JC's position to argue exactly the opposite. Its simply become sheik, hip and cool to drop JC's name whether or not the individual knows their head from a hole in the ground.
Hey, if I drop JC's name in an argument will I really turn into a sheik? Do I need to supply flowing robes and an Arab stallion? Will I get a harem?
"Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a man's form or likeness so true as his speech." - Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries made upon Men and Matter.
No, you will not necessarily need a robe or stallion, or even have to move to Arabia, but you may become "a man held to be irresistably attractive to romantic young women" which may, indeed, get you a harem.
Cool. In that case, JC is a f***ing genius.
Ladies, I will be sampling applicants as and when they arise...
"Language most shows a man: Speak, that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired and inmost parts of us, and is the image of the parents of it, the mind. No glass so mirrors a man's form or likeness so true as his speech." - Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries made upon Men and Matter.
Last edited by:
GBJ: May 31, 03 8:47