How hard is it to be a woman in the cycling industry? Shockjock engineer devotes entire Youtube video to trying to discredit female Cycling Weekly tech editor

Whataboutery. That some women are shitty doesn't excuse men being shitty.

Compact Corned Beef wrote:

Whataboutery. That some women are shitty doesn't excuse men being shitty.

WHoooooosh! Over your head, you missed it.
WHoooooooooooosh! You misse the other one too.
Or maybe you purposefully looked the other way.

To wit: the Hambini dude didn't diss her in the video because she is a lady.
He dissed the whole video on it's technical demerits & its blatant misrepresentation; posing as "experts" when they had no clue on what they were blabbering about.

He gave her a tate of her own medicine: trumping up "racism".

See? It doesn't take that much to be intellectually honest, you only have to try.
 

The review-media needs to change tack. Whereas Hambini lacks tact.

Dangerous Dan wrote:

That said, how many bicycle frames has Road.CC done an ultrasound inspection on to see if they are well manufactured?  How many bike reviews have included measuring the frame to see if it the head tube and bottom bracket are properly aligned?  I know I haven't seen any.

So, RCC: don't just complain about that nasty little Hambini fellow.  Up your game! When you get a Cervello or a Boardman carbon fiber bike to review, do an ultrasonic inspection of the frame looking for issues.

Maybe take the fork and BB off and check the fork tube to the bb.  And check the bb alignment. And make a deal with the folks who send you bikes to review to get a randmo one from the warehouse or from a bike shop.

And maybe do a dynamic airflow analysis of wheels claiming to be "aerodynamic".

I know, it adds cost to the production of your web site.  It would also add to the value of the site.  And maybe in a few years Hambini would not have so many frames being sent to him with rubbish manufacturing alignmebt tolerances and voids in the carbon fiber frames.

But, at the end of the day, it's how the bike rides that is the most important factor, not about some techie point that 99% of readers would barely comprehend.  Hambini's comments are relevant to those manufacturing bicycles, but of very little relevance to those riding them.  Applying aircraft standards to bicycles is not really sensible, unless you really are at the cutting edge, and let's face it, very few of us are.

In fact, it would be very costly to do so, and therefore it isn't done.  You don't apply aerospace standards to washing machines or cars, so why would you apply them to bicycles?  If you did do so, the costs would rise exponentially as every increase in accuracy roughly doubles the cost, so unless you want to pay four or five times the price, accept that bicycles are built to an appropriate standard.  It is entirely inappropriate to apply aerospace standards to bicycles, so the basic premise of his site and his ranting is hollow.

If you're really that interested in how your bicycle is made and how accurately, that's fine, but I'm more interested in how good it is on the road or track or field.

Only he's not applying aerospace standards really is he?
He's measuring bottom bracket diameters with standard vernier calipers. And measuring offsets using mechanical gauges.
The fact he had used ultrasound to detect anomalies in carbon layups highlights the quality of frame manufacturer. And you're saying it's not relevant? Really??
As a consumer spending your hard earned cash on something purportedly cutting edge - I'm sure you'd want to get the maximum bang for your buck. And to say it doesn't make a difference to the average joe is average wrong.

Chapo wrote:

Only he's not applying aerospace standards really is he? He's measuring bottom bracket diameters with standard vernier calipers. .

Do you even know what a vernier caliper is?  I'm guessing not, otherwise you wouldn't have said that.

" And to say it doesn't make a difference to the average joe is average wrong."

Exactly how does the average Joe know that his bike hasn't been made to the nearest 0.01mm rather than 0.02mm? And how would they tell the difference?  The difference being 100%, a massive amount but undetectable by the rider.

I worked in aerospace, specifically machining to exacting limits, and I know very well that those limits are necessary for planes, helicopters and jet engines, but are complete overkill for bicycles.  Bicycles don't fall out of the sky and kill people, nor do they shed rotors and kill people, neither do they explode and kill people.

Get real.  Hambini appears to be an engineer with some knowledge, but applying aerospace limits to bicycles is laughable.

If you want a bicycle made to aerospace limits, that's fine.  Just give me your credit card and I'll tell you when you've reached your limit.  As an example, check out the prices of his bottom brackets, and while they may be accurately made are still extortionate and grossly over priced. But maybe that's the point.

eburtthebike wrote:

Exactly how does the average Joe know that his bike hasn't been made to the nearest 0.01mm rather than 0.02mm? And how would they tell the difference?  The difference being 100%, a massive amount but undetectable by the rider.

The sort of out-of-tolerance manufacturing that Hambini shows in his videos is much worse than that. The point is that nobody is asking for 'aerospace tolerances', but simply that manufacturers make their bikes to the 'accepted tolerances for the industry'. So that, e.g., a BB30 bottom bracket doesn't creak and wear out its bearings in short order. These sort of manufacturing errors are most certainly noticable by riders and reports that manufacturers (Boardman was the most recent one analysed by Hambini) don't honour the warranty on these frames is a shame on the industry. 

If the frame is beyond the recommended tolerances of the bearings, then service life is greatly reduced.  Creaking, grumbling bottom brackets then arise a few months into ownership.  

A close tolerance BB is ideal for longevity.  That is basic engineering.

Why do the bearings in my BB keep wearing out?  My friend has the same BB and the same frame and theirs last forever?  Why does my BB make a creaking noise?  Why does my bicycle wobble at 25 MPH? I spent (xxxx GBP, USD, Eur or xxxxx CAD) for wheels that promised to make me faster and they didn't: why?

These are the kind of questions the Dr. Hambini's rants are speaking to.  Note well that he is not totally impartial in that for a fee he will machine an offset BB adaptor for your poorly made carbon frame to improve bearing life and eliminate creaking.

When a manufacturer pubishes a standard for their BB and then sends bikes out the door which do not meet that standard I believe it is useful information, and in his own way Dr. Hambini has been speaking out about this kind of issue.

He has been full of praise for Look bicycles, particularly for their manufacturing quality. They are not exactly cheap, but not out of line with a Cervello frame(Dr. Hambini's personal bike), which he has castigated.

It should be possible to weld, stress relieve, and align a metal frame without adding a huge amount to the cost.

Dangerous Dan,

All of the things you mention are perfectly valid points, and Hambini or anyone else for that matter can rant all they want about them. Hopefully manufacturing standards will improve as a  result.

However what has that go to do with posting an image of a woman with a caption "Vagina Head" and arrows pointing to her groin and asking what the engineering hole tolerance is? (with a follow up comment of H7 is like shagging a bucket)

Or drawing a penis on the head of her male colleague, for that matter?

Disgusting, sexist and personal attacks.

CygnusX1 wrote:

However what has that go to do with posting an image of a woman with a caption "Vagina Head" and arrows pointing to her groin and asking what the engineering hole tolerance is? (with a follow up comment of H7 is like shagging a bucket)

Here's a tacit admission that you've not seen the original video. "Vagina Head" was the man from aerocoach. The one, who you observed, had a penis drawn on his head. Yes, they were personal attacks. I think personal attacks are quite deserved on people attempting to dishonestly obtain your money. I, like many working class people, also find crass and puerile remarks entertaining.

eburtthebike wrote:

But, at the end of the day, it's how the bike rides that is the most important factor, not about some techie point that 99% of readers would barely comprehend.  Hambini's comments are relevant to those manufacturing bicycles, but of very little relevance to those riding them.  Applying aircraft standards to bicycles is not really sensible, unless you really are at the cutting edge, and let's face it, very few of us are.

In fact, it would be very costly to do so, and therefore it isn't done.  You don't apply aerospace standards to washing machines or cars, so why would you apply them to bicycles?  If you did do so, the costs would rise exponentially as every increase in accuracy roughly doubles the cost, so unless you want to pay four or five times the price, accept that bicycles are built to an appropriate standard.  It is entirely inappropriate to apply aerospace standards to bicycles, so the basic premise of his site and his ranting is hollow.

If you're really that interested in how your bicycle is made and how accurately, that's fine, but I'm more interested in how good it is on the road or track or field.

That's where people are so wrong. Bearing geometry are not "aerospace" specific and indeed the bearing on a washing machine does follow the SAME geometrical rules than on any other mechanical environment (and on the case of a washing machine probably more complex than on a bike due to the temperature variation). Bikes manufacturers are NOT respecting industrial rules (not bike rules, not aerospace rules, 1st year mechanical engineering school rules) their BB are too often OUTSIDE what ANY bearing manufacturer in the planet recomend period.

Brent-Norh-Sea wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

But, at the end of the day, it's how the bike rides that is the most important factor, not about some techie point that 99% of readers would barely comprehend.  Hambini's comments are relevant to those manufacturing bicycles, but of very little relevance to those riding them.  Applying aircraft standards to bicycles is not really sensible, unless you really are at the cutting edge, and let's face it, very few of us are.

In fact, it would be very costly to do so, and therefore it isn't done.  You don't apply aerospace standards to washing machines or cars, so why would you apply them to bicycles?  If you did do so, the costs would rise exponentially as every increase in accuracy roughly doubles the cost, so unless you want to pay four or five times the price, accept that bicycles are built to an appropriate standard.  It is entirely inappropriate to apply aerospace standards to bicycles, so the basic premise of his site and his ranting is hollow.

If you're really that interested in how your bicycle is made and how accurately, that's fine, but I'm more interested in how good it is on the road or track or field.

 

That's where people are so wrong. Bearing geometry are not "aerospace" specific and indeed the bearing on a washing machine does follow the SAME geometrical rules than on any other mechanical environment (and on the case of a washing machine probably more complex than on a bike due to the temperature variation). Bikes manufacturers are NOT respecting industrial rules (not bike rules, not aerospace rules, 1st year mechanical engineering school rules) their BB are too often OUTSIDE what ANY bearing manufacturer in the planet recomend period.

Surely someone is going to mention the fact that Graeme Obree made his 'Old Faithful' hour record bike using washing machine bearings??

Those production standards can, and in some case ARE applied to bikes, and to do so would not increase costs "exponentially"

Take a listen to Cyclingtips podcast with Rob Gitelis, who probably knows more about carbon bicycle manufacture than anyone, having made bikes for the biggest brands. In it he mentions asking them if they would pay "$40-50" more per frame to produce a much better product and they were unwilling to do it. These bikes were the highest priced bikes availalbe from those brands. Quite frankly they can do better, they choose not to.

Well worth a listen:
https://cyclingtips.com/2020/03/nerd-alert-podcast-peek-behind-the-carbo...

what's this 1 hour government thing? can you show me in the official legislation (i.e THE LAW) where it states only 1 hour allowed?

Was mentioned by the minister... but you are correct, that never translated into the law. Now RESPECT of the people fighting to control COVID-19 seems to be something this person totally missed, 298km the first week of the lock down, 304 the second, 267 the 3rd and 205 last week (incomplete data) for roughtly 10 hrs / week. Record she now errased from her strava... 

What a load of twaddle you write. As long as social distancing rules were followed then there is nothing wrong with riding your bike on average less than 45km per day (based on your totals above). Any decent cyclist can ride 40km in less than 90 minutes. There is no law about time spent exercising - it is all about maintaining social distance. The minister himself said "There is no limit". The times he quoted were what he thought were reasonable - no doubt for him.

The biggest danger for lack of RESPECT is going to the supermarket everyday!

Philh68 wrote:

Did I miss something, or is Hambini trying to use autism as an excuse for acting like a first class asshole? 

I wondered that too, and why it wasn't Tourettes that he was claiming to have.

700c wrote:

Not been on here for a while, came across this via Hambini's YouTube.. Yes he's excessively rude but instead of covering the internet tit-for-tat (name calling, banning, going to the police for sexism..) why not focus on the reason for his criticism? The cycling industry has a lot of snake oil products and companies so calling out shoddy products and journalism should be welcomed. This is a consumer site isn't it?

He isn't being criticised for pointing out the failings of the bicycle industry, he's being criticised for being a foul-mouthed sexist and general all round know it all.

Exactly. Why not focus on the science? Both road.Cc and Cycling Weekly. The 'you're a troll'/ 'you're a fanboy' /'I'm banning you because I don't like your opinion' etc is the worst of the internet and perpetuates poor debate as per the comments on this very article.