My first MTB weight weenie Build help (Yeti SB5)

Discuss light weight issues concerning mountain bikes & parts.

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
F45
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

TheRookie wrote:
F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.

id=internal diameter......


inner distance

joeg26er
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:40 am

by joeg26er

What about the Thru-Axles?

by Weenie


youngs_modulus
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Madison, WI USA

by youngs_modulus

F45 wrote:
TheRookie wrote:
F45 wrote:He's using 2.25s.

id=internal diameter......


inner distance


TheRookie understood what you meant, but was teasing you in a good-natured way about your terminology. in engineering, ID is absolutely an abbreviation for internal diameter. You're likely not an engineer (or at least not a native-English-speaking engineer), so you had no way to know that.

"ID" already has a meaning in this context, so the cycling community will have to find another abbreviation for rim width. Using "ID" for "inner distance" here would be like deciding that "ERD" stood not for "effective rim diameter" (as used for calculating spoke length) but rather "Eventual Rolling Diameter," referring to the outer diameter of a tire after it has been inflated and allowed to sit overnight. You can use ERD to mean the latter, sure, but you'll either confuse or annoy anyone with whom you discuss your alternate acronym.

Most likely, some people will use "ID" to mean "inner rim width" in spite of the fact that the acronym is taken. Some people use the non-word "irregardless." What can you do?

User avatar
F45
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

I'll start using engineering speak on forums when the bike community can get past saying "25c" when they mean 25mm tires.

youngs_modulus
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Madison, WI USA

by youngs_modulus

You're free to do what you want, of course. But while "25C" is technically wrong, at least it's unambiguous in context. You're using "ID" in a nonstandard way (which is fine) but also in a way that's totally ambiguous (which is considerably less fine, at least IMHO).

You could similarly use "seatpost" for "seat tube" if you wanted to. But, like "ID," "seatpost" already means something. At best, that's an annoyingly quirky twist on terminology. At worst, people think you don't know what you're talking about when you mention that your seatpost has an ID of 31.6mm.

I'm not saying bike lingo is consistent, or even that it should be. I'm suggesting that you're making up new definitions for existing acronyms, which makes it harder to understand what you write. You can do that, of course, but then people like TheRookie and myself will call you out on it. ;)



P.S.: I'm a mechanical engineer now, but before grad school I worked as a bike mechanic off and on for about fifteen years. In every place I worked, a mechanic who used "ID" to mean "internal distance" instead of "internal diameter" would have been viewed as a bit dim by the other mechanics. "ID" may be engineering speak, as you say, but it's also bike speak. (I'm not insulting your intelligence, FWIW).




Edit: fixed typo and added PS.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post