Don Ferris wrote: I'll even go so far as to say that the joining method doesn't matter, either, i.e., one tig welded and the other lugged. The differences may be aesthetic but they aren't inherent to the build.
Wow, bold statement. Ill assume that this is your opinion based on riding experience, not just thinking things through. Certainly in theory, heating tubes to different temperatures, reinforcing joints with extra material, has to have effects. If in your real-world experience the effects are imperceptible, I wont argue.
Don Ferris wrote: Building frames is both science/engineering and art but no one should confuse the two. If the design is competent, the miters are correct, the joining method proven, and the frame straight, then from a "science" standpoint, the frame will be no better or worse whether you spent 60 minutes or 60 hours building it.
Where do you draw the line? The distinction is one that we have erected to help us think about the world. The interplay between art (let me add craft) and science/engineering is immense. Many practices start because a craftsman finds that it works better that way, but he never does any scientific inquiry to determine why this is. For certain, in many instances an accepted standard practice becomes entrenched (pagan rituals?) but doesnt actually work better even if the craftsman believes it does. In such cases engineering and science might be applied to improve the product. On the other hand there are some practices that develop absent of rigorous study, are applied and are known to be the best practice, yet no scientific or engineering inquiry can explain why. Has anyone figured out how to replicate a Stradivarius? What makes a great wine? Why do triode amplifiers sound so good? A lot of the good stuff is difficult to analyze, but it may be worth trying. Better understanding might allow a broader population to enjoy related stuff, as best practices are understood and more broadly used. Meanwhile, the danger is in letting the objective facts diminish the experience.
Brian wrote: Perhaps there is more to it than the theory can account for. Since no else seems interested to actually know the facts of the matter I will conduct the experiment myself when I have an opportunity. A blind identical test will be performed using several riders on two unknown frames. I will enlist the aid of Damon Raynard(sp?) for the test once I get there. He seems to be very thorough and impartial when he does his tests and has already gathered tons of information on frames and frame materials I'd rather know than speculate.
Or at least try to know. That one of the worlds best frame builders thinks this question has merit should tell us a lot.
Wes wrote:
Many years ago I was a fairly good musician. I played trumpet. When One wanted to buy a new horn, it was common practice to take home two or Three identical models, play them all and "live" with them for several days and determine which one was the "nicest" one- a rather difficult thing to objectively quantify, but after a day or two, one would usually stand out as a favorite.
Wes, its like riding a bike right? You dont forget how, but you may get out of shape? Anyway, I think when it comes sensory experiences, science and tehnology are not always sufficient to resolve differences. It would be difficult or impossible to quantify what makes one of those horns sound best. But, as a person with an intimate association with the device, you can sense subtle differences. If they cant be measured, they can still be real. After all, do we even know what to measure? While it might be nice to know what to measure so that we can improve horns in general, you can cut to the chase by using your ears. You only need to find one horn and the relevant truth is in the music.
Tom Dalton
Bethlehem, PA
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now