answers to the questons below: 1) i like my performance data. 2) i like my performance data 100X as much.
admission: i erred. the old bicycles are better and actually more efficient than the new ones. no matter what the circumstances, results will improve if older parts are used in place of modern parts. what was thinking? i lost my head. sorry. e-RICHIE shamed...
On Fri, 10 May 2002 12:33:48 EDT B2Barnard@aol.com writes:
> I think I am "off the sidelines" as I am a former Senior USCF rider,
> a frame
> builder, a budding advanced high performance fast touring bicycle
> maker (I
> know you have never heard about me -- its a big world) and former
> high
> performance automobile racer.
>
> I am also a retired business man who invented a decision making
> methodology
> that has and is guiding significant strategy and product development
> world
> wide, (I have used this methodology in every country -- Asia, China
> and
> Russia, etc.), after retiring I have begun to use my decision
> methodologies
> to evaluate the Bicycle business.
>
> So I feel that I am hardly "on the sidelines" ( I see your comment
> as
> egalitarian and any assumption that your are more "off the
> sidelines" on this
> multidimensional issue is undeserved based on what I know about
> you)
>
> Okay Richie I have a few questions:
>
> 1. What actual performance data can we find to prove your theory? Is
> there a
> way to create the comparison.
>
> 2. In my experience unless a differentiation factor of 10X to 100X
> exists,
> and can be defined as to a. performance measure and b. the target
> value for
> it, all is assumption. The speculation, etc., and vague stuff that
> is okay
> around a table drinking beer but hard to stomach in a context that
> attempts
> to be scientific, or rational research.
>
> So since some of the people that have responded to this thread had
> some good
> points and actual performance data what can be done to add these
> same
> constraints to what you are saying?
>
> Bill Barnard
> Sunny Castro Valley, CA