S k a t e L o g     F o r u m

Closed in June of 2020

SKATELOG DOT COM: Web Site | Blog | Facebook |    


Home

*** The SkateLog Forum Has Been Replaced by SkateDebate Dot Com ***

FROM SKATELOG FORUM HOST KATHIE FRY IN MARCH OF 2020:
This announcement is to let everyone know that after hosting the SkateLog Forum and its predecessors for nearly 20 years, I have decided it is time to permanently turn the forum over to a new owner and administrator. I cannot think of anyone more suitable to take on that role than my SkateLog forum co-host, Florida skater Jessica Wright. I am pleased to announce that Jessica has agreed to establish and host a brand new skating forum, configured like the SkateLog Forum, but with a new name and a new Web Site. This new forum is 100% owned and operated by Jessica.

NEW FORUM NAME: SkateDebate Forum
NEW WEB SITE: SkateDebate.com
NEW OWNER AND ADMINISTRATOR: Jessica Wright
REGISTER IN JESSICA'S FORUM: Create a SkateDebate Forum User Name


Go Back   SkateLog Forum > Special Interest Skating Forums (sorted by number of posts) > Speed Skating Forum
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Speed Skating Forum Most of the discussions in this forum will be about inline speed skating but discussions about ice speed skating and quad roller speed skating are also welcome.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old March 28th, 2017, 11:49 AM   #33
NDSconcept
Senior Member
 
NDSconcept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matguy View Post
And how was that measured in this test? I think that's the question being asked here.

That's the point some of us are trying to not only make, but get information on. Without information on the testing methods this is not information, it's propaganda.


Putting a bearing at your 100% efficiency "four-dimensional wall that can not be crossed" looks like an absolute statement.

"Four-dimensional wall that can not be crossed"
It is the standard by which the performance difference is distinguished on the basis of this line.
There is no absolute one.
It may differ in the final process.


Then your chart should label that way, otherwise a 100% efficient bearing would have zero measurable resistance. Now it's being said that the "New Design System" bearing that is labeled at 100% efficiency is a relative measurement? (Which I hope it is anyway, because no mechanical bearing has 100% efficiency, which is what puts that whole graph in to question to begin with.)

It is a condition that has nothing to do with "measurable resistance" you are thinking.
Regardless of resistance, there is a correlation with acceleration force.
The technology of the race way polishing is the almost same.
With no discrimination technology, you can not make a difference.


And how was that measured in this test? I think that's the question being asked here.

We respect the opinions of our collaboration company.
We are not trying to rob the technical know-how.
We tested it to check performance data.
The results of the test and the performance are compared and checked.
We are not disparage the technology of the collaboration company.



That's the point some of us are trying to not only make, but get information on. Without information on the testing methods this is not information, it's propaganda.

There is no place for any company to provide fact data on the bearing function.
Just there is publicity that the bearing is good.
Our collaboration company(J&T) presented objective data.
Believe it or not, it is consumer's choice.
"Point some of us are trying to not only make"
When exposing technology, they try to produce with that technology.
We hate to hurt collaboration companies.

Why not disclose technology?
Any other company that had agreements with the J&T tried to extort the technology.


No one asked you how the bearings are made, we asked you how they were tested. If MPC or Coca-Cola presents comparative information between their product and competition, yes, they can be expected to explain the testing procedure. If used as advertisement, they could be required to.

"We asked you how they were tested"
If curious, you test directly.
If you contact below, you can receive samples.
You test it directly.
Jhong27@illinois.edu

Wear the bearing that you are using for one foot.
Wear test sample bearings on the other foot.
And compare the two different performances directly.

Constant speed running does not make much sense.
You can discover the difference in acceleration function(interval).
Try to Instantaneously accelerate.
Like automotive 0 to 100.

Danville user's say.
“This bearings are Drug inhaled.”
It will be an exaggerated expression.
However, they know that performance is discriminated against other bearings.
__________________
please understand, English even poor.
NDSconcept is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.