Once upon a Torker

Ok heres my finished torker trials, i dont think its reall even close to a torker anymore…

It had a Kh seat, modified torker seat post, yuni frame, qu-ax rim, marwi spokes, luna tire, Torker cranks and hub, and yes the original pedals…

heh, it may have started out as a torker, but when more than 50% of it isn’t torker, I don’t think it counts as one anymore (:
very nice uni though

What part of it is actually still a torker

And how much does stifining the seat like that help? :thinking:

Oh ya and could you weigh it for me?

he told you all the different parts, so you can go find out for yourself on unicycledotcom

ge wiz
I will but what i realy want to know is how does a stiffner work? Dose it only stranthen the seat? or dose it help your hoping?:frowning:

Any philosophers out there familiar with the Ship of Theseus example? Kinda like this Torker…where does one draw the line? When does it cease being a Torker? What exactly is Torkerhood? Torkerness…

ooh yeah, that’s what it reminded me of…
whenever a piece of wood in Theseus’s ship got old and rotten or something, he’d replace that piece. after a while, he had replaced every single board in the ship. So since none of it is the same as the one he started on, is it the same ship he had in the beginning, or is it an entirely new ship?

I think that while this unicycle can no longer be called a Torker, it is still the same unicycle he had in the beginning, just with some changes. but it still has all those memories, and all those good ol’ times to reminisce about.

the frame would have remained torker but it didnt really fit hte tire, the top of it rubed, hte width was great, but not hte hieght…

the only hting left thats traditional torker on it is the hub, cranks, pedals, and seat post(but with extra metal on it) the seat is kh and the frame is yuni, qu-ax luna blah blah…

This is my grandfather’s axe. My father replaced the handle and I replaced the head.

In the case of the unicycle, I think it depends how gradually the changes are made. You can put a new wheel in a unicycle; you can replace the frame. Do both at the same time and it becomes a different unicycle. Do them a month apart and when someone says, "Do you still have that unicycle?"you can say, “Yes.”

Many people’s “cokers” have nothing but a coker tire…but they call them that because thats what they think of them as.

Where did you get the Qu-ax rim I recently built a torker hub trials uni and I talked to UDC UK about getting a Qu-ax but I didn’t want to deal with the shipping and such. I got my rim from UDC USA and they sold it as a Yuni rim, but I wonder if it is realy the same rim. Here is a picture.

trials wheel.jpg

What if all that was original Torker was the wheel, rim, and frame? Could we still call that a Torker? Seems so to me.

I don’t agree with this. I don’t think time should matter, because how could you ever determine the certain amount of time that divides when it becomes something new and when it remains the same? What if you replace the frame, wait a week then replace the wheel? Same uni? What if you replace the frame, have a sandwich and then replace the wheel? Different uni now? Does it depend on someone else seeing it between each stage?

I like the idea that it’s the memories we attach to it that gives it its “-ness”. Although every philosopher has his mad scientist example that does crazy things like replace one memory at a time with someone else’s, creating that same grey area that comes up in the time problem and is meant to be demonstrated by the Ship of Theseus.

…I like uni’s and philosophy, especially mixed.

that is true…any unicycle with a 36" wheel is a Coker, even if none of it is made by Coker, just because that’s what everyone knows a 36" wheel unicycle as.
but a trials uni, that’s a different thing. ya gotcher KH, and then ya gotcher Onza. and then ya gotcher Quax, and then ya gotcher Miyata’s. there’s a BUNCH of different kinds, and none of them were the main trials uni.
but of course, when someone says, I have a KH 20", everyone instantly knows that it’s a trials.

"[Fuller] grasps and tenses an invisible rope, on which we are to understand a common overhand knot, two 360° rotations in intersecting planes, each passed through the other:

"Pull, and whatever your effort each lobe of the knot makes it impossible that the other shall disappear. It is a self-interfering pattern. Slacken, and its structure hangs open for anlysis, but suffers no topological impairment. Slide the knot along the rope: you are sliding the rope through the knot. Slide through it, if you have them spliced in sequence, hemp rope, cotton rope, nylon rope. The knot is indifferent to these transactions. the knot is neither hemp nor cotton nor nylon: is not the rope. The knot is a patterned integrity. The rope renders it visible. No member of Fuller’s audience has ever objected (he remarks) that throughout this exposition he has been holding no rope at all, so accessible to the mind is a patterned integrity, visible or no, once the senses have taught us the contours.

“Imagine, next, the metabolic flow that passes through a man and is not the man: some hundreds of tons of solids, liquids and gasses serving to render a single man corporeal during the seventy years he persists, a patterned integrity, a knot through which pass the swift strands of simultaneous ecological cycles, recycling transformations of solar energy. At any given moment the knotted materials weigh perhaps 160 pounds.”

(Buckminster Fuller, 1967)

Looks hte exact same to me, i called them and orderd a qu-ax rim from UDC…

In the case of Cokers, the tire is the part that’s actually made by the Coker Tire Company. This is why a Coker can still be a Coker when the tire is the only original part left.

The same is not true for other brands of unicycle, nor should “Coker” be a generic name for 36" unicycles. Teresa Abrahams had a 36" Tom Miller big wheel back in the early 80s. There’s nothing Coker about it.

If we follow the general rule for bicycles, then you go by the frame. But even this is a pretty rough guideline, because the company named on the stickers may or may not have actually made the frame. But since the frame is usually the part that is most identified with the brand, I would tend to follow the frame. I believe Torker frames are made by a third-party frame company in Taiwan (or China?) for Torker. But the Torker stickers go on the frame, and though those frames may be identical to some other brands out there, they may also be unique to the Torker brand.

On the typical bike, pretty much every other part is made by somebody else. Tires come from a tire company. Rims from a rim company. Drive components (gruppos) from a company that specializes in those, etc. The same is true for unicycles.

So if what was originally a Torker now has a Yuni frame and a mass of other parts, its Torker-ness is seriously reduced. I would call it a customized Yuni at this point.

I had an old Miyata that went through a similar process. I guess it was my old 24" racing machine (not the fancy specialized one that was stolen in China). Over the years the seat and post were replaced (many times), the wheel was replaced, as I’m sure was the axle at least once or twice. The only thing remaining of the original cycle was half of the frame. Tom Miller had replaced the short seat tube with a long one and had it re-chromed. But what was left of the frame was still the Miyata part; the part that was originally made by Miyata. Technically it would be a TUF-Miyata at this point, or a customized Miyata.

The argument of the beard: if I have 5,000 whiskers, I have a beard; if I have no whiskers, I have no beard. So, what if I have 4,999 whiskers? or 1 whisker? Could I say that 2,500 whiskers is a beard, but 2,499 is not? And so on.

The fallacy is that just because it is possible to demonstrate meaninglessly small increments along a continuum, there must be no difference between the two ends of the continuum.

I buy a unicycle. I ride it. I replace the tyre. I have a unicycle. It is the same one. I replace the tube. It is the same unicycle. I replace the cranks, etc. At each stage, I am altering one component of an existing unicycle. Eventually, I might have replaced every component, but there will be no specific point at which there would be universal agreement that it was no longer the same unicycle. However, a photograph of the original chromed 20 inch beginner’s uni, and the eventual red powder coated 24 inch MUni would clearly show that there were two different unicycle. That is one application of the “argument of the beard”, showing that my own argumetn earlier in the thread was contaminated by this fallacy.

On the other hand, there is a clear difference in character between replacing individual components over a period of time, and replacing several major components simultaneously. You can fit a new crank bolt to a unicycle, but you cannot fit a new unicycle to a crank bolt.

The fallacy occurs, and introduces an apparent paradox, because the question is artificial, and carries subjective concepts within it. The cure, therefore, is to define your terms clearly within the question. The answer to the question then becomes a truism, or tautologous.

For example: let the definition of a unicycle be the frame, not including the detachable parts such as bearing clamps of seat clamp.

At what stage does it become a different unicycle?

At the stage that the frame is changed.

Here is where logic is revealed as no more than a tool for analysing what we already know. It gives us no new insights whatsoever.

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Plato is a man.
(3) Therefore, Plato is mortal.

Many people fail to spot that we can only know (1) if we already know (3).

So back to the Torker Paradox, the philosophical question is one we must address, not with syllogisms, but with definitions. Definitions apply to words, not concepts. We use words to define concepts, not concepts to exemplify words. Therefore, any attempt to answer the question is merely an expression of our preferences. We choose to define the unicycle as its frame, or its wheel, or as its totality, or as its monetary value.

This last one (monetary value) is one I hear very often at work as an insurance assessor. It is common for people to inherit or be given jewellery, and to take the insurance money to buy something fundamentally different (a watch instead of a necklace) and then convince themselves that the watch is the one that they inherited or were given.

Wow, I didnt think we would be getting plato involved :wink: but as for hte switching of parts it was over time, every part i changed has been ovre stretch of time, hte shhortest stretch was a month that was between the new rim and tire, and the frame, the seat i changed within a month of having the uni, the seat post i did a lil while back and i made a thread on it. so ts been an overtime change, not an at once change, but i would definatly not call this uni a true torker anymore, its a tuni frame with a torker hub and cranks set and a kh seat, there is no brand htat you can specify, it is a custom uni…