@Cam and @Ohio here... I literally mentioned that the high braking force was great by his view, so that is addressing the marketing. He says that.
The fundamental disagreement is whether or not actual people actually either preload brakes or drag them relatively lightly during use. Dale thinks many people do. Dale even says he does that (and chastises himself for it in the video). How this is missed watching the video, I don't know. He explicitly says he is doing that. He says it may not be right, but it is a fact of life for many people.
I happen to agree, many people do actually do that. It is proper technique? No, it isn't.
He goes into huge detail into an assertion that most people most of the time are lightly using their brakes. And thus the deadload mattering in this case.
I would suggest that his commentary exactly matches what you are saying it should be, even if you think the cross-over point is much lower in the margin. I also think you are vastly overestimating grip strength per finger for prolonged contact. That 40kg is for peak, as in low/1 rep death grips for short durations. I doubt many people could do above 25-50% that for dozens of reps. Now repeat your knockdowns, and brakeaway is no longer nearly as low, but even if as you claimed that it occurs more like 20%, that still is in the range where his comments that he thinks most people spend most of the time at that tiny low range.
\-\-\-
Trying to combine comments about the same stuff.
\-\-\-
I just don't get your take, Cam. He explicitly says what he measured is a different metric. He explicitly agrees that the marketing is probably 'technically correct', but claims that the top level marking from SRAM that in general these are 'way less fatiguing' was misleading \*because\* of his experiences with deadstroke. You can disagree with him, but accusing him of anything from that is insane. He tells us what metric he is focused on, and \*why\*.
What you are saying is that if Apple claimed 'the fastest iphone ever' is not misleading as long as the fine print 'faster than other options in this one specific use case' is true, even if purported real world use case, it isn't faster than previous versions, and it may even be slower. That is IMO the literal meaning of 'misleading'. Misleading comments are those that may or may not correct, but lead people to form conclusions that are not accurate.
Set aside for a second your disbelief that deadstroke matters at all. If you allow yourself to imagine it did matter, you might be disheartened to find the brakes are fatiguing much more than expected.
This is the top level marketing, as you know "The power of more endurance and less fatigue, letting you leverage subtlety and consistency to open the aperture of your abilities. Maven. New powers to go ahead." Right before the comment about 32% for strokes, they say that 'more important than overall power is usable power'. That certainly seems to acknowledge that there is importance in the feel at lower braking forces. Well a test batch that these brakes are great at high load, but more fatiguing at low load, that runs counter to the entire statement. 'Usable' power is requiring relatively more effort than 'overall' power. It is, misleading, indeed.
Feel free to note that no one should buy mavens if they are not going to use them hard. That is valid, that is a great conclusion to put in a video or article. Feel free to claim, as another commenter here did, that it rewards good braking technique, and punishes bad technique. Also completely valid.
If I lay out a methodology, explain that methodology, explain why I disagree with the methodology someone else proposes, and use my own methodology to make an assertion about some product... that is not remotely misleading. You may think my method is stupid. You may suggest that your methodology is better, but all the detail is out there for everyone to see. Nothing has been hidden away.
Sept. 11, 2024, 7:04 a.m. - Anthony Schroeder
@Cam and @Ohio here... I literally mentioned that the high braking force was great by his view, so that is addressing the marketing. He says that. The fundamental disagreement is whether or not actual people actually either preload brakes or drag them relatively lightly during use. Dale thinks many people do. Dale even says he does that (and chastises himself for it in the video). How this is missed watching the video, I don't know. He explicitly says he is doing that. He says it may not be right, but it is a fact of life for many people. I happen to agree, many people do actually do that. It is proper technique? No, it isn't. He goes into huge detail into an assertion that most people most of the time are lightly using their brakes. And thus the deadload mattering in this case. I would suggest that his commentary exactly matches what you are saying it should be, even if you think the cross-over point is much lower in the margin. I also think you are vastly overestimating grip strength per finger for prolonged contact. That 40kg is for peak, as in low/1 rep death grips for short durations. I doubt many people could do above 25-50% that for dozens of reps. Now repeat your knockdowns, and brakeaway is no longer nearly as low, but even if as you claimed that it occurs more like 20%, that still is in the range where his comments that he thinks most people spend most of the time at that tiny low range. \-\-\- Trying to combine comments about the same stuff. \-\-\- I just don't get your take, Cam. He explicitly says what he measured is a different metric. He explicitly agrees that the marketing is probably 'technically correct', but claims that the top level marking from SRAM that in general these are 'way less fatiguing' was misleading \*because\* of his experiences with deadstroke. You can disagree with him, but accusing him of anything from that is insane. He tells us what metric he is focused on, and \*why\*. What you are saying is that if Apple claimed 'the fastest iphone ever' is not misleading as long as the fine print 'faster than other options in this one specific use case' is true, even if purported real world use case, it isn't faster than previous versions, and it may even be slower. That is IMO the literal meaning of 'misleading'. Misleading comments are those that may or may not correct, but lead people to form conclusions that are not accurate. Set aside for a second your disbelief that deadstroke matters at all. If you allow yourself to imagine it did matter, you might be disheartened to find the brakes are fatiguing much more than expected. This is the top level marketing, as you know "The power of more endurance and less fatigue, letting you leverage subtlety and consistency to open the aperture of your abilities. Maven. New powers to go ahead." Right before the comment about 32% for strokes, they say that 'more important than overall power is usable power'. That certainly seems to acknowledge that there is importance in the feel at lower braking forces. Well a test batch that these brakes are great at high load, but more fatiguing at low load, that runs counter to the entire statement. 'Usable' power is requiring relatively more effort than 'overall' power. It is, misleading, indeed. Feel free to note that no one should buy mavens if they are not going to use them hard. That is valid, that is a great conclusion to put in a video or article. Feel free to claim, as another commenter here did, that it rewards good braking technique, and punishes bad technique. Also completely valid. If I lay out a methodology, explain that methodology, explain why I disagree with the methodology someone else proposes, and use my own methodology to make an assertion about some product... that is not remotely misleading. You may think my method is stupid. You may suggest that your methodology is better, but all the detail is out there for everyone to see. Nothing has been hidden away.