Again, though, what are you going to do with that info? You're still relying on what RF would be telling you is recommended for a given rider's weight, bike, ride style, etc. I don't think it puts you any further (farther? fuck, gotta check) down the road to comprehension. Before today, you're buying a bar without any of that information and without any tuning based on rise or width. As of today, you know there's some tuning in there. You're still relying on RF to get that right and of course it won't be 'perfect' for everyone, but whose bar is?
I'm not so much staunchly defending RF here as I am asking you critics to be measured. You ought to expect to be held to a higher standard than commenters elsewhere - it's the rep you've built for yourselves.
It's easy to take pot shots from the sidelines, but hold your arguments to a higher standard. I recently listened to a debate on a contentious topic and a guy on one side said that his role was to consider his opponent's POV with a 'steel man's' position - ie. make your opposition's argument as strong as possible (give benefits of the doubt, debate in good faith) - not the weakest aka straw man version.
I mean, sure, I get where the desire for the info comes from but let's be realistic about what we're asking for here and how most/any of us would actually be able to use that info. I smell a chorus of 'it's never good enough and I'm nitpicking progress rather than praising it'.
By definition any info RF releases on flex is going to be met with 'but what does a flex level of 1 mean vs 2 or 3'?
I do think it's fair to request some form of measurability, but I think it's ridiculous for that to overshadow the tone of what's happening here in general.
July 9, 2024, 10:17 a.m. - Pete Roggeman
Again, though, what are you going to do with that info? You're still relying on what RF would be telling you is recommended for a given rider's weight, bike, ride style, etc. I don't think it puts you any further (farther? fuck, gotta check) down the road to comprehension. Before today, you're buying a bar without any of that information and without any tuning based on rise or width. As of today, you know there's some tuning in there. You're still relying on RF to get that right and of course it won't be 'perfect' for everyone, but whose bar is? I'm not so much staunchly defending RF here as I am asking you critics to be measured. You ought to expect to be held to a higher standard than commenters elsewhere - it's the rep you've built for yourselves. It's easy to take pot shots from the sidelines, but hold your arguments to a higher standard. I recently listened to a debate on a contentious topic and a guy on one side said that his role was to consider his opponent's POV with a 'steel man's' position - ie. make your opposition's argument as strong as possible (give benefits of the doubt, debate in good faith) - not the weakest aka straw man version. I mean, sure, I get where the desire for the info comes from but let's be realistic about what we're asking for here and how most/any of us would actually be able to use that info. I smell a chorus of 'it's never good enough and I'm nitpicking progress rather than praising it'. By definition any info RF releases on flex is going to be met with 'but what does a flex level of 1 mean vs 2 or 3'? I do think it's fair to request some form of measurability, but I think it's ridiculous for that to overshadow the tone of what's happening here in general.