stirlingpowers

As I wrote in the ither thread: Emergency disconnect for seat and pedal contact, electric drive, "trackstand replacement" struts with handlebar remote -> world-improving product I bet Martyn will be able to trackstand again at some point, however.

I have seen some hardcore riders use these stems for years, when their frames snapped after two months frequently. Nice bike, btw.

I'm pretty sure some old school BMX shop will still have that saddle, I remember laying my hands on one of these.

Exactly. Electric drive, disconnecting rider restraints for a crash, automated struts.

Video? Video?

What kind of imbecile censored "for the win"? Anyway: New 04 lever blade, then the rest of the lever. It shouldn't bend so that it starts leaking, its seals should last, it should have rather minimal flex (although most of it happens at the frame and fork mounts), the clamp should be split with a hook and eye mechanism, smooth and rounded not to hurt the rider's knees.

BB mounted

04 ***

My bad. As long as it is not part of a PC movement, but just family friendly corporate strategy, no problem for me.

It's not about the content itself: - exercising power - Censorship manifests "people are immature and need guidance like children" as a fact. - establishing a censorship structure for general purpose (process, organization, people, culture, public belief) - censorship scope creep - With censorship, the public always looses against powerful singular interests in the long run. Existing Internet filters are misused regularly and systematically, everywhere.

Split clamp is ok, but get the screws out of the way of riders knees and upper legs: Use a hook and screw design, or something like the K2 stem rings. I won't ever use a Racing Line brake lever because of these bolts.

I am not quite sure how the international audience of TG will react to Chris Evans. I thought they would choose someone who has developed an "internationally compatible" TV persona.

Riding this bike in public might be considered to be lewd conduct...

Jup, the little pedantic teacher in me is really triggered by math forum questions. Anyway, that 0.15 instead of 0.14 typo is crucial for understanding, good you found that one.

I'll restate what I think might be the solution in more common terms: You always apply this equation to calculate your selling prices: discount factor x base price = selling price Now you know that at 300 units, where you have defined a discount factor of 0.2, you have a selling price of £70. Then you can calculate your base price with the above equation: 0.2 x base price = £70 If you divide by 0.2 on both sides of the equal sign, you get: base price = £70 / 0.2 This is where the £350 base price comes from. With this base price and your discount factors, you can get a selling price at any amount of units: discount factor x £350 = selling price That is the straightforward way for me. Pasting this into your original problem statement gives you: 1 unit: £140 10-24 units: x 0.45 of £140 25-49 units: x 0.28 of £140 50-99 units: x 0.23 of £140 100-299 units: x 0.21 of £140 300 units: x 0.20 of £140 What I need to do is this: 1 unit: £70 / 0.2 x 1 = £350 10-24 units: £70 / 0.2 x 0.45 = £157.5 25-49 units: £70 / 0.2 x 0.28 = £98 50-99 units: £70 / 0.2 x 0.23 = £80.5 100-299 units: £70 / 0.2 x 0.21 = £73.5 300 units: £70 In your second answer, you said: 1 unit: x 1.00 of ??? 10-24 units: x 0.60 of ??? 25-49 units: x 0.40 of ??? 50-99 units: x 0.30 of ??? 100-299 units: x 0.25 of ??? 300 units: £70 If you don't have the discount factor at 300 units, you will have to extrapolate that curve to 300 units. I can post a simple technique of extrapolation, based on just the numbers given above, or based on fixed and running costs if necessary. But I don't assume that this is the problem you want to have solved here. I think it is more like this: If you choose a discount factor of 0.14 for 300 units, my solution pasted in your statement would be: 1 unit: x 1.00 of £70/0.14 = £500 10-24 units: x 0.60 of £70/0.14 = £300 25-49 units: x 0.40 of £70/0.14 = £200 50-99 units: x 0.30 of £70/0.14 = £150 100-299 units: x 0.25 of £70/0.14 = £125 300 units: x 0.14 of £70/0.14 = £70 But I am not quite sure about this being the solution, since I did neither consider how the discount factors came to be nor the total amount of cost at a certain amount of units.

In your last post: Is the discount factor at 300 units known? If not, does the discount at 300 apply to 300 and more units?

Hashta.gg claims to have solved the stiffness problem of carbon forks, which is holding them back at the moment.

Your discount factors define a relative discount function. Relative means it needs to be multiplied with an absolute base price for a certain quantity to get the real selling price. For brevity, let's call the discount function d. It gives back a value d[q] for a certain quantity q. The base price shall be called b, the real selling price r: d[q] * b = r At quantity 1, d has the value 1: d[1] = 1 At quantity 300, d has the value d[300] = 0.2 You know the following equation is true: d[300] * b = £70 When you divide this equation by d[300]: b = £70 / d[300] = £70 / 0.2 = £350 The rest of the prices is found by just multiplying the basePrice with the discount function at the desired quantity: d[q]*£350 = r

The more you know...

One can buy these hydroformed tubings from many Taiwanese and Chinese factories, even for smaller production runs (few hundred) at a reasonable price. It's a matter of getting the right model. Most are fairly thin, but if the cross-section at the ends is designed properly, they will endure trials use (see Koxx Kloud). The Skye proto above looks promising in that area, not perfect, but very reasonable. Probably they have even used a thicker downhill tube here. Far more interesting: Is this a picture of the first tapered fork for Street Trials?

Horizontal dropouts and variable chain length? Why?

Agreed. V dropouts. I still wonder why the effort for April fools.

I think you are right. Perhaps the rule should be: Preloading only with the up and down movement of the jump...

Preloading the spring in the initial phase of the jump to use its stored energy in the late phase is borderline cheating, at least for the biketrials idea. What's next? Pressurizing an air volume with several little jumps before a big jump to power some catapult? Comp aside, I like it though.