"Experts"

[fiamme red]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

When I was in school, we were told that the dinosaurs were extinct and that Pluto was a planet. Now we are told that not all dinosaurs are extinct and that Pluto is not a planet.

If you live in Arizona, Pluto is still a planet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona...-not-a-planet/

[tv_vt]

Knowledge and truth are always an approximation, hopefully with every revision, getting closer to an unreachable absolute.

At least, that's how I view science. It's never static, always subject to change, as it should be.

In our little world, crank length has evolved and not in a vacuum, either. When Indurain won the Tour in the 90's on 180mm cranks, what was the lowest gear most pro racers (on Campy) had? Maybe 42-24? Somewhere in that range? So the longer levers maybe made sense for a 6-2 rider.

And now, along with shorter cranks, we have much much lower gear ranges to work with, so there's no reason for ever dropping down to 50-60rpm cadences like back in the old days. (Watch the video of Merckx in the 70's in the Giro - the cadences of them climbing are painful to watch, with their whole body rocking.)

So I'm not gonna worry about experts and the like. I'll take current trends as useful bits to consider, and some work well. As far as 120 psi and 20mm tires, that may still be the way to go on a banked wooden oval track.

[bicycletricycle]

Yes, that was BS you got taught and the current crop of “facts” has a lot of BS in it as well. We don’t have very many facts at all about dinosaurs so most of the info we think we have is just guessing. Similar situation with planets.

Experts like to turn their guessing into facts but it is a bad habit. We should be more honest about what we actually know.

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Not all of those are BS, strictly speaking. Some of them are over-simplifications, mis-understandings, or simply what the best available evidence tells us.

Our understanding of things is constantly evolving and changing. Largely this happens as new evidence become available. What we know to the best of our knowldge today may be different than it was yesterday, and may be different from what it will be tomorrow. But that doesn't mean that it is strictly BS.

When I was in school, we were told that the dinosaurs were extinct and that Pluto was a planet. Now we are told that not all dinosaurs are extinct and that Pluto is not a planet.. Were we just being told BS back then?

[Clean39T]

Time flies like the wind.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Fruit flies like

-
-
-
-
-


Thank Zuess we don't believe everything today that we did back then.

It's called progress.

You live. You learn. You bleed. You learn. You live, you live you learn.. a-woooooo.

[batman1425]

A very smart member of my thesis committee told me during my defense (after I took a pretty strong position on a point that had not been investigate much at that point), be careful what you draw a line in the sand on, that is unless you are prepared to eat crow when someone else finds strong evidence to the contrary.

[edgerat]

with most everything these days, the only thing I go with is what feels right and is comfortable.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Yes, that was BS you got taught and the current crop of “facts” has a lot of BS in it as well. We don’t have very many facts at all about dinosaurs so most of the info we think we have is just guessing. Similar situation with planets.

Experts like to turn their guessing into facts but it is a bad habit. We should be more honest about what we actually know.

A true expert knows the limits of their knowledge, and accepts that what is known in any field is subject to change. That's why they start all their statements with phrases like "to the best of our knowledge" or "what is currently believed is". But many in the general public want absolute "truths", and instead seek out "pseudo experts" who will give them the absolute truths they seek. When those "absolute truths" turn out to be wrong, who then is to blame?

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by batman1425

A very smart member of my thesis committee told me during my defense (after I took a pretty strong position on a point that had not been investigate much at that point), be careful what you draw a line in the sand on, that is unless you are prepared to eat crow when someone else finds strong evidence to the contrary.

And mixed metaphors exhibit hybrid vigor.

[nmrt]

Most of the things you note, does not look to me like experts giving their expertise. But rather people, or a bunch of people somewhat in agreement, giving their opinions.

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Remember when we all knew 700x20 tires at 130 psi was the fastest? Apparently now we aren't even sure if 35's are any slower than 28's.

Remember all those amazing theories about crank length being a percentage of leg length yielding 200mm plus cranks for tall people? Nope, everyone on 165's now.

Knee over center of axle?
axle centered under ball of foot?
easy gears are for unfit amateurs?
Wide rims are for mountain bikes?
hookless are better than hooked rims?
Lightweight bikes make you go faster ?
etc, etc, etc

So, how much of current trendy cycling expertise is also BS?

[happycampyer]

Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called "wheat germ, organic honey and tiger's milk."
Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.
Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.

[5oakterrace]

I recall an article a few years back about bike fitting. This fellow went to 5 or 6 "super expert" fitters. A lot of $ spent, but it was for the article. I am no expert at reading numbers but all of them came out with different fit numbers for his bike set up. Yet the common approach is "you HAVE to go to a fitter."

Read a bit and you find there are these different approaches to fitting. Add in each fitter's subjectivity.

I concluded - do what is comfortable for you, experiment a bit. Consider the cost involved and what you want to spend (rim vs. disc, tire size, etc ). And be at peace.

[El Chaba]

The problem in recent times is that many of the experts are employees of the marketing department.

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Remember when we all knew 700x20 tires at 130 psi was the fastest? Apparently now we aren't even sure if 35's are any slower than 28's.

Remember all those amazing theories about crank length being a percentage of leg length yielding 200mm plus cranks for tall people? Nope, everyone on 165's now.

Knee over center of axle?
axle centered under ball of foot?
easy gears are for unfit amateurs?
Wide rims are for mountain bikes?
hookless are better than hooked rims?
Lightweight bikes make you go faster ?
etc, etc, etc

So, how much of current trendy cycling expertise is also BS?

Add "aero" to the list.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

A true expert knows the limits of their knowledge, and accepts that what is known in any field is subject to change. That's why they start all their statements with phrases like "to the best of our knowledge" or "what is currently believed is". But many in the general public want absolute "truths", and instead seek out "pseudo experts" who will give them the absolute truths they seek. When those "absolute truths" turn out to be wrong, who then is to blame?

I see very few “to the best of our knowledges”


We have very limited, possibly no access to truth. This means our “truths” will always turn out wrong or at least incomplete.

Nobody needs to be blamed for that.

The problem is when people are misled or bullied by overconfident “experts”. We should all recognize the limits of our own knowledge and knowledge in general

A reminder, 65 psi 700x35 tires are no slower than 120 psi 23s. We were all
amazingly wrong.

[bicycletricycle]

Bicycle fit is weird, seems to be a strange mix of superstition and fashion.

The way people talk about / obey their bike fit….. well, just strange. Certainly they know some stuff but it ain’t a science, it’s barely an art.

I was talking to a bike builder who built a bike for a customer, they rode it around and liked it, then went to get a fit, the guy told him he couldn’t get the bike to fit him so he sold it. Well, what can you say.

Originally Posted by 5oakterrace

I recall an article a few years back about bike fitting. This fellow went to 5 or 6 "super expert" fitters. A lot of $ spent, but it was for the article. I am no expert at reading numbers but all of them came out with different fit numbers for his bike set up. Yet the common approach is "you HAVE to go to a fitter."

Read a bit and you find there are these different approaches to fitting. Add in each fitter's subjectivity.

I concluded - do what is comfortable for you, experiment a bit. Consider the cost involved and what you want to spend (rim vs. disc, tire size, etc ). And be at peace.