Marketing "Science"

[jois]

The steel framed one I use (1994) is a tad under 11kg, to me it's light for its abilities but not sure if 11kg is regarded as overweight today?

It depends on what it is or what it has, I have a mid 90s canadale MB which is my so cheap and unattractive IL leave it anywhere bike, that weights 25lbs ish

A 2010 trek with all the forks discs etal that weighs much the same. So I get a lot more for the same weight, and this trek with forks and discs which weighs most of 40lbs , I haven't actually weigh it, just every time I pick it up I think jeez that's heavy

They forks have sprung and damped movement, the brakes will lock up either wheel, wet or dry. Does that help?

It's a fair weight then if the forks actually could be classed as suspension and not pogo stick which most of the early ones were.

MBs got very portly in the early 2000s as people wanted more stuff but not a great deal more price , which usually means heavy

[Biospace]

It's a fair weight then if the forks actually could be classed as suspension and not pogo stick which most of the early ones were.

MBs got very portly in the early 2000s as people wanted more stuff but not a great deal more price , which usually means heavy

I think you mean fair as in favourable, rather than as in the opposite

I think someone who'd just spent £800 on a new pair of forks would feel duty-bound to ridicule these, but they're sufficiently light and unobtrusive in operation that I bothered to strip and rebuild them, despite a less than favourable take on suspension forks.

There are some lovely quality early 90s steel mtbs to be had, made long before different models appeared depending on whether you will ride them up or down a hill.

[simonineaston]

A curious moment after watching a Dyson advert i googled digital motor.

Not sure what your point is... that companies market their products using language that makes them sound great - unique, even? Of course! T'was ever thus. We know about that, don't we? We apply caution when we buy, chuckle good-humoredly, when simply browsing.
Are we surprised when our new and very expensive cordless dust-buster doesn't quite cut the mustard? We shouldn't be - they simply saw us coming, just like Harry Enfield.
Save your ire for the devious & deceitful processed food industry who lie and cheat to sell us the cheapest, most chemical filled and unhealthy slop that they can legally get away with. For example any label that claims loudly to be "low sugar" or "sugar free" or "50% less sugar" will be filled to the brim with artificial sweetners.
If anyone can find even a single exception, I'll eat my hat...

[Biospace]

For example any label that claims loudly to be "low sugar" or "sugar free" or "50% less sugar" will be filled to the brim with artificial sweetners.
If anyone can find even a single exception, I'll eat my hat...

"Farm Fresh" comes to mind, or the little red tractor logo.

You're so right about sugar substitutes, if too much sugar is dangerous then these are lethal.

[jois]

It's a fair weight then if the forks actually could be classed as suspension and not pogo stick which most of the early ones were.

MBs got very portly in the early 2000s as people wanted more stuff but not a great deal more price , which usually means heavy

I think you mean fair as in favourable, rather than as in the opposite

I think someone who'd just spent £800 on a new pair of forks would feel duty-bound to ridicule these, but they're sufficiently light and unobtrusive in operation that I bothered to strip and rebuild them, despite a less than favourable take on suspension forks.

There are some lovely quality early 90s steel mtbs to be had, made long before different models appeared depending on whether you will ride them up or down a hill.

Yes I mean good

I'm not knocking them, getting one with still functioning forks may be differcult. Most had rigid except the most exspensive and generally only the post 95 had forks at all. I have a set of period forks to go on mine, when I finally get round to painting it in the original flam yellow

[Manc33]

I hate it when pseudoscience masquerades as science. For example anything that strays away from the scientific method, which these days, is probably most stuff where people call it science. Or they will say things like "Let's test this using science" and they do a test, that might very well be valid and could possibly be turned into a scientific experiment, but the test they did wasn't using the scientific method.

Almost anything you can name that's being touted as "scientific" these days, isn't. In most cases, you could never manipulate the independent variable anyway (that's a vital part of the scientific method). This applies to a lot of things like the sun, moon, stars... good luck bringing the sun closer or putting it further away, or turning down its power or increasing it, it's just ludicrous the things that get claimed.

I have seen people claiming things like time can be an independent variable. Are you Dr. Who? Marty McFly? These same people have said outrageous stuff like "You can vary the time it takes to cook a chicken and see it comes out differently when cooked for various amounts of time" right so, it's not the heat in the oven causing it to cook then? Dopes!

[peetee]

Cosmetics companies have to be the absolute masters of psuedo-science.
The **** they use to sell anti-aging cream is beyond comparison.

[mattheus]

I hate it when pseudoscience masquerades as science. For example anything that strays away from the scientific method, which these days, is probably most stuff where people call it science. Or they will say things like "Let's test this using science" and they do a test, that might very well be valid and could possibly be turned into a scientific experiment, but the test they did wasn't using the scientific method.

I am with you 100% on this, dear chap!

A (related) pet peeve: saying "the science proves it" when all they've done is count things. Now I'm not saying statistics isn't a VERY important part of science, but I suspect folks know the "science"" label is giving a survey a lot more weight, by associating it with things like quantum physics, genetics, physiology, etc ...

[jois]

Cosmetics companies have to be the absolute masters of psuedo-science.
The **** they use to sell anti-aging cream is beyond comparison.

Some of those anti aging creams work quite well, if by anti aging you mean face wrinkles.

The main catch is if they work any better than things which only costs a fraction of the price or even things that are free like keeping out of the sun

[Cugel]

A curious moment after watching a Dyson advert i googled digital motor.

Not sure what your point is... that companies market their products using language that makes them sound great - unique, even? Of course! T'was ever thus. We know about that, don't we? We apply caution when we buy, chuckle good-humoredly, when simply browsing.
Are we surprised when our new and very expensive cordless dust-buster doesn't quite cut the mustard? We shouldn't be - they simply saw us coming, just like Harry Enfield.
Save your ire for the devious & deceitful processed food industry who lie and cheat to sell us the cheapest, most chemical filled and unhealthy slop that they can legally get away with. For example any label that claims loudly to be "low sugar" or "sugar free" or "50% less sugar" will be filled to the brim with artificial sweetners.
If anyone can find even a single exception, I'll eat my hat...

Beware! Modern hats contain any amount of toxic substances and are also highly fattening. In addition, the society for the protection of hats will have you excoriated by hordes of unsocial mediums, who invoke gharks & hoos to harass you whilst wearing their various doxing and trolling titfers. "He's a dirty hat-eater! This is the address where he eats the poor hats, the pervert ......".

Incidentally, don't think you can get away with eating your old-fashioned hat. Although the society for the protection of hats will be less interested if the thing is unfashionable, various museums will object (especially The Victoria & Albert, where the old hat is almost worshiped, along with several other fetish object-types from yesteryear).

Such an old hat is likely to have been on and off your bonce for decades (well, mine all have) and this means it will have gathered numerous toxins of a different kind. When you were a lad did you use that brylcreem or employ your hat as an emergency micturation receptacle whilst walking home drunk (to avoid arrest by the many bobbies on the beat that roamed the streets after dark, in them days, looking for drunks to abuse)?

Don't even consider borrowing a hat to eat. Who knows what the owner has been depositing on them, inside and out? Some people have absolutely filthily hat habits, you know. I once knew an old shepherd who used his large cap to wipe [censored by the forum retch-prevention monitor].

Also, the hats of others may have picked up toxic notions from their wearers, somehow encoded in the weft & weave of their cloth. These notions might somehow get through your digestive processes unaltered, taking up residence in your own brainbox after a successful assault on the blood-brain barrier. Certain styles of hat are associated with a certain kind of toxic mind so you may be able to follow this option if you're careful to consider the match of hat-style to typical wearer. For example, try to avoid those large flat-topped items with shiny black peaks and gold braid; also anything with ostrich feathers in it; or lots of jewels; or the letters MAGA.

Cugel, your dietician.

PS Would you like to buy a lovely cotton cycling cap, once worn by both Bernard Hinault and Greg Lemond? It's the one they had a fight over (it was the last one in the kit bag) just before that famous TdF stage in which one beat the other, out of chagrin at losing the fight over the hat. It's been printed with special inks made from the blood of fans assaulted by Hinault and is presented in a special box signed by Lemond that he used to keep his Twinkies in. (They didn't have them gels, then). Only 10,999 francs.