It's a somewhat opaque issue due to the variables and subsequent complexity.
The working fatigue life of carbon could offset the potential environmental
and health costs that would be typical, but that doesn't jive with much of the
consumerist aspects of the industry and marketing within. I appreciate your
take on this, and you seeking an answer to my question.
Thanks. I think it's a significant thing, and always look for this the bars I
get. It typically results in a bar being safe to use for at least twice as
long as a bar that has not been shot peened. The warranties speak to that too.
So for me it comes down to cost, and use of resources.
The issue I have with these Vibrocore bars is the foam core. Elsewhere I've
read that Spank doesn't do carbon because of environmental and health
concerns. That's a stance of conscience I can get behind. So I sought feedback
from them on the environmental and health impact of the foam in the other
forum, and publicly on Twitter, and never got a reply. Ages ago. I don't
assume the foam is a problem, but I know enough not to assume it isn't. You
don't by chance have any info on that do you?
Split away. I agree with what you're saying, but I don't mean that it makes
for a robust surface finish. It works the material to confer specific
properties, like increasing fatigue strength. Yes, like anything it can be
fucked up, but it's typically applied to impart structural properties to the
material. Bead blasting does no such thing. It's a clear distinction.
Ano, yes that's another can of worms. A very diverse range of processes.
Thanks for graciously answering my question when you stated that in a caption
above. I was prodding you just to be sure; shot peening dramatically lengthens
lifespan relative to no surface treatment or bead blasting.
Ha! Yes. You; good communicator. Me…let's just say…in my head a little too
Oh for sure, no one is above criticism. It's necessary for everything, and for
anything to improve. If you inferred the opposite from what's in my second
paragraph of my original comment, I'll take that aspect back.
In the case of your analogy, absolutely it should be held to a strict standard
for every way it affects society. Great examples are the way the late
Christopher Hitchens criticised Mother Teresa for her opposition to
contraception, while it drove the poverty she fought. Or Glenn Greenwald
criticised Charlie Hebdo, not on grounds censorship, but of choosing the
somewhat popular (in France) easy target of Muslims for their mockery, instead
of aspects that aligned more with cultural norms. That last example has been
misused by many, not least of which being Sam Harris. I probably come across
as one of the more extreme perspectives here, but I actually tone it down
substantially. If I had to label my world view, I'm a pitchforks to the street
style libertarian socialist (a real socialist) who dabbles in futurism. But I
don't try to get too forceful, or underestimate the distance there is between
me and the average view. Anyway, suffice it to say that I'm not short on
I'll come back at you with another, slightly more pointed analogy, which I
infer from an editorial note to a recent Uncle Dave. Just because someone is a
prolific trail builder, does that excuse them for riding trails that are
closed for reasons related to elevated potential for environmental damage?
EDIT: I missed your real question, sorry. The ideal is a very strict standard.
The reality is that change takes time, and has resistance, so should be
tempered by expectation.