S k a t e L o g F o r u m
Inline Skating and Quad Roller Skating
Forum Hosts: Jessica Wright | Kathie Fry
FOLLOW US: Our Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Email
|Home - Forum Index - Africa Skating - Asia Skating - Europe Skating - Oceania Skating - Pan America Skating - Roller_Rinks - -|
Forum Administrators: Jessica Wright and Kathie Fry | Email Us
Access code for buying and selling subforums: "skates"
How To Get a User Account and Posting Privileges in the SkateLog Forum
Use Google to Search the SkateLog Forum
|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|
|March 28th, 2017, 11:49 AM||#61|
Join Date: Mar 2016
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.
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.