tvashtarkatena

Breaking a pick isn't just a performance issue, it's a safety issue. As for BD picks 'performing better' than others, nothing anyone's stated here would seem to indicate that that is true. And I seriously doubt that the 'lack of durability' is 'intentionally' designed in as a tradeoff for this elusive performance advantage. BD would probably like to fix this issue (perhaps they have, perhaps not; their field testing seems to produce different numbers than ours, but that's not unusual for any company), but it doesn't sound like from your statements that you're anywhere close to describing the real root causes of BD's breakage issue. About a strong as a Petzl maybe? You're apparently not drawing your conclusions from what people have posted on this thread. Several posters here have stated that they've broken new BD picks. And a 40 to 1 breakage ratio isn't market share related: BD doesn't have anywhere near that kind of market advantage. Performance is determined by the whole tool, not just the pick. A 30 second analysis quickly shows that the 'less material' argument could not possibly account for BD's very high rate of breakage compared to other picks. The moment of internia of a rectangular section, which determines breaking strength for a beam in bending (like a pick) when only geometry is considered, is I=(thickness)*(height)^2/12. If the breakage ratio of BD to other picks was as low as 5:1, (from this thread, that would be really conservatively low), then a fraction of a mm in pick thickness or several mm s difference in pick height wouldn't even come close to explaining BD's lack of durability. BD claims that Petzl picks last 20% longer in fatigue, but without knowing the test setup (force/direction/how the pick is secured in the test fixture) what does that mean? Do the picks fail in torsion due to twisting, bending sideways, or bending in the vertical axis during these tests? You can't state this without knowing what minimum tooth radius produces any significant stress concentration. If both teeth radii are above this limit, there is no significant stress concentration from the tooth geometry and this is not a factor. It was stated previously on this thread that Petzl cold forges their Cascade pick from 4340 (a chrome moly steel, same stuff as BD, although heat treat and steel vendors differ for sure). I observe no finishing differences between the two picks; cold forging produces a nice dimensionally accurate piece with a nice surface finish that requires little in the way of post processing, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that particular speculation. The price point difference, only 10 to 15%, is probably due more to BD's volume price breaks, and differences in manufacturing costs based on process and place of manufacture. Really? Petzl makes one high end ice tool (the Quark), and one high end mixed tool (the Nomic). They make a mixed pick and an ice pick for the Quark. The rest are alpine tools. Hardly addressing differing conditions I'd say. Seems like two sizes fits all, and none of those sizes seem to break much.

Increase demand for oil at a time of record oil prices and sagging supply, then increase the deficit; this dinosaur doesn't just stay the course, he fossilizes it. link John, you calcified visionary, you!

The nice thing about a chihuahua with PBRs is that you've already got something to throw on the barbie.

A down hood (FF sells them for about $50), which weighs next to nothing, does wonders for upping staying toasty in a lighter bag, and it looks styling first thing in the morning, too.

Brazil has another large advantage in energy resources; it's ability to produce ethanol profitably from cane due to it's equatorial location and huge land area.

I think humans have a very significant primal component. Even though the prefontal cortex is constantly deciding what to do based on a barrage of modern considerations, we have a fundamental evolutionary imperative as social animals to 'fit in'...to our party, our government, our neighborhood, our friendships, our marriage, our internuts, our street gangs.... The brain is also a delicate organ that is sensitive to chemical balances; also a direct byproduct of evolution. Change the chemistry and personality and behavior, ie what constitutes the self, changes accordingly. The kicker is that humans, for whatever reason, evolved really large reasoning centers, which are capable of a whole lot of spurious activity, including those which ensure a lack of survival rather than the opposite. This is what throws a curve ball into the whole 'instinct' argument; the ability of the prefrontal cortex to 'argue' with deeper impulses and either win or lose that argument when it's time to act.

Describing human behavior as purely instinctual is a bit simplistic. For starters, humans behavior is affected by many modern types of evolution: the evolution of memes, technology, organizations, all of these are factors in defining morality and in final behaviors. In addition, humans are continually conflicted. Our 'instincts', or deep seated emotional drives and impulses, may drive us to think, feel, or do one thing while our prefontal cortex drives us to think, feel, and do another. The final behavioral outcome can be anything from rational to irrational, random to planned, constructive to self-destructive, but it's certainly not purely instinctual. I do agree that philosophy and religion are two common sources of morality, which is a human construct, but a person who has never been exposed to either is still capable of creating his or her own values and moral code, plus, there are more powerful sources. Governments, of course, are one of the chief engines of morality today. They have become extremely adept (through an evolutionary process of trial and error) at mutilating philosophical, religious, and self generated morals beyond recognition, to the point where a majority of the society believes that dropping a bomb on a civilian city and killing 100,000 is 'a good thing', even though a majority of the society believes that killing is prohibited by God.

I didn't lump all Christians in one group. I spoke of "a popular Christian" misconception of atheism. It was an accurate assessment based on an overwhelming body of evidence.

God evolved. Woah, dude.

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy. Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe. My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God". As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess. When atheists stop imposing their misguided iterpretations of why I consider myself a Christian, I will buy a round. Why would you think anyone here is talking about you? Do you believe in a Bug-centric universe?

This is a common misconception of atheism; the need to replace God with something. In a popular Christian view, this 'something' is always of lesser quality and legitimacy. Atheism is rejecting the need for God as middle man. It is the removal of God as a barrier or buffer between man and the universe, thus putting man where he belongs; simply one more phenomenal part of a much grander universe. My response to Neitze's "We must move beyond God" would be simply that "We must remove God". As for the popular misconception that atheists seek to replace God with a God-like man, I would say that the opposite is true. Believers seek to worship a man-like God; after all, God is the invention of a being that represents what humans are fast becoming: all powerful (or nearly so) entities who have the capability of manipulating the most fundamental forces of the universe (the atom, genetics, the climate, etc). The extra something that believers imparted to the Christian-style God was not omnipotence; something man is capable of, but omniscience, more specifically infinite wisdom; something man is forever doomed never to possess.

I no fin' porotics bery sexy.

There's no better aphrodisiac than taboo. If I were to ply the Christian churches for their single women, would it be so different from the half of the congregation that's sitting there faking it? I think a lot more Americans have serious doubts about the existence of God than meets the eye. They wouldn't admit it, of course. We're not nearly as religious a nation as the tabloids and polls would suggest.

What's the old rule? Ramp up by no more than 10% per week. That's always worked for me. The one time I violated it training for a marathon I immediately got shin splints.

Wasn't an aging hair band mentioned in there somewhere?

Now there's a little shit distribution for ya.

Now a lama with one L is a priest, and a llama with 2 L's is a beast, but I'll bet your bottom pajama that if you search from here to Yokohama, you can't find a lllama, mama.

I don't give a shit about shit distribution. I want you to own a snowmachine once again so you can tow me up Highway 20.

I had City Foresters take out a big pine and grind the stump about 8 years ago (old information, I know). They did a good job, nice cleanup, and their prices were reasonable. They just sent me a 5% off coupon I don't need. You're welcome to it.

May the Lord keep you, Ivan, for posting this invaluable and timely warning to all of us. I'm getting confused though. Does the Anti-Christ come before or after The Rapture? I'm just trying to get things straight in my daytimer.

It's not hard to get pissed off at snowmachines. The noise. The stink. The ease with which they log thousands of vertical feet with nary a forced exhalation. But when you're punching 8 miles of deep trail up a logging road to get in somewhere, and a herd of these puppies wiz by, leaving a perfectly groomed carpet in their wake, you'll sing their praises.

Jetsetting, for sure. Nucular, even.

Close enough. Buncha fuckin' anal retentives around here.

Sometimes, one experiences a perfect moment in time and space while observing the misery of another. Roberto Gonzales, Master of the Impossible: The Man who made John Ashcroft look good.

Just be glad we don't have chiggers out here, m'fuck'rs