| |
Main
Date: 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55
From:
Subject: Two wheels does it
|
Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
logistical vehicles.
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
Jobst Brandt
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:31:55
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162877167.848780.27770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162862998.699432.160590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > ,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > > > > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > > > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > > > > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
> > > > >
> > > > > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> > > > > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> > > > > never on topic.
> > > >
> > > > Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
> > > > CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
> > > > to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
> > >
> > > I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
> > > your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
> > > to disparaging reks about recumbent bicycles that
> > > you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
> > > of history...
> >
> > I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly
> > it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
> >
> > Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I
> > AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT
> > IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
>
> Generalized complaints about how you are mistreated
> here is not productive. Address directly those silly
> upright riders.
Once again, since Michael Press does not appear to understand
(willfully?), I am not complaining about my treatment, I am pointing
out how silly it is for upright riders (e.g. Jobst Brandt [1]) to
complain about a few "recumbent evangelists" when vocal upright riding
detractors (not to mention Usenet posters) of recumbents are more
common.
Is this that hard to understand?
> > > The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
> >
> > Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?
>
> Take it as you will, the style has no place here.
When people willfully refuse to comprehend, on must write "LOUDER".
[1] Example here <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html >.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:26:07
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162862998.699432.160590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > ,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > >
> > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> > > >
> > > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
> > >
> > > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> > > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> > > never on topic.
> >
> > Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
> > CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
> > to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
>
> I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
> your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
> to disparaging reks about recumbent bicycles that
> you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
> of history...
I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly
it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I
AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT
IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
> The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:21:45
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162877167.848780.27770@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162862998.699432.160590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > ,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > > > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> > > > >
> > > > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > > > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
> > > >
> > > > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> > > > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> > > > never on topic.
> > >
> > > Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
> > > CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
> > > to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
> >
> > I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
> > your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
> > to disparaging reks about recumbent bicycles that
> > you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
> > of history...
>
> I am not whining about being mistreated - I am pointing out how silly
> it is for a few upright riders to whine about "recumbent evangelism".
>
> Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this, I will repeat: I
> AM NOT WHINING ABOUT BEING MISTREATED - I AM POINTING OUT HOW SILLY IT
> IS FOR A FEW UPRIGHT RIDERS TO WHINE ABOUT "RECUMBENT EVANGELISM".
Generalized complaints about how you are mistreated
here is not productive. Address directly those silly
upright riders.
> > The all capital posting method is another style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
>
> Another veiled insult that will be disavowed?
Take it as you will, the style has no place here.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:21:27
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162863447.990039.186380@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > > > ::::::
> > > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > > > division.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> > > >
> > > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
> > >
> > > You yourself said you do not react well to being
> > > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> > > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> > > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> > > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
> > >
> > > Do not address me as `Dude'.
> >
> > Mr. Press,
> >
> > A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
> > discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
> > to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
> > you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
>
> No, you have to spell it out.
>
> > If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
> > changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
> > newsgroup.
>
> False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:30:18
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162876887.285670.17230@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162863447.990039.186380@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > > > > ::::::
> > > > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > > > > division.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > > > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
> > > >
> > > > You yourself said you do not react well to being
> > > > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> > > > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> > > > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> > > > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
> > > >
> > > > Do not address me as `Dude'.
> > >
> > > Mr. Press,
> > >
> > > A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
> > > discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
> > > to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
> > > you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
> >
> > No, you have to spell it out.
> >
> > > If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
> > > changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
> > > newsgroup.
> >
> > False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
>
> Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]
You cannot cite any place that I expressed the
sentiment you ascribe to me. Hence, you predicate that
injunction upon a false premise.
As a spokesman for recumbent riders, you may wish to
reexamine your approach. Yawning in someone's face and
using a demeaning form of address is
counter-productive.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:07:05
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):
>
> > Do not address me as `Dude'.
>
> Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?
Don't get snippy with Michael, Skippy.
-Dude
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:37:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > ::::::
> > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > :::::
> > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > :::
> > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > >
> > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > division.
> > > >
> > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > >
> > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > >
> > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > >
> > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> >
> > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
>
> You yourself said you do not react well to being
> bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
>
> Do not address me as `Dude'.
Mr. Press,
A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
newsgroup.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:49:24
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162863447.990039.186380@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > > ::::::
> > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > :::
> > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > > division.
> > > > >
> > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > > >
> > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> > >
> > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
> >
> > You yourself said you do not react well to being
> > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
> >
> > Do not address me as `Dude'.
>
> Mr. Press,
>
> A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
> discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
> to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
> you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
No, you have to spell it out.
> If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
> changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
> newsgroup.
False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:29:58
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > :::::
> > > > > :::
> > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > >
> > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > >
> > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > >
> > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > >
> > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> >
> > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
>
> You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> never on topic.
Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:44:54
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162862998.699432.160590@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > > ,
> > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > ::::: ...
> > > > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > :::
> > > > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > > > ::
> > > > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > >
> > > > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > > > slighting party? Or go back to
> > > > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
> > >
> > > WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> > > UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
> >
> > You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
> > up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
> > never on topic.
>
> Stop ducking and answer the question: WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech
> CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY UPRIGHT BICYCLES, Mr. "go back
> to alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs"?
I see what you mean. The `this' I am talking about is
your whining about mistreatment. You are so sensitive
to disparaging reks about recumbent bicycles that
you thought I was making them, regardless of the lack
of history. The all capital posting method is another
style that belongs in arbr, and not here.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 05:37:36
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <12kuadm8p595af0@news.supernews.com >,
"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
[much gratuitous snippage]
>:: We riders don't need to tear
>:: ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
>:: stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other
> Hear Hear!
Well, yeah. It's hurtful to us all when cylists pick on
each other. I've seen such things happen among chickens.
We should be above that. We're supposed to be more civilized
and brainially-developed than a bunch of hen-pecking chickens.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 02:29:43
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <1162747843.554678.282470@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
>> Of course that would alienate us from Society,
>> but ... screw Society, right? We can ch off
>> independently to the beats of our own drummers &
>> pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
>> ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,
>
> I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
> the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".
Bicycling on any sort of bicycle configuration doesn't need
any justification or rationalisation AFIC. I guess it's a
binary thing -- you're riding, or ya ain't. You're a cyclist,
or ya ain't. Plain & simple. We riders don't need to tear
ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other,
from the retired couples toodling around park paths, to the
commuters bombing down urban arterials, to the coffee shop
trendies, to the hell-bent-for-leather racers in their yellow &
black killer bee costumes, to escapee tourers, to the folks who
just plain ride to get around. But all too often, we ourselves
are our worst enemies. We pedal-pushers are all linked. We
share common interests and common experiences. I think that's
something to joyously celebrate, but unfortunately some
party-poopers think otherwise.
Oh, well. The party-poopers ye shall always have among you.
But y'know what? Out on the streets in real life is pretty
different from here in UseNetLand. When I'm out & about on
ol' Pig Iron, I get into all kinds of nice interactions with
fellow riders and other people (including some downright pretty
and charming women.) And my ugly rig even occasionally gets
compliments from folks whom it nostalgically reminds of bicycles
back in "the old country" (wherever that may be.) So, I take my
"screw Society" back. Screw party-poopers! Double screw 'em!
Keep the human-powered, self-propelled faith.
Let your smile be a fairing.
And please don't let a bunch of stupid words get you down.
Cheers & a flick o' the forelock from one Bicycle Rider to another,
Tom
--
-- "You are sentenced to hang by the neck until you cheer up."
-- from Monty Python's Flying Circus
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 07:25:25
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tom Keats wrote:
:: In article <1162747843.554678.282470@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
:: "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
::
:::: Of course that would alienate us from Society,
:::: but ... screw Society, right? We can ch off
:::: independently to the beats of our own drummers &
:::: pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
:::: ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,
:::
::: I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
::: the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".
::
:: Bicycling on any sort of bicycle configuration doesn't need
:: any justification or rationalisation AFIC. I guess it's a
:: binary thing -- you're riding, or ya ain't. You're a cyclist,
:: or ya ain't. Plain & simple. We riders don't need to tear
:: ourselves apart with silly enmity and divisiveness, we need to
:: stand together and be supportive and inclusive of each other,
:: from the retired couples toodling around park paths, to the
:: commuters bombing down urban arterials, to the coffee shop
:: trendies, to the hell-bent-for-leather racers in their yellow &
:: black killer bee costumes, to escapee tourers, to the folks who
:: just plain ride to get around. But all too often, we ourselves
:: are our worst enemies. We pedal-pushers are all linked. We
:: share common interests and common experiences. I think that's
:: something to joyously celebrate, but unfortunately some
:: party-poopers think otherwise.
::
:: Oh, well. The party-poopers ye shall always have among you.
::
:: But y'know what? Out on the streets in real life is pretty
:: different from here in UseNetLand. When I'm out & about on
:: ol' Pig Iron, I get into all kinds of nice interactions with
:: fellow riders and other people (including some downright pretty
:: and charming women.) And my ugly rig even occasionally gets
:: compliments from folks whom it nostalgically reminds of bicycles
:: back in "the old country" (wherever that may be.) So, I take my
:: "screw Society" back. Screw party-poopers! Double screw 'em!
::
:: Keep the human-powered, self-propelled faith.
:: Let your smile be a fairing.
:: And please don't let a bunch of stupid words get you down.
::
::
:: Cheers & a flick o' the forelock from one Bicycle Rider to another,
::
Hear Hear!
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:32:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > ::::: ...
> > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > :::::
> > > :::
> > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > ::
> > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > >
> > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> >
> > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > purpose.
> >
> > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> >
> > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > purpose.
> >
> > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
>
> How about you address directly any slights to the
> slighting party? Or go back to
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:23:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162791148.832753.209450@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > ,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > ::::: ...
> > > > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > > > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > > > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > > > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > :::::
> > > > :::
> > > > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > > > ::
> > > > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > > > :: an upright bicycle.
> > > >
> > > > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > > > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > > > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > > > either of them can't serve my needs.
> > >
> > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > > > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > > > the road as opposed to another car!...
> > >
> > > Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > > Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> >
> > How about you address directly any slights to the
> > slighting party? Or go back to
> > alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
>
> WHERE IN THE rec.bicycles.tech CHARTER DOES IT LIMIT DISCUSSON TO ONLY
> UPRIGHT BICYCLES?
You whine about how _some_ people mistreat you. Take it
up with them. Shotgun accusations of mistreatment are
never on topic.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:31:03
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > :::::::: ...
> > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > ::::::::
> > > ::::::
> > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > :::::: conventional?
> > > :::::
> > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > :::
> > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > ::
> > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > :: purpose.
> > > ::
> > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > ::
> > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > :: purpose.
> > > ::
> > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > >
> > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > division.
> >
> > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> >
> > > The only reason I posted
> > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > be a troll playhouse.
> >
> > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> >
> > > This is very disappointing.
> >
> > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> >
> > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > consists of a bicycle.
>
> Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> loser, then stop acting like one.
Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:27:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > ::::::::
> > > > ::::::
> > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > :::::
> > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > :::
> > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > :: purpose.
> > > > ::
> > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > :: purpose.
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > division.
> > >
> > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > >
> > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > >
> > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > >
> > > > This is very disappointing.
> > >
> > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > >
> > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > consists of a bicycle.
> >
> > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > loser, then stop acting like one.
>
> Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
You yourself said you do not react well to being
bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
Do not address me as `Dude'.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 01:29:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):
> Do not address me as `Dude'.
Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:46:20
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<4kR3h.23552$gU6.21136@tornado.socal.rr.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Michael Press wrote (6 KBs of mostly blather deleted):
>
> > Do not address me as `Dude'.
>
> Dude, how about SNIPPING some excess text?!?
Don't worry about it Bill, I know what I am doing.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 15:02:47
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 13:57:10 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > On most rides (not races) there is not a close packed mass start, so
> > any startup wobble is not an issue.
>
> I'm thinking of traffic lights,where there's often no more than a bike
> lane. The occasional problems when people fail to clip in are bad enough.
If there are enough bicycles, take an entire lane. Note that I was
referring to organized rides where there is no expectation or riding in
a close group or drafting, unless individually arranged and agree upon.
> > Most recumbents are hardly wider
> > than the handlebars of an upright road bike (and narrower than many
> > flat bars), and barely longer.
>
> The ones I've seen wouldn't stack in tight overlap against a wall, either
> with each other or standard bikes. It may seem like a minor point, but
> we wouldn't be welcome if we endangered outdoor dining licenses, which
> require footpaths to be kept reasonably clear.
This would hardly seem to be a common issue or problem - maybe
Australia is different.
> > [1] Usenet doesn't count, since anyone who doesn't like my posts can
> > easily ignore them.
>
> Ok. You must think you're somehow doing the recumbent cause a favour
> with this attitude, so good luck with it :-)
Contrary to the beliefs of some on this group, I do not care what other
people ride.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:57:10
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 4 Nov 2006 20:22:27 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > One wonders why certain upright riders are so upset at the mere mention
> > of recumbent bicycles?
>
> Possibly because those "mere mentions" always include attacks on
> standard bikes.
No it doesn't, as a cursory Google Groups search would reveal. Stick
with the facts.
> > I should get some decals made up that say "Please DO NOT ask me about
> > my bike" in case I ever do any type of invitational ride again. (Not to
> > worry, I will not repeat my past sin of showing up to any type of ride
> > on a recumbent where riding occurs as a group).
>
> It's hard to imagine that the world of group riding would be any poorer
> without you, regardless of what you're riding.
At least I have gained the decency to learn when I am not wanted and
not show up [1], unlike most people in the world who are too
self-centered to really see themselves.
> The only objections I'd make to having recumbents along, though, are that
> the wobbly take-offs could endanger others and that their machines would
> take up far too much space and block footpaths at typical coffee shops.
On most rides (not races) there is not a close packed mass start, so
any startup wobble is not an issue. Most recumbents are hardly wider
than the handlebars of an upright road bike (and narrower than many
flat bars), and barely longer.
[1] Usenet doesn't count, since anyone who doesn't like my posts can
easily ignore them.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:41:12
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 5 Nov 2006 13:57:10 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> On most rides (not races) there is not a close packed mass start, so
> any startup wobble is not an issue.
I'm thinking of traffic lights,where there's often no more than a bike
lane. The occasional problems when people fail to clip in are bad enough.
> Most recumbents are hardly wider
> than the handlebars of an upright road bike (and narrower than many
> flat bars), and barely longer.
The ones I've seen wouldn't stack in tight overlap against a wall, either
with each other or standard bikes. It may seem like a minor point, but
we wouldn't be welcome if we endangered outdoor dining licenses, which
require footpaths to be kept reasonably clear.
> [1] Usenet doesn't count, since anyone who doesn't like my posts can
> easily ignore them.
Ok. You must think you're somehow doing the recumbent cause a favour
with this attitude, so good luck with it :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 09:30:43
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1162732451.779998.108830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > Tom Keats wrote:
> >> In article <1162700812.738004.324010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
> >> >> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
> >> >>
> >> >> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
> >> >
> >> > I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
> >> > replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT
> >>
> >> UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
> >> recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
> >> recumbents.
> >
> > Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
> > or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
> > they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
> > posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.
> >
> > What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
> > positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
> > negative misinformation presented as fact.
> >
> > One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
> > based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
> > impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
> > without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.
> >
> >> > But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
> >> > recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.
> >>
> >> Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.
> >
> > Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
> > saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.
> >
> >> I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....
> >
> > I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
> > bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
> > citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
> > on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.
> >
> > [1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
> > way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
> > fit in a paceline well.
> > [2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
> > Post Free or Die!
>
> Gee whiz, Tom.
>
> Your indignant attitute is sure showing!
Visualize bighorn sheep butting heads. ;)
> Actually, so is mine.
>
> So let's share a bottle, and decide that folks who don't
> know any better should fsck the heck off.
>
> Of course that would alienate us from Society,
> but ... screw Society, right? We can ch off
> independently to the beats of our own drummers &
> pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
> ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,
I always thought that people riding bicycles for transportation were
the real cyclists, not the ones playing on "toys".
> Anyways, I appreciate your presence here in r.b.m
> 'cuz you know stuff to impart.
>
> Blessings upon you for that. You're a good guy,
Thank you.
> But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
> despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
> row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.
I think being on the downhill side of civilization is making everyone
cranky, whether or not they realize it.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 09:21:13
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: RANS Stratus & Formula
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> ...
> Today, I rode the Stratus XP XL - one in the size I'm going to buy (they
> only had the standard size before). This one is actually for another
> customer who had given his permission for me to ride it. He had it outfitted
> with Velocity rims, fat 1.5-inch tires, and had a 24-tooth small ring on
> front! I didn't really have a hill handy at the LBS that would need a small
> ring like that, but he lives in Charlotte, NC and there must be plenty of
> hills around there as here (Greenville, SC). The fats gave the rig a very
> different feel (it felt edgier if that makes any sense) from the 26s on the
> standard, but having the extra room seemed to be a good thing for me since
> the seat didn't have to extend all the way back. Sadly, I've already fallen
> in love with this bike. They are saying they could have one for me in by
> next week!
One wonders if it was the fat tires that made the Stratus XP [1] feel
"edgier", as the change in steering geometry is not that great. The
setup of the handlebars and the amount of "tiller" will generally have
a more dramatic effect, and RANS does offer a range of risers and
handlebars to this effect [2].
> I also rode a Formula V2. This one is similar to the SXP but the BB is much
> higher. Unfortunately, the model they had in stock is standard size, not XL,
> and with the higher BB, I felt very cramped on it. I did ride it, though,
> enough to get a feel for it. Climbing on it seems to use more of the glutes
> than the XP does. I have to admit that I felt was using more leg muscles on
> both of these than on my upright while climbing. I have big legs and I bet
> they'd get a serious workout on a serious hill (or, on many serious hills as
> we tend to have here) Also, the FV2 felt a bit twitcher than the SXP in both
> the standard and XL size. I felt a lot more comfortable on the standard size
> SXP than on the standard size FV2. Finally, my right knee started hurting
> after riding the FV2. I rode the SXP standard last weekend for a good while
> with no knee discomfort - same for the SXP XL, which I rode yesterday before
> riding the FV2 Standard.
Did you have the bikes set up so the angle formed by lines from the BB
to the seat and the seat base to the seat back were identical? The
effect on pedaling going from a relatively open angle to a closed on is
similar to changing position from the "flats" to the "drops" on an
upright road bike.
> One thing I did notice....I could not hug the edge of the road on either of
> these bikes, especially while climbing. I needed a much greater gin from
> the edge than I do on my upright. Perhaps this is an experience (time in the
> saddle?). Also, the FV2 had a fairing (not clear plastic) on it initially.
> It seems to block the view of the road based on how the seat was inclined. I
> definitely would NOT like have like a 20-foot blind spot in front of my
> while riding.
Simple geometry says that the longer the wheelbase, the more the front
wheel will have to move laterally to bring the combined rider/bicycle
CG to the balance point. In addition, you are likely not used to the
greater tiller and lower control forces compared to an upright.
> So, where I stand now....I can probably get a SXP XL next week (they would
> be rushing this for me). But they also have a FV2 XL coming in next week
> already! The FV2 is about $300 less than the SXP. The FV2 has disc brakes,
> but I can add those to the SXP for about $100. Would disc brakes be
> something I might want - at 225 lbs?
All the same arguments for rim versus disc brakes apply to both
uprights and recumbents, so there is no need to re-hash them here.
However, a LWB recumbent has considerably more weight on the rear wheel
than an upright, so it can contribute more to braking. The brake cable
run to the rear is also long and convoluted, so hydraulic discs would
likely provide better braking modulation.
If rim overheating and the subsequent risk of tire blow off will be of
concern, it should be remembered that with a lower frontal area, less
energy will be dissipated through aerodynamic drag.
> Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
> bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
> place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.
As Jeff Wills mentioned, look on the back side of the seat frame rails.
Water bottles in these locations are not hard to get to (easier than
one mounted on the seat tube of an upright in my experience). The
commonly used seatback bags also have space for a hydration bladder.
[1] <http://www.ransbikes.com/SXP07.htm >.
[2] <http://www.shoprans.com/products.asp?cat=16 >.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:27:52
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <k1vkie.fnk.ln@vcn.bc.ca >,
tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) writes:
> But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
> despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
> row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.
And folks whom we might think we're "above" or
"better than" can give us insights too.
Ain't life beautiful? And ain't people rekable?
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:12:52
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <1162732451.779998.108830@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
>
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <1162700812.738004.324010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
>> >> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
>> >>
>> >> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
>> >
>> > I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
>> > replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT
>>
>> UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
>> recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
>> recumbents.
>
> Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
> or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
> they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
> posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.
>
> What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
> positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
> negative misinformation presented as fact.
>
> One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
> based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
> impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
> without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.
>
>> > But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
>> > recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.
>>
>> Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.
>
> Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
> saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.
>
>> I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....
>
> I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
> bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
> citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
> on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.
>
> [1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
> way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
> fit in a paceline well.
> [2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
> Post Free or Die!
Gee whiz, Tom.
Your indignant attitute is sure showing!
Actually, so is mine.
So let's share a bottle, and decide that folks who don't
know any better should fsck the heck off.
Of course that would alienate us from Society,
but ... screw Society, right? We can ch off
independently to the beats of our own drummers &
pipers. You on your recumbent, and me on my
ugly rig that "real bike riders" disdain,
Anyways, I appreciate your presence here in r.b.m
'cuz you know stuff to impart.
Blessings upon you for that. You're a good guy,
But I humbly suggest we get back to liking people
despite their (Our) iggerance. Maybe it's a tough
row to hoe, but not if ya take it easy.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 05:43:49
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > >> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > >> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > >> :: logistical vehicles.
> > >> ::
> > >> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > >> ::
> > >> :: Jobst Brandt
> > >>
> > >> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> > >> Please explain.
> > >
> > > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> >
> > It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
>
> I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
> rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
>
> Does everyone have an interest in questions on how to make Campagnolo
> brifters work with Shimano cassettes, folding upright bicycles,
> mountain bikes, loaded touring, cycle cross, fixed-gear, single-speed,
> etc? Obviously not, yet do they have fits when these topics are
> mentioned? Why the double standard?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
C'mon Johnny, mention them all you want, I don't care, there are no
rules on NG. It's fun to sometimes tilt with you, and you are one who
'seems' to get so tied in a knot about this discussion of another form
of 'toy'.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 05:28:58
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :::::::: ...
> :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> ::::::::
> ::::::
> :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> :::::: conventional?
> :::::
> ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> :::
> ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> ::: serve my needs.
> ::
> :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> :: purpose.
> ::
> ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> ::
> :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> :: purpose.
> ::
> :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
>
> Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> division.
The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> The only reason I posted
> here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> be a troll playhouse.
Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> This is very disappointing.
Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
[1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
consists of a bicycle.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 04:40:35
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > :::::::: ...
> > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > ::::::::
> > ::::::
> > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > :::::: conventional?
> > :::::
> > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > :::
> > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > ::: serve my needs.
> > ::
> > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > :: purpose.
> > ::
> > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > ::
> > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > :: purpose.
> > ::
> > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> >
> > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > division.
>
> The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
>
> > The only reason I posted
> > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > be a troll playhouse.
>
> Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
>
> > This is very disappointing.
>
> Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
>
> [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> consists of a bicycle.
Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
loser, then stop acting like one.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 08:45:52
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
:::::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
::::::::::: ...
::::::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
::::::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
::::::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike
::::::::::: them at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists
::::::::::: will always be better served with a more conventional bike.
:::::::::::
:::::::::
::::::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
::::::::: conventional?
::::::::
:::::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle
:::::::: in a positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real
:::::::: life who rides an upright bicycle.
::::::
:::::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
:::::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
:::::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
:::::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
:::::: serve my needs.
:::::
::::: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider
::::: recumbents bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles
::::: can serve ANY purpose.
:::::
:::::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
:::::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
:::::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind
:::::: of functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
:::::
::::: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider
::::: recumbents bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles
::::: can serve ANY purpose.
:::::
::::: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE
::::: TOLERATED!
:::
::: Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of
::: such a division.
::
:: The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people
:: who have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so
:: maybe they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper
:: discussion on the group. However, I still have yet to see where in
:: the charter for rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how
:: they are not bicycles within the accepted usage of the English
:: language [1]. 99% of the bicycle related posting is not good enough
:: for them, apparently.
I'm with you. "Tech" is tech. Upright or not. I think I'll start posting
there too.
::
::: The only reason I posted
::: here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group
::: seems to be a troll playhouse.
::
:: Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
:: what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
:: willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
Well, I see almost no useful discussion in that group. Lately, just been the
two of us AFAIK.
::
::: This is very disappointing.
::
:: Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
:: posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is
:: if the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
:: would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
I agree 100%. I don't mind starting/being in a pissing match when a
principle is involved.
::
:: [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
:: consists of a bicycle.
Of course not. But, as you know, if the discussion is in the *.racing
group, it ought to involve racing and recumbents, if that's the case.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 05:14:11
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <1162700812.738004.324010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
> >> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
> >>
> >> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
> >
> > I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
> > replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT
>
> UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
> recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
> recumbents.
Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.
What is amusing is the same regulars who complain about the occasional
positive recumbent posts often are the ones who post gratuitous
negative misinformation presented as fact.
One particular poster has an obsession with "recumbent evangelism"
based on a few (one?) encounters, and ignores that is it practically
impossible to take a recumbent on an invitational ride or tour [1]
without receiving multiple negative unsolicited comments.
> > But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
> > recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.
>
> Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.
Well, one does not have to look hard to find posts on rec.bicycles.*
saying that recumbent are NOT bicycles.
> I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride....
I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
bicycle(s) to recumbents. However, I would really like to see some
citations on how universal "proper fit" is in solving comfort problems
on uprights, as this OPINION is frequently posted as FACT.
[1] I mention these since the presence of recumbents in no significant
way [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not
fit in a paceline well.
[2] Unless the very observation of a recumbent sets them off.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:21:07
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In rec.bicycles.misc Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> I have no interest in converting anyone who enjoys riding their upright
> bicycle(s) to recumbents.
Yup, and I've never had a problem with your posts. I consider DougC on
the other hand as a textbook case of evangelizing asshat. People like
him are found in every branch of human endeavor, whether it's Linux,
BSD, Windows, HPVs, Gaming consoles, RPGs (pen and paper) or something
else. I'd have to say that people like him are the number one reason
I've become *less* interested in recumbents though.
> [2] affects the upright riders. Obviously, a recumbent would not fit in a
> paceline well.
We've had recumbents out for my groups evening rides without problems.
But then we're more likely to resemble flocking birds than pacelining
racers.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
A Difficulty for Every Solution.
-- Motto of the Federal Civil Service
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:05:27
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 5 Nov 2006 05:14:11 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
>or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
>they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
>posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.
How about also consider the number of upright riders and the number of
recumbent riders. It seems that any given recumbent rider is more
likely to be a loud evangelist for his/her particular favorite type of
bike.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 02:42:09
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <1162700812.738004.324010@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > writes:
>> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
>> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
>>
>> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
>
> I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
> replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT
UseNet cycling groups are replete with lectures from
recumbentists, too, as to why we should all be riding
recumbents.
> But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
> recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.
Well, that just plain sux. A bicycle is a bicycle is a bicycle.
I guess we should all just shuddup 'n ride.
And the Electra Townie is the work of Stan :-) :- ) :-) <r,d & h >
cbeers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:26:52
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162378016.356892.248490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> ,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNaa wrote:
> > > In article <1162344560.529809.291290@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > > > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > > > > logistical vehicles.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > > > >
> > > > > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> > > > > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
> > > > > hate anything.....or maybe he does..
> > > >
> > > > Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
> > > > to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
> > > > in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
> > > > cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
> > >
> > > I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
> > > recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
> > > good answer to their question.
> >
> > But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
> > problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
>
> Not what is claimed, and you know it.
I have received UNSOLICITED LECTURES from upright riders that I should
replace my recumbent with a PROPERLY FITTED UPRIGHT bicycle.
But I understand the above is acceptable behavior, but mentioning a
recumbent bicycle as any type of alternative is a sin.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:22:27
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
> > > people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
> > > specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
> > > think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
> > > more conventional bike.
> >
> > Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
> > offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
> > month?
>
> Nope. Not me.
>
> Heck, if I want to take offense, there are lots richer opportunities!
One wonders why certain upright riders are so upset at the mere mention
of recumbent bicycles? Despite the whining about "recumbent
evangelism", it can not be that much of a problem due to the relatively
small numbers of recumbent riders.
I should get some decals made up that say "Please DO NOT ask me about
my bike" in case I ever do any type of invitational ride again. (Not to
worry, I will not repeat my past sin of showing up to any type of ride
on a recumbent where riding occurs as a group).
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:17:42
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 4 Nov 2006 20:22:27 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> One wonders why certain upright riders are so upset at the mere mention
> of recumbent bicycles?
Possibly because those "mere mentions" always include attacks on
standard bikes.
> I should get some decals made up that say "Please DO NOT ask me about
> my bike" in case I ever do any type of invitational ride again. (Not to
> worry, I will not repeat my past sin of showing up to any type of ride
> on a recumbent where riding occurs as a group).
It's hard to imagine that the world of group riding would be any poorer
without you, regardless of what you're riding.
The only objections I'd make to having recumbents along, though, are that
the wobbly take-offs could endanger others and that their machines would
take up far too much space and block footpaths at typical coffee shops.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:10:41
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Mr. Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > > > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > > :: logistical vehicles.
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > > > > ::
> > > > > :: Jobst Brandt
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> > > > > Please explain.
> > > >
> > > > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > > > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > > > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > > > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
> > > > you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
> > > >
> > > > [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
> > > > [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
> > > > [3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
> > >
> > > hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
> > > me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
> > > cranky.
> >
> > Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
> > appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
>
> Since I continue to answer you, why I just don't know, I guess I am
> 'dealing with it'. Are you directing me to moderate my view of you,
> not be cranky?
What Mr. Chisholm thinks of me is of no concern.
> Nope, not today, not tomorrow. As you mentioned about
> yourself, you like to argue, so do I with some people. If I get cranky
> with you, well....deal with it.
[Yawn]
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:07:47
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> ::::: ...
> ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> :::::
> :::
> ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> ::
> :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> :: an upright bicycle.
>
> I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> either of them can't serve my needs.
Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
purpose.
> I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> the road as opposed to another car!...
Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
purpose.
Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 04:38:15
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162699667.327636.273510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > ::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > ::::: ...
> > ::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > ::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
> > ::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
> > ::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
> > ::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
> > :::::
> > :::
> > ::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
> > ::
> > :: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > :: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
> > :: an upright bicycle.
> >
> > I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> > that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
> > desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
> > either of them can't serve my needs.
>
> Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> purpose.
>
> > I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
> > advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
> > the road as opposed to another car!...
>
> Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> purpose.
>
> Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
How about you address directly any slights to the
slighting party? Or go back to
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent where this belongs.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 06:42:06
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
:::::::: ...
:::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
:::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
:::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
:::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
:::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
::::::::
::::::
:::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
:::::: conventional?
:::::
::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
::::: rides an upright bicycle.
:::
::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
::: serve my needs.
::
:: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
:: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
:: purpose.
::
::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
::
:: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
:: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
:: purpose.
::
:: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
division. The only reason I posted
here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
be a troll playhouse.
This is very disappointing.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:57:49
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Topic adrift!... water bottles, was Re: Two wheels does it
|
jj1075 wrote:
> >>You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is
> 'Bentrideronline:
> http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
> share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
> can get some useful information there<<
>
> Thanks for posting that link. That's exactly the info source I was looking
> for before Mr. Sherman threw a rod and seized when I asked if there was an
> NG for recumbents.
It was Jobst Brandt and Peter Chisholm who freaked out first over a
single mention of recumbents in a thread that discussed comfort of
upright saddles. Then the "me too" crowd jumped in. In this
context, the question could well be mistakenly viewed as saying "get
the hell off rec.bicycles.tech"
Bentrideronline (BROL) is NOT a Usenet newsgroup, but a moderated web
forum.
There used to be a recumbent newsgroup, but it is inactive for the most
part except for the ranting of one troll.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:14:21
From: JeffWills
Subject: Topic adrift!... water bottles, was Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
> bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
> place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.
As Peter is fond of pointing out, there's very little "standard" about
placing accessories on recumbents. But...
The RANS recumbents have water bottle bosses built into the back of the
seat. Lightning puts the bottles under the seat (In the splash zone
from the front wheel. Ask me how I know. Ptoo...). Easy Racer bikes
mount them to the handlebars- 2 is stock, you can mount up to 5 with
Terracycle dashboard bars:
http://www.terracycle.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=erdashbar
and there's a variety of afterket solutions for bladder enthusiasts:
http://www.hostelshoppe.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?category=204500
You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is
'Bentrideronline:
http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
can get some useful information there.
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 23:09:01
From: jj1075
Subject: Re: Topic adrift!... water bottles, was Re: Two wheels does it
|
>>You'll find that the most complete knowledge base for recumebents is
'Bentrideronline:
http://www.bentrideronline.com/ . The discussion groups have their
share of "brochure engineering" and "preaching to the choir", but you
can get some useful information there<<
Thanks for posting that link. That's exactly the info source I was looking
for before Mr. Sherman threw a rod and seized when I asked if there was an
NG for recumbents.
Thanks again,
jj1075
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:06:28
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I think the bike
> that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride.
Oddly, there's more to it than that!
The bike that best serves a person certainly depends on the riding, but
(perhaps) also on other factors - like the portability, the
repairability, the weather protection, the luggage capacity, the
ability to handle bad surfaces, etc. etc.
For just a recreational ride, I prefer my old touring bike. But during
a long vacation trip this summer, I preferred my folding bike. For
commuting, I prefer the bike fitted with lights, fenders, racks, bags,
etc.
Those of us committed to cycling often have a small collection of
bikes, so we can have special bikes for special purposes. But most
people get by with one bike - if that. For them, versatility is
important, maybe more so than certain aspects of the riding itself.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 21:04:13
From: JeffWills
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Um... fine... In general, do what you like.
>
> But ISTM your question doesn't quite match my statement. If someone
> wants a recumbent as their _only_ bike, that's fine for me. If they
> want it as a second bike, that's fine. And the same can be said for
> unicycles, penny farthings, folding bikes, fixed gear bikes, etc.
> There can be times and places for all these.
>
> I just think more conventional bikes will continue to serve almost all
> people best, almost all the time.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Well... I have seven-ish bikes- 3 uprights, two incomplete projects
(both upright), and two recumbents. I'll switch off to whatever suits
my intended route or activity for the day. Since the Tour Easy has
fenders and a fairing, I rode it in today's showers.
My wife, though, is a woman of strong opinions. I've tried to get her
to try riding different uprights since switching, with no success.
She's not giving up her Tour Easy, no way, no how. She also has her own
opinions about appropriate cycling clothing:
http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/diane-big.jpg
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 02:33:39
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
JeffWills wrote:
:: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
::: Um... fine... In general, do what you like.
:::
::: But ISTM your question doesn't quite match my statement. If someone
::: wants a recumbent as their _only_ bike, that's fine for me. If they
::: want it as a second bike, that's fine. And the same can be said for
::: unicycles, penny farthings, folding bikes, fixed gear bikes, etc.
::: There can be times and places for all these.
:::
::: I just think more conventional bikes will continue to serve almost
::: all people best, almost all the time.
:::
::: - Frank Krygowski
::
:: Well... I have seven-ish bikes- 3 uprights, two incomplete projects
:: (both upright), and two recumbents. I'll switch off to whatever suits
:: my intended route or activity for the day. Since the Tour Easy has
:: fenders and a fairing, I rode it in today's showers.
::
:: My wife, though, is a woman of strong opinions. I've tried to get her
:: to try riding different uprights since switching, with no success.
:: She's not giving up her Tour Easy, no way, no how. She also has her
:: own opinions about appropriate cycling clothing:
:: http://home.pacifier.com/~jwills/diane-big.jpg
::
Your wife looks totally cool on that machine, Jeff. It's hard to believe
that any other bike would serve her better than the one she most prefers to
ride!
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 20:36:16
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > ...
> > Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
> > people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
> > specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
> > think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
> > more conventional bike.
>
> Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
> offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
> month?
Nope. Not me.
Heck, if I want to take offense, there are lots richer opportunities!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:39:09
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> :: JeffWills wrote:
> ::: carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> ::: <snip>
> :::: As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
> ::::
> :::: Cheers,
> ::::
> :::: Carl Fogel
> :::
> ::: "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
> ::: magazines"?:
> ::: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
> ::
> :: ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
> :: unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
> :: car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
> :: you've seen double as planes or boats?
> ::
> :: The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical
> :: chopper with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who
> :: want motorized two wheelers with real performance and versatility -
> :: not mere style - ride with their body weight up and centered over
> :: their legs.
> ::
> :: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
> :: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
> :: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
> :: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
> :: with a more conventional bike.
> ::
>
> What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
an upright bicycle.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2006 03:03:01
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
::::: JeffWills wrote:
:::::: carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
:::::: <snip >
::::::: As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
:::::::
::::::: Cheers,
:::::::
::::::: Carl Fogel
::::::
:::::: "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
:::::: magazines"?:
:::::: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
:::::
::::: ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
::::: unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and
::::: "amphibious car" articles from time to time. But what percentage
::::: of the cars you've seen double as planes or boats?
:::::
::::: The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical
::::: chopper with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who
::::: want motorized two wheelers with real performance and versatility
::::: - not mere style - ride with their body weight up and centered
::::: over their legs.
:::::
::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and
::::: for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at
::::: all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always be
::::: better served with a more conventional bike.
:::::
:::
::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
::
:: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
:: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who rides
:: an upright bicycle.
I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I thinkthe bike
that better serves a person is the one a person prefers to ride. I think I
desire the experience of riding different types of bikes and don't see why
either of them can't serve my needs. I'm not sure why people choose to draw
this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who claims to
advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of functional bike on
the road as opposed to another car!
Today, I rode the Stratus XP XL - one in the size I'm going to buy (they
only had the standard size before). This one is actually for another
customer who had given his permission for me to ride it. He had it outfitted
with Velocity rims, fat 1.5-inch tires, and had a 24-tooth small ring on
front! I didn't really have a hill handy at the LBS that would need a small
ring like that, but he lives in Charlotte, NC and there must be plenty of
hills around there as here (Greenville, SC). The fats gave the rig a very
different feel (it felt edgier if that makes any sense) from the 26s on the
standard, but having the extra room seemed to be a good thing for me since
the seat didn't have to extend all the way back. Sadly, I've already fallen
in love with this bike. They are saying they could have one for me in by
next week!
I also rode a Formula V2. This one is similar to the SXP but the BB is much
higher. Unfortunately, the model they had in stock is standard size, not XL,
and with the higher BB, I felt very cramped on it. I did ride it, though,
enough to get a feel for it. Climbing on it seems to use more of the glutes
than the XP does. I have to admit that I felt was using more leg muscles on
both of these than on my upright while climbing. I have big legs and I bet
they'd get a serious workout on a serious hill (or, on many serious hills as
we tend to have here) Also, the FV2 felt a bit twitcher than the SXP in both
the standard and XL size. I felt a lot more comfortable on the standard size
SXP than on the standard size FV2. Finally, my right knee started hurting
after riding the FV2. I rode the SXP standard last weekend for a good while
with no knee discomfort - same for the SXP XL, which I rode yesterday before
riding the FV2 Standard.
One thing I did notice....I could not hug the edge of the road on either of
these bikes, especially while climbing. I needed a much greater gin from
the edge than I do on my upright. Perhaps this is an experience (time in the
saddle?). Also, the FV2 had a fairing (not clear plastic) on it initially.
It seems to block the view of the road based on how the seat was inclined. I
definitely would NOT like have like a 20-foot blind spot in front of my
while riding.
So, where I stand now....I can probably get a SXP XL next week (they would
be rushing this for me). But they also have a FV2 XL coming in next week
already! The FV2 is about $300 less than the SXP. The FV2 has disc brakes,
but I can add those to the SXP for about $100. Would disc brakes be
something I might want - at 225 lbs?
Oh...these bikes don't seem to come with a standard place to put water
bottles! What's up with that? It seems as if I have to rig something to
place water bottles. That seems wrong, IMO.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:32:12
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
> people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
> specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
> think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
> more conventional bike.
Would you find a couple dozen posts per month about recumbent bicycles
offensive in a Usenet newsgroup that has approximately 5000 posts per
month?
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:39:45
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ::
> :: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
> :: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
> :: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
> :: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
> :: with a more conventional bike.
> ::
>
> What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
Um... fine... In general, do what you like.
But ISTM your question doesn't quite match my statement. If someone
wants a recumbent as their _only_ bike, that's fine for me. If they
want it as a second bike, that's fine. And the same can be said for
unicycles, penny farthings, folding bikes, fixed gear bikes, etc.
There can be times and places for all these.
I just think more conventional bikes will continue to serve almost all
people best, almost all the time.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:52:41
From: Buck
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Mike Kruger wrote:
> This is at least in part because I live in Illinois. In Illinois this year
> they converted the tolls roads so you no longer stop for tolls if you have a
> transponder (probably RFID based, but I haven't looked into it). It's
> probably only a matter of time before currently free expressways are
> converted to this. The city of Chicago also sold one expressway (the Chicago
> Skyway, Interstate 90) to a private firm.
If people want to talk about Orwellianisms, this is a good place to
start. The toll systems in Houston use cameras to capture your license
plate as you pass through. They originally said this was done to catch
folks running the gates without transpnders. But the ugly truth has
come to light.
They mandate one transponder per vehicle (with a maintenance fee per
transponder). If you move the transponder to another vehicle, they send
you a dirty letter about moving your transponder. How do they know? The
cameras capture the license plate of *every* vehicle, digitize it
through optical character recognition, and compare the transponder
number to the digitized license plate number. If the numbers don't
match, you get a dirty letter.
Also keep in mind that they can track your progress around the toll
road. It won't be long before they start matching times so they can
automatically issue speeding tickets (as is the case with the Turner
Turnpike between Oklahoma City and Tulsa). As more readers are added,
vehicles can be tracked with greater precision.
Of course, there are very real concerns about tracking consumers and
products through ID tags. Just take a look at these links:
http://news.com.com/2010-1069-980325.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/rfid.html
http://www.nocards.org/welcome/index.shtml
But, of course this is WAAAAAAYYYYYY off-topic. At least until they
start tracking cyclists and charging user's fees for paths.
-Buck
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:14:33
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
JeffWills wrote:
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> <snip>
> > As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Carl Fogel
>
> "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
> magazines"?:
> http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
you've seen double as planes or boats?
The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical chopper
with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who want motorized
two wheelers with real performance and versatility - not mere style -
ride with their body weight up and centered over their legs.
Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served with a
more conventional bike.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:31:57
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
:: JeffWills wrote:
::: carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
::: <snip >
:::: As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
::::
:::: Cheers,
::::
:::: Carl Fogel
:::
::: "Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
::: magazines"?:
::: http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
::
:: ISTM that appearance in a magazine doesn't disprove "practically
:: unknown." Popular Mechanics still has "flying car" and "amphibious
:: car" articles from time to time. But what percentage of the cars
:: you've seen double as planes or boats?
::
:: The closest you'll come to a recumbent motorcycle is a radical
:: chopper with highway pegs. But it's interesting that people who
:: want motorized two wheelers with real performance and versatility -
:: not mere style - ride with their body weight up and centered over
:: their legs.
::
:: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for certain
:: people's comfort, for interesting design challenges, and for
:: specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them at all. But I
:: think the vast majority of cyclists will always be better served
:: with a more conventional bike.
::
What about as a second bike where when the first is a conventional?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 06:22:21
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > :: logistical vehicles.
> > > > ::
> > > > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > > > ::
> > > > :: Jobst Brandt
> > > >
> > > > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> > > > Please explain.
> > >
> > > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> > >
> > > I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
> > > you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
> > >
> > > [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
> > > [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
> > > [3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
> >
> > hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
> > me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
> > cranky.
>
> Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
> appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Since I continue to answer you, why I just don't know, I guess I am
'dealing with it'. Are you directing me to moderate my view of you,
not be cranky? Nope, not today, not tomorrow. As you mentioned about
yourself, you like to argue, so do I with some people. If I get cranky
with you, well....deal with it.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 23:56:23
From: JeffWills
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
<snip >
> As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
"Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
magazines"?:
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
also
http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html ...
Not that I've seen one 'round Portland, which seems to be almost as
motorcycle-mad as bicycle-mad.
Come to think of it, I haven't seen one of these around Portland,
either:
http://www.bikeweb.com/node/378
Jeff
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:36:36
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 2 Nov 2006 23:56:23 -0800, "JeffWills" <jwills@pacifier.com > wrote:
>
>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
><snip>
>> As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>"Practically unknown" as in "published in mainstream motorcycle
>magazines"?:
>http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/cycle-world11-00.html
>also
>http://www.allamericanracers.com/alligator/alligator_home.html ...
>
>Not that I've seen one 'round Portland, which seems to be almost as
>motorcycle-mad as bicycle-mad.
>
>Come to think of it, I haven't seen one of these around Portland,
>either:
>http://www.bikeweb.com/node/378
>
>Jeff
Dear Jeff,
At a proposed 36-unit production level, the Alligator may still be
lurking down in the "practically unknown" levels of the enormous
motorcycle swamp.
:)
I like the first picture, which shows how the rider's face will be
stuck in the carburetor intakes.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 19:01:34
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jj1075 wrote:
> > > It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
> >
> > I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
> > rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
> >
>
> Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?
>
> Just wonderin'.......
Is this
rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?
This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
things that are different.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 07:12:54
From: jj1075
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
>>> Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?
>
> Just wonderin'.......
Is this
rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?
This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
things that are different.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...<<
Uhhh, I was actually just asking. You implied the rest. And you didn't
answer the question.
Thanks for the tolerance...
jj1075 < I thought I saw an NG for recumbents once but figured my new ISP
didn't carry it >
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:14:33
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<WZB2h.1140$r12.552@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com >,
"jj1075" <xandood@yahoo.com > wrote:
> >>> Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?
> >
> > Just wonderin'.......
>
> Is this
> rec.bicycles.upright.diamond-frame.non-folding.700C&27-inch.wheels.tech?
>
> This thread is good - it brings to light the hatred and intolerance for
> things that are different.
There is one; it is a rogues' gallery. I'd sooner read
rec.games.chess.politics.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 18:58:20
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
G.T. wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162515237.151554.102430@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > G.T. wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > >> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > >> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > >> :: logistical vehicles.
> > > >> ::
> > > >> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > > >> ::
> > > >> :: Jobst Brandt
> > > >>
> > > >> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't
> count.
> > > >> Please explain.
> > > >
> > > > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > > > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > > > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > > > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> > >
> > > It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
> >
> > I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
> > rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
> >
>
> It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
> funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
> doesn't make them so.
Try looking up the definition of bicycle in a dictionary.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 22:26:04
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162515237.151554.102430@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> G.T. wrote:
>>>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>>>>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>>>> :: logistical vehicles.
>>>>>> ::
>>>>>> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>>>>> ::
>>>>>> :: Jobst Brandt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't
>> count.
>>>>>> Please explain.
>>>>> Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
>>>>> comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
>>>>> shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
>>>>> "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
>>>> It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
>>> I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
>>> rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
>>>
>> It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
>> funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
>> doesn't make them so.
>
> Try looking up the definition of bicycle in a dictionary.
>
I can't read but I do see a photo of a bike very similar to mine next to
the letters b i c y c l e in this dictionary thingie I'm holding here.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 16:57:34
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > :: logistical vehicles.
> > > ::
> > > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > > ::
> > > :: Jobst Brandt
> > >
> > > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> > > Please explain.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> >
> > I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
> > you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
> >
> > [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
> > [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
> > [3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
>
> hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
> me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
> cranky.
Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 16:53:57
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
G.T. wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Roger Zoul wrote:
> >> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >> :: logistical vehicles.
> >> ::
> >> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> >> ::
> >> :: Jobst Brandt
> >>
> >> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> >> Please explain.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
>
> It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
Does everyone have an interest in questions on how to make Campagnolo
brifters work with Shimano cassettes, folding upright bicycles,
mountain bikes, loaded touring, cycle cross, fixed-gear, single-speed,
etc? Obviously not, yet do they have fits when these topics are
mentioned? Why the double standard?
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 18:23:24
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162515237.151554.102430@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> G.T. wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > >> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > >> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > >> :: logistical vehicles.
> > >> ::
> > >> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > >> ::
> > >> :: Jobst Brandt
> > >>
> > >> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't
count.
> > >> Please explain.
> > >
> > > Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> > > comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> > > shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> > > "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
> >
> > It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
>
> I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
> rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
>
It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
doesn't make them so.
Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 07:03:11
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
G.T. wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:1162515237.151554.102430@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
>> rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
> It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not
> those funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to
> recumbent doesn't make them so.
Finally, some harsh, self-righteous anger I can get behind! <eg >
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 02:52:17
From: jj1075
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
> > It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
>
> I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
> rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.
>
Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?
Just wonderin'.......
jj1075
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 22:15:22
From: Mario Rossi
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
god bless asia
brought tears to my eyes. beautiful collection. thanks
io
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:33:51
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <ultfk2dijpsknilu5m3h2nkijkl9rhkqm9@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >
> >
> > >http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> >
> > I showed this to my wife, who grew up in China, and she was
> > unimpressed, saying "Stuff like that is very comon where I used to
> > live."
>
> Unimpressed, sure. Is she not respectful of her
> heritage? I would point with pride.
I would not be proud of a cable bridge that is dangerous only because
the tribe/government/locals could not pungle up a few more planks. That
is a social failure. On the other hand, I would be impressed with some
of the balancing acts with cars/fish/fowl on bikes -- so long as none
of that crap fell on me. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 07:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Is it a
> foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see why,
> frankly)?
No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 11:42:14
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Is it a
::: foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't
::: see why, frankly)?
::
:: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
:: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
::
Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will stand
while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on a flat or
downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of uprights over bents.
However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs, though I
do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there. I'd guess on a
century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being slower.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 01:00:35
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
> :: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
> :: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
> ::
> Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will stand
> while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on a flat or
> downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of uprights over bents.
The standard response to that is that with a recumbent you can press
your back against the seat and essentially do leg presses against the
pedals as an alternative to climbing out of the saddle.
As Pat Robertson showed, leg presses can move a lot of weight :-):
http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/
> However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs, though I
> do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there. I'd guess on a
> century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being slower.
Personally, I don't use the leg press technique when climbing on my
recumbent. I tend to gear down and spin without noticeably pushing
against the seat back more.
Climbing steeper inclines is definitely less satisfying on my recumbent
bikes than it is on my DF bikes (my fixed gear with a 35-559, 48x18 gear
is especially satisfying). I tend not to be able to get my heart rate
up into a good climbing zone. One one particularly steep/long climb
last year though, I managed to go beyond my comfort zone on a climb on
my recumbent and felt like crap later in the day (though zooming down
that climb on my way home was very satisfying).
--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 22:05:00
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Victor Kan wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: r15757@aol.com wrote:
::::: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
::::: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
:::::
::
::: Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will
::: stand while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on
::: a flat or downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of
::: uprights over bents.
::
:: The standard response to that is that with a recumbent you can press
:: your back against the seat and essentially do leg presses against the
:: pedals as an alternative to climbing out of the saddle.
Interesting. I don't yet have enough experience to really have a feel for
this. I do leg presses at the gym and the hills I did climb didn't feel
like a leg press, but perhaps steepness is a factor! That 45 deg leg press
would be a seriously sloping hill! :)
::
:: As Pat Robertson showed, leg presses can move a lot of weight :-):
::
:: http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/
Wow...something seems strange there...very strange.
::
::: However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs,
::: though I do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there.
::: I'd guess on a century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being
::: slower.
::
:: Personally, I don't use the leg press technique when climbing on my
:: recumbent. I tend to gear down and spin without noticeably pushing
:: against the seat back more.
I thought this was the accepted and approved method of climbing! :)
::
:: Climbing steeper inclines is definitely less satisfying on my
:: recumbent bikes than it is on my DF bikes (my fixed gear with a
:: 35-559, 48x18 gear is especially satisfying). I tend not to be able
:: to get my heart rate up into a good climbing zone. One one
:: particularly steep/long climb last year though, I managed to go
:: beyond my comfort zone on a climb on my recumbent and felt like crap
:: later in the day (though zooming down that climb on my way home was
:: very satisfying).
::
'Bents seem to like to accelerate like crazy on the downhill.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:29:07
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
> > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > :: logistical vehicles.
> > ::
> > :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> > ::
> > :: Jobst Brandt
> >
> > I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> > Please explain.
>
> Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
>
> I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
> you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
>
> [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
> [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
> [3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
cranky.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:26:30
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > logistical vehicles.
> > >
> > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't hate
> > anything.....or maybe he does..
>
> Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage to
> their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle in
> comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
> cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
No, just walk..I got hit 4 years ago, from behind, while riding a bike,
by a pickup truck. Burst fracture of L3, broken L1, cracked C-5...back
brace, lost of physical therapy, still get my back worked on once a
week by massage therapist. Before I started riding again(I did start
riding while still in a back brace, an upright), somebody mentioned a
'bent might be in my future, nope, I would rather walk.
But Jobst doesn't hate 'bents..I don't get that from his posts at all.
>
> [1] I am aware of actual cases of this.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:14:22
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Road paving techniques? [ was Re: Two wheels does it]
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Buycycling magazine recently had an article on asphalt paving. ISTM
> the article was interesting, but a bit shallow - in a way, similar to
> the asphalt around here.
Asphalt is a cementitious material that is derived from crude oil, and
typically makes up only a small fraction of what is variously known as
bituminous concrete, asphalt cement concrete or asphaltic concrete,
with the remaining components being a matrix of coarse aggregate, fine
aggregate and mineral filler (sub-sand size rock particles) and air
voids.
> But I wonder, what are the specific differences in paving techniques
> between different countries? What makes roads stay smoother in certain
> countries or states?
To obtain proper compaction of asphaltic concrete during placement, the
subgrade must be adequately stable. The is further compounded by the
normal paving method of having dump trucks loaded with the hot
asphaltic concrete operating on the subgrade.
> I've always figured that more freeze-thaw cycles must make it more
> difficult for a road to hold together. IOW, places like my NE Ohio
> where winter temperatures oscillate above and below freezing would be
> worse than places further north or south. Aside from that, is it
> priily asphalt thickness? Base compaction?
Water is the enemy in several ways. Beyond the aforementioned
freeze-thaw cycles, the strength of fine-grained subgrade materials
varies in an approximate inverse manner with moisture content
(excluding being dried beyond the shrinkage limit). Water will not flow
freely through fine-grained soils, so when these are loaded rapidly
(e.g. transient wheel load) positive pore water pressures develop that
lower the strength of the soil until they dissipate.
Typical solutions include bound base materials (with Portland cement,
asphalt cement, fly-ash or hydrated lime), materials with a low
percentage of silt and clay size particles and/or subsurface drains.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:56:10
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> :: logistical vehicles.
> ::
> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> ::
> :: Jobst Brandt
>
> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
> Please explain.
Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html >.
[2] < http://www.vecchios.com/ >.
[3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:07:56
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
::::: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
::::: logistical vehicles.
:::::
::::: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
:::::
::::: Jobst Brandt
:::
::: I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't
::: count. Please explain.
::
:: Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
:: comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
:: shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
:: "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
::
Thanks for the info.
:: I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
:: you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
::
:: [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html >.
Some of the statements here are worth my attention, I think. I'm not
getting this bike because I can't ride my DF. I intend to ride both. I
just think the recumbent is a fun bike to have. I do wonder if I'm going to
automatically and forevermore be slower on it compared to the DF. Is it a
foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see why,
frankly)? I'm getting a LWB not a SWB that Jobst slams. I like the idea of
two 26-inch wheels, too. The models with the smaller wheel seem fine for
tooling-around bikes, but I want to ride centuries in different locals (I
get my greatest enjoyment in cycling doing this) and they don't impress me
as being best for that (albeit, based on my *very* limited exposure). Going
faster is not a goal of mine, but going in comfort is. The sweating back
comment is interesting.
I didn't mention that when I was testing the SXP in that parking lot last
weekend, there was a lot of broken pavement, potholes, and tree dropings in
certain sections of that lot. One place like this was at the low end of the
lot. I wanted to ride down into the low spot so that I could test climbing
back up from the low spot. The lot was pretty messed up around there and I
could see only about a 2-foot section that I could get through on. However,
I would have to make a sharp turn to the left while decending to get though
that 2-foot section. The first few times I did that I made it fine. But
once the guy from the bike shop came back from the shop to the lot on his
bike (he rode with me to answer various questions I had), I guess I got
nervous because maybe I wasn't treating his bike so nicely by trying to ride
it through the rough patch with only a 2-foot section of safety. Well,
after he showed up I could no longer make the decent and the sharp left to
get through. I didn't fall over, though, but I had to get off the bike and
push it up the incline because I could not get started. :) I don't think
this would have been an issue for me on my DF, but then again I have many
more hours on it.
I guess that link does explain why Jobst doesn't think recumbents aren't
"logistical" vehicles, what ever that means. I think he's wrong, though.
Even a DF will have some issues to deal with on the road. An agressive
riding position isn't always best, either. 'Bents simply have certain
disadvantages compared to uprights, but they also have some advantages, too.
:: [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/ >.
:: [3] Hey, I resemble that rek.
::
:: --
:: Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:35:36
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>> :: logistical vehicles.
>> ::
>> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>> ::
>> :: Jobst Brandt
>>
>> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
>> Please explain.
>
> Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.
Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:00:57
From: damyth
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Ted wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Ted who? writes:
> >
> > >> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
> >
> > > Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
> > > roads?
> >
> > Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
> > facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
> > government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
> > such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
> >
> > Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
> >
> > We are living Orwell's 1984.
> >
> > http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> Jobst, YOU wrote "taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
> privatized," not me. I asked what you would suggest to improve the
> roads. If they need to be privatized then the only way to get enough
> money is by making them all toll roads. YOU then say collect taxes and
> use them to maintain roads ...
> Make up your mind.
>
> Ted. (Who)
You need to sharpen your sense of irony. Clearly the irony in Jobst's
post was lost on you.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:46:08
From: Ted
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ted who? writes:
>
> >> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
> > Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
> > roads?
>
> Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
> facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
> government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
> such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
>
> Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
>
> We are living Orwell's 1984.
>
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
>
> Jobst Brandt
Jobst, YOU wrote "taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
privatized," not me. I asked what you would suggest to improve the
roads. If they need to be privatized then the only way to get enough
money is by making them all toll roads. YOU then say collect taxes and
use them to maintain roads ...
Make up your mind.
Ted. (Who)
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 02:28:56
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Ted who? writes:
>>>> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>>> Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
>>> roads?
>> Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
>> facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
>> government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
>> such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
>> Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
>> We are living Orwell's 1984.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
> Jobst, YOU wrote "taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
> privatized," not me. I asked what you would suggest to improve the
> roads. If they need to be privatized then the only way to get enough
> money is by making them all toll roads. YOU then say collect taxes and
> use them to maintain roads ...
> Make up your mind.
Oh get off it! You ought to recognize George Bushisms when you see
them. As I said we need to use the gas tax monies to maintain roads,
not to build new ones that have ribbon cutting displays for local
politicians.
We need to use tax monies for our facilities, not to wage wars that
alienate us to the entire world. That's what keeps terrorism alive
and aimed at us.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 03:16:15
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:454957e8$0$34573$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> Oh get off it! You ought to recognize George Bushisms when you see
> them.
We all OUGHT to recognize George Bushisms, but obviously George W. Bush was
able to fool some of the people (about 50%) some of the time (November 2000
and November 2004) that what he was saying wasn't just meaningless cliches.
I got the joke, but frankly, Jobst, if I hadn't read many, many of your
posts over the years I probably would have thought you were seriously
proposing privatizing the roads too, just as Ted thought.
This is at least in part because I live in Illinois. In Illinois this year
they converted the tolls roads so you no longer stop for tolls if you have a
transponder (probably RFID based, but I haven't looked into it). It's
probably only a matter of time before currently free expressways are
converted to this. The city of Chicago also sold one expressway (the Chicago
Skyway, Interstate 90) to a private firm.
I'm not saying this is a good idea -- but is it one that has some wheels.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:24:35
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 1 Nov 2006 14:46:08 -0800, "Ted" <plpfoot@gmail.com > wrote:
>Jobst, YOU wrote "taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
>privatized," not me.
I thought he was kidding.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:37:11
From: ycleptor2@cs.com
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Tim McNaa writes:
>
> >> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> > Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
> > guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
> roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
> bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
> Jobst Brandt
THose aren't potholes. They're tax-free traffic calming devices!
Cheers,
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:25:00
From:
Subject: Road paving techniques? [ was Re: Two wheels does it]
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Carl Fogel writes:
>
>
> > Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
> > bicycles:
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>
> > The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
> > move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>
> > Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
> > traffic.
>
> Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
> and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
> try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note that
> theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads in
> the Alps.
Buycycling magazine recently had an article on asphalt paving. ISTM
the article was interesting, but a bit shallow - in a way, similar to
the asphalt around here.
But I wonder, what are the specific differences in paving techniques
between different countries? What makes roads stay smoother in certain
countries or states?
I've always figured that more freeze-thaw cycles must make it more
difficult for a road to hold together. IOW, places like my NE Ohio
where winter temperatures oscillate above and below freezing would be
worse than places further north or south. Aside from that, is it
priily asphalt thickness? Base compaction?
I note the 200 yard section of (useful!) bike trail into our village
center (from a dead-end street) is starting to grow lumps and cracks.
It's about 7 years old, I think.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 19:34:04
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Road paving techniques? [ was Re: Two wheels does it]
|
On 1 Nov 2006 07:25:00 -0800, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>I've always figured that more freeze-thaw cycles must make it more
>difficult for a road to hold together. IOW, places like my NE Ohio
>where winter temperatures oscillate above and below freezing would be
>worse than places further north or south. Aside from that, is it
>priily asphalt thickness? Base compaction?
I'm guessing, yeah. According to a documentary on the AutoBahn, originally
intended to become the Transport Of The Future for the Thousand Year
Reich, was made twice as thick[1] as highways in other places, notably the
Interstate system. This was supposed (according to the documentary) to
lead to an expected lifetime of 100 years, as opposed to 20 or *maybe* 30.
When you spread asphalt concrete in thin layers on a thin layer of maybe
10-30 cm of sand, as is/was[2] typically done for cheapo bike/pedestrian
paths and driveways, you (observationally) get things like root intrusion
and more surface degradation quicker than on most real roads.
It's also simply a question of maintenance. All asphalt concrete roads
will develop cracks and ptholes over time, but how long they exist depends
on the maintenance frequency and how much you tolerate before you actually
do the resurfacing.
Jasper
[1] In particular, the base substrate foundation. The things were made in
prefab concrete slabs as topcoat, which means those kinds of road still go
ka-thump, ka-thump, ka-thump when you drive over them -- at least if they
haven't been resurfaced significantly since (just adding a thin asphalt
coat isn't good enough). Post-WWII concrete prefab often goes kathunk...
kathunk... kathunk, as opposed to pocca-pocca-pocca-pocca that the WWII
era stuff does, though -- presumably they just got better at making really
large bits of concrete.
The concrete topcoats are pretty much vanishing as we type, though. I most
recently encountered it in the no man's land between .nl and .de, both
sides had repaved around it (.nl much better than .de, though -- for us
it's a main highway into europe, for them it's a highway to that small
insignificant country to the left).
[2] These days they're usually paved with 30x30 cm concrete paving tiles.
Red for bikes, concrete-grey for peds.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:39:26
From:
Subject: Re: Road paving techniques? [ was Re: Two wheels does it]
|
Frank Krygowski writes:
>>> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
>>> bicycles:
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>>> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles
>>> to move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>>> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
>>> traffic.
>> Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded
>> asphalt and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic?
>> You might try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO),
>> (NL),... and note that theirs are without cracks and potholes,
>> including mountain roads in the Alps.
> Buycycling magazine recently had an article on asphalt paving. ISTM
> the article was interesting, but a bit shallow - in a way, similar
> to the asphalt around here.
> But I wonder, what are the specific differences in paving techniques
> between different countries? What makes roads stay smoother in
> certain countries or states?
> I've always figured that more freeze-thaw cycles must make it more
> difficult for a road to hold together. IOW, places like my NE Ohio
> where winter temperatures oscillate above and below freezing would
> be worse than places further north or south. Aside from that, is it
> priily asphalt thickness? Base compaction?
> I note the 200 yard section of (useful!) bike trail into our village
> center (from a dead-end street) is starting to grow lumps and
> cracks. It's about 7 years old, I think.
The difference is sub-grade, and repaving when the surface begins to
fail. Bike paths are notorious for being paved on almost no subgrade
preparation because "they are only bicycles". These fall apart
without use as soil moisture changes and vegetation grows. Obviously
heavily loaded vehicles can serve the final blow.
Locally, State and Interstate highways are a mess of cracks and holes
that you wouldn't want encounter on a bicycle. There have been
assessments on how much wear and tear this causes on vehicles using
these roads. It is more than the expense of keeping the surface in
good condition. As I said, republican roads. Taxes are BAD.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 19:37:16
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Road paving techniques? [ was Re: Two wheels does it]
|
On 01 Nov 2006 15:39:26 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>The difference is sub-grade, and repaving when the surface begins to
>fail. Bike paths are notorious for being paved on almost no subgrade
>preparation because "they are only bicycles". These fall apart
>without use as soil moisture changes and vegetation grows. Obviously
>heavily loaded vehicles can serve the final blow.
You can get away with just as little preparation much better simply laying
paving tiles, apparently (this is, I think, why asphalt concrete bicycle
poaths are pretty much disappeared) -- sure, they will grow bumps if a big
root grows under it, but you don't usually get the giant crack between two
surfaces that have erupted from either side, and the paving material has
much less tendency to disappear away from the side where vegetation
encroaches. It just disappears under the soil, rather than disappearing
altogether.
Jasper
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:56:56
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
:: logistical vehicles.
::
:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
::
:: Jobst Brandt
I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
Please explain.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:28:02
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 07:56:56 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
>jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>:: logistical vehicles.
>::
>:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>::
>:: Jobst Brandt
>
>I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
>Please explain.
Dear Roger,
Nice point.
As a sidelight, recumbent motorcycles are practically unknown.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:38:56
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <1162876887.285670.17230@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1162863447.990039.186380@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > > ,
> > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <1162791063.715830.40300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Press wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <1162733338.572386.154800@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > > > "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ::: Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :::::: frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: ...
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: Disclaimer: I understand the appeal of recumbent bikes, for
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: certain people's comfort, for interesting design challenges,
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: and for specialized racing applications. I don't dislike them
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: at all. But I think the vast majority of cyclists will always
> > > > > > > > > :::::::: be better served with a more conventional bike.
> > > > > > > > > ::::::::
> > > > > > > > > ::::::
> > > > > > > > > :::::: What about as a second bike where when the first is a
> > > > > > > > > :::::: conventional?
> > > > > > > > > :::::
> > > > > > > > > ::::: This is OK as long as you NEVER mention the recumbent bicycle in a
> > > > > > > > > ::::: positive light on rec.bicycles.* or to someone in real life who
> > > > > > > > > ::::: rides an upright bicycle.
> > > > > > > > > :::
> > > > > > > > > ::: I ride an upright! And I'm going to ride a recumbent, too! I
> > > > > > > > > ::: think the bike that better serves a person is the one a person
> > > > > > > > > ::: prefers to ride. I think I desire the experience of riding
> > > > > > > > > ::: different types of bikes and don't see why either of them can't
> > > > > > > > > ::: serve my needs.
> > > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > > ::: I'm not sure why people choose to draw
> > > > > > > > > ::: this line in the sand, frankly. You would think that anyone who
> > > > > > > > > ::: claims to advocate cycling would prefer to see more of any kind of
> > > > > > > > > ::: functional bike on the road as opposed to another car!...
> > > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > > :: Some of the regulars in rec.bicycles.tech do not consider recumbents
> > > > > > > > > :: bicycles, and refuse to admit that recumbent bicycles can serve ANY
> > > > > > > > > :: purpose.
> > > > > > > > > ::
> > > > > > > > > :: Nope, recumbent bicycles are PURELY EVIL AND MUST NOT BE TOLERATED!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Frankly, in all the time I've been posting here, I had NO idea of such a
> > > > > > > > > division.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The most frequent anti-recumbent posts come from some of the people who
> > > > > > > > have overall posted the most messages to rec.bicycles.tech, so maybe
> > > > > > > > they feel a sense of entitlement as to what is proper discussion on the
> > > > > > > > group. However, I still have yet to see where in the charter for
> > > > > > > > rec.bicycles.tech recumbents are prohibited, or how they are not
> > > > > > > > bicycles within the accepted usage of the English language [1]. 99% of
> > > > > > > > the bicycle related posting is not good enough for them, apparently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The only reason I posted
> > > > > > > > > here in the *.misc group is because the *.bicycles.recumbent group seems to
> > > > > > > > > be a troll playhouse.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, Mr. Ed the Grate has accomplished on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
> > > > > > > > what M*k* V*nd*m*n has done on rec.bicycles.soc, leaving the weak
> > > > > > > > willed to flee to moderated (i.e. stifled) forums.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is very disappointing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, I do not react well to being bullied and told to go away for
> > > > > > > > posts that are within the charter of the group. The humorous part is if
> > > > > > > > the anti-recumbent faction just ignored all recumbent posts, there
> > > > > > > > would be less of them, as these drawn out flame wars would not occur.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] Note that race sanctioning organizations are NOT arbiters of what
> > > > > > > > consists of a bicycle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then do not be bullied. You need not advertise your
> > > > > > > intention. If you do not want to be treated like a
> > > > > > > loser, then stop acting like one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dude, if I was being bullied, I would be gone from the newsgroup. Duh!
> > > > >
> > > > > You yourself said you do not react well to being
> > > > > bullied. Is this some kind of hypothetical
> > > > > pronouncement? Address directly anyone you think is
> > > > > mistreating you, as in disparaging recumbent bicycles.
> > > > > Do not bleat at the rest of us who leave it alone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do not address me as `Dude'.
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Press,
> > > >
> > > > A person telling me that some subjects are not acceptable for
> > > > discussion simply because they are not to his/her interest (as opposed
> > > > to being off-topic per the charter of the group) is bullying. I believe
> > > > you can find such a person with the aid of a mirror.
> > >
> > > No, you have to spell it out.
> > >
> > > > If you do not want to see recumbent bicycle posts, get the charter
> > > > changed to reflect that, or start a rec.upright.bicycles.tech Usenet
> > > > newsgroup.
> > >
> > > False assumption in that sentence. You cannot support it.
> >
> > Now you are being deliberately obtuse. [Yawn]
>
> You cannot cite any place that I expressed the
> sentiment you ascribe to me. Hence, you predicate that
> injunction upon a false premise.
Michael Press is misinterpreting the purposes to my posts - we indeed
have a failure to communicate here.
> As a spokesman for recumbent riders, you may wish to
> reexamine your approach. Yawning in someone's face and
> using a demeaning form of address is counter-productive.
Contrary to popular belief, I not recommending anyone ride a recumbent
bicycle unless they are interested in trying something different, or
have tried all the normal remedies for upright discomfort (professional
fitting, saddles with different effective widths, anti-chafing lotions,
etc.) WITHOUT success.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 02:46:56
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tim McNaa wrote:
> In article <1162344560.529809.291290@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > > logistical vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> > > >
> > > > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > >
> > > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> > > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
> > > hate anything.....or maybe he does..
> >
> > Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
> > to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
> > in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
> > cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
>
> I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
> recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
> good answer to their question.
But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 01:31:37
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<1162378016.356892.248490@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >
,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tim McNaa wrote:
> > In article <1162344560.529809.291290@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > > > logistical vehicles.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> > > >
> > > > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> > > > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
> > > > hate anything.....or maybe he does..
> > >
> > > Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
> > > to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
> > > in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
> > > cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
> >
> > I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
> > recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
> > good answer to their question.
>
> But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
> problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!
Not what is claimed, and you know it.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 00:38:42
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
Good stuff! I posted this to our bike club listserv, and got more replies
than anything this month.
Matt O.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:22:26
From: Ted
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
> Jobst Brandt
Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll roads?
Ted.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:23:00
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Ted who? writes:
>> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
> Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
> roads?
Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
We are living Orwell's 1984.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 00:32:00
From: Noweldrecumbent
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Well said Jobst
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:4548bbd4$0$34554$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Ted who? writes:
>
>>> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
>> Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
>> roads?
>
> Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
> facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
> government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
> such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
>
> Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
>
> We are living Orwell's 1984.
>
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
>
> Jobst Brandt
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:00:31
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Ted who? writes:
>> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
> Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
> roads?
Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.
Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.
We are living Orwell's 1884.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Jobst Brandt
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:29:20
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > logistical vehicles.
> >
> > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
> C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't hate
> anything.....or maybe he does..
Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage to
their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle in
comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
[1] I am aware of actual cases of this.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 23:11:56
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <1162344560.529809.291290@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > > logistical vehicles.
> > >
> > > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> > >
> > > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
> >
> > C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> > unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
> > hate anything.....or maybe he does..
>
> Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
> to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
> in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
> cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?
I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
good answer to their question.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:22:49
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
I showed this to my wife, who grew up in China, and she was
unimpressed, saying "Stuff like that is very comon where I used to
live."
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 01:34:03
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article
<ultfk2dijpsknilu5m3h2nkijkl9rhkqm9@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>
> >http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> I showed this to my wife, who grew up in China, and she was
> unimpressed, saying "Stuff like that is very comon where I used to
> live."
Unimpressed, sure. Is she not respectful of her
heritage? I would point with pride.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 17:04:22
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > logistical vehicles.
>
> Hatred does not become you Jobst.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't hate
anything.....or maybe he does..
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:52:39
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.
Hatred does not become you Jobst.
--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 17:25:49
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 14:46:44 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > I am not bothered by these comments
>
> So unbothered, in fact, that you avoid rides where you might
> hear them, and want everyone on usenet to know it.
WHOOSH!
It is not that I would be bothered, but that I would be showing up
where I was not wanted. I see no reason to unnecessarily aggravate
people in real life.
Try to have a less self-centered outlook.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:46:44
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 14:00:56 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > So you approve of people acting like jerks?
>
> No, but I suspect that you're incapable of distinguishing between a bit
> of teasing and a genuine verbal assault. If you're so sensitive about your
> choice of bike that you need to spend time on usenet complaining about
> these real or imagined slights, perhaps it's best that you ride alone or in
> the company of others as strange and different as yourself :-)
I am not bothered by these comments, but make the point of mentioning
them since certain regulars like to complain about "recumbent
evangelists" and never see the other side.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 18:53:12
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 5 Nov 2006 14:46:44 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> I am not bothered by these comments
So unbothered, in fact, that you avoid rides where you might
hear them, and want everyone on usenet to know it.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:00:56
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Michael Warner wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 09:38:28 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> > Gratuitously telling anyone that their chose of bicycles is wrong is
> > just rude [1].
>
> I've known people to do that to recumbent riders just to see the steam
> come out of their ears. You'd think they'd be immune to "Why doncha
> get a real bike?" after a while, but no - it works every time.
>
> Of course, this must be done up hills, where the suggestion can be rubbed
> in by leaving them in the dust :-)
So you approve of people acting like jerks? That would say a lot about
you.
--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...
Post Free or Die!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:53:01
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 5 Nov 2006 14:00:56 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> So you approve of people acting like jerks?
No, but I suspect that you're incapable of distinguishing between a bit
of teasing and a genuine verbal assault. If you're so sensitive about your
choice of bike that you need to spend time on usenet complaining about
these real or imagined slights, perhaps it's best that you ride alone or in
the company of others as strange and different as yourself :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2006 09:38:28
From: Johnny Sunset
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2006 05:14:11 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Please put some real numbers to this; percentages of posts, percentages
> >or threads, etc. for posts on rec.bicycles.* telling upright cyclists
> >they should switch to recumbents. Then compare this to the number of
> >posts by upright cyclists denigrating recumbents.
>
> How about also consider the number of upright riders and the number of
> recumbent riders. It seems that any given recumbent rider is more
> likely to be a loud evangelist for his/her particular favorite type of
> bike.
Gratuitously telling anyone that their chose of bicycles is wrong is
just rude [1]. Suggesting to someone complaining of comfort problems
there is an alternative is an entirely different matter. Similarly,
doing so on Usenet is entirely different than in person, since no one
is forced to read every post or thread.
[1] Certain people should try taking a recumbent on a few larger
attendance invitational rides to see what treatment they get.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:23:23
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 5 Nov 2006 09:38:28 -0800, Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Gratuitously telling anyone that their chose of bicycles is wrong is
> just rude [1].
I've known people to do that to recumbent riders just to see the steam
come out of their ears. You'd think they'd be immune to "Why doncha
get a real bike?" after a while, but no - it works every time.
Of course, this must be done up hills, where the suggestion can be rubbed
in by leaving them in the dust :-)
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:58:04
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> Jobst Brandt
I found it somewhat amazing a couple of the scooter/motorcyclists were
wearing helmets. Sort of hard to reconcile wearing helmets and using
scooters/motorcycles to haul pigs or flowers and passengers or children.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 01:09:07
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
<russellseaton1@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162339084.214604.84270@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>> logistical vehicles.
>>
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I found it somewhat amazing a couple of the scooter/motorcyclists were
> wearing helmets. Sort of hard to reconcile wearing helmets and using
> scooters/motorcycles to haul pigs or flowers and passengers or children.
>
Why?
Remember that these people aren't hauling pigs around for fun -- the small
motorcycle is a way to economic advancement. You can get more to ket
faster, so you can make more money.
You do see multiple people on these small motorcycles -- five is the most I
saw when I was in Thailand. These looked like family groups, and I'm
guessing this was their only vehicle.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 18:58:42
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 31 Oct 2006 18:48:55 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
Dang.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:07:33
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> Jobst Brandt
Perhaps not in the same league, but last spring I came back from the
auto parts store with a water pump, 2 gallons of antifreeze and various
hoses and clamps, all on my rear rack -- the parts guys were amazed. Oh
yeah, it was snowing and I had studded tires.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:25:58
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:Q_ednWZQ64ibMNrYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>> logistical vehicles.
>>
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Perhaps not in the same league, but last spring I came back from the auto
> parts store with a water pump, 2 gallons of antifreeze and various hoses
> and clamps, all on my rear rack -- the parts guys were amazed. Oh yeah, it
> was snowing and I had studded tires.
I get some pretty strange looks by the Propane vendor when I show up with
the 30lb (7 gal) tank on the back of mine. Here's a hint. Always have it
completely filled. If you don't, you will be all over the road when the
liquid shifts.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 01:30:23
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <4547b126$1@news.i70west.com >,
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@celticommnospam.com > wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Q_ednWZQ64ibMNrYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >> logistical vehicles.
> >>
> >> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> >>
> >> Jobst Brandt
> >
> > Perhaps not in the same league, but last spring I came back from the auto
> > parts store with a water pump, 2 gallons of antifreeze and various hoses
> > and clamps, all on my rear rack -- the parts guys were amazed. Oh yeah, it
> > was snowing and I had studded tires.
>
> I get some pretty strange looks by the Propane vendor when I show up with
> the 30lb (7 gal) tank on the back of mine. Here's a hint. Always have it
> completely filled. If you don't, you will be all over the road when the
> liquid shifts.
One of my Dad's puzzles: What can you carry full, but
not carry half full? A carboy of mercury.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:09:07
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <45479a97$0$34502$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the guy
carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:49:43
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tim McNaa writes:
>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>> logistical vehicles.
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
> guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:32:09
From: Jeanne
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Tim McNaa writes:
>
>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
>> guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
> roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
> bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
In the case of China, many roads are probably less than 10 (and
certainly 20) years old. Trust me, not all roads are so nicely paved -
those tend to be in the large metropolitan areas. Once you leave the
big cities behind, the roads deteriorate rapidly (but there are still
plenty of bicycles hauling stuff).
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 00:41:24
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:49:43 +0000, jobst.brandt wrote:
> Tim McNaa writes:
>
>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
>> guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
> roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
> bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
Don't forget to pay your "user fee" before you pedal out of your driveway.
Matt O.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:28:26
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <4547a8d7$0$34564$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Tim McNaa writes:
>
> >> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> > Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
> > the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
> roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
> bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
Now that you mention it, I hadn't paid attention to the backgrounds as
much as the foregrounds. Many of those photos do show awfully nicely
paved roads.
It's an interesting set of priority discussions. Here in Minnesota, the
Governor and the Legislature (a Republican and Republican controlled
House) have done such a piss-poor job of dealing with roads (we like to
build new ones for subdivision developers, but not to maintain the ones
we have. Good thing the state isn't in charge of puppies). The
Governor even tried to get one of the most important road projects in
the metro area done by asking the contractors to basically accept an IOU
for hundreds of millions of dollars. Oddly enough that didn't fly.
BTW the Governor is campaigning on his fiscal record, claiming he's
actually competent. Sigh. On the one hand, we have a vapid Republican
liar campaigning for re-election and on the other we have a vapid
Democratic publicity hound challenging him. The Independence Party
candidate seems saner and ster than both of them, but is boring and
doesn't have the peculiar razzmatazz that Jesse Ventura had.
I don't mind a boring governor. We had moderate Republican Arne Carlson
for a couple of terms, boring as could be but he did a good job. And
hilariously he won twice without having the Republican endorsement! The
first time he won, he became the Republican candidate six weeks before
the election when the endorsed candidate bowed out after his
predilection for skinny dipping with minors came out; Carlson beat the
incumbent Democrat fairly handily. The second time, the endorsed
candidate was a far right wing nutbar who lost the priy.
Hmmm, maybe if the Democrats defy my expectations and take back one or
both halves of Congress, it'd drive the Republican Party back towards
conservative ideals.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 05:20:00
From: Robin Hubert
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Tim McNaa wrote:
> In article <4547a8d7$0$34564$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>> Tim McNaa writes:
>>
>>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>> logistical vehicles.
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>
>>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
>>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
>> roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
>> bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
> Now that you mention it, I hadn't paid attention to the backgrounds as
> much as the foregrounds. Many of those photos do show awfully nicely
> paved roads.
>
> It's an interesting set of priority discussions. Here in Minnesota, the
> Governor and the Legislature (a Republican and Republican controlled
> House) have done such a piss-poor job of dealing with roads (we like to
> build new ones for subdivision developers, but not to maintain the ones
> we have. Good thing the state isn't in charge of puppies). The
> Governor even tried to get one of the most important road projects in
> the metro area done by asking the contractors to basically accept an IOU
> for hundreds of millions of dollars. Oddly enough that didn't fly.
>
> BTW the Governor is campaigning on his fiscal record, claiming he's
> actually competent. Sigh. On the one hand, we have a vapid Republican
> liar campaigning for re-election and on the other we have a vapid
> Democratic publicity hound challenging him. The Independence Party
> candidate seems saner and ster than both of them, but is boring and
> doesn't have the peculiar razzmatazz that Jesse Ventura had.
>
> I don't mind a boring governor. We had moderate Republican Arne Carlson
> for a couple of terms, boring as could be but he did a good job. And
> hilariously he won twice without having the Republican endorsement! The
> first time he won, he became the Republican candidate six weeks before
> the election when the endorsed candidate bowed out after his
> predilection for skinny dipping with minors came out; Carlson beat the
> incumbent Democrat fairly handily. The second time, the endorsed
> candidate was a far right wing nutbar who lost the priy.
>
> Hmmm, maybe if the Democrats defy my expectations and take back one or
> both halves of Congress, it'd drive the Republican Party back towards
> conservative ideals.
Where's Jesse when you need him?
Robin
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 13:11:58
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 31 Oct 2006 19:49:43 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>Tim McNaa writes:
>
>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
>> guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
>Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
>roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
>bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
>
>Jobst Brandt
Dear Jobst,
Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
bicycles:
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
traffic.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 23:27:04
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
Carl Fogel writes:
>>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>> logistical vehicles.
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
>>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have
>> republican roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that
>> can eat bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
>> privatized.
> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
> bicycles:
http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
> move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
> traffic.
Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note that
theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads in
the Alps.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 01:03:25
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 31 Oct 2006 23:27:04 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
>>>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
>>>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
>>> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have
>>> republican roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that
>>> can eat bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
>>> privatized.
>
>> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
>> bicycles:
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>
>> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
>> move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>
>> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
>> traffic.
>
>Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
>and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
>try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note that
>theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads in
>the Alps.
>
>Jobst Brandt
Dear Jobst,
In another thread, a Slate series of bicycling pictures was mentioned.
I suspect that this road lasts longer because of the kind of traffic
that it bears:
http://todayspictures.slate.com/20061031/12.html
Imagine the results of replacing those 30-pound bicycles with the
3,000 pound cars, 6,000 pound trucks, and monster semi-trailers of a
California freeway.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 23:19:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <4547dbc8$0$34503$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Carl Fogel writes:
>
> >>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
> >>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
> >>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
> >> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have
> >> republican roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that
> >> can eat bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
> >> privatized.
Jobst, I think many of your readers somehow missed the sarcasm.
> > Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
> > bicycles:
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>
> > The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles
> > to move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>
> > Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
> > traffic.
>
> Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
> and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
> try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note
> that theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads
> in the Alps.
I did find some pretty severe cracks on the Col de Vars and some rough
pavement on the Col de Sarenne, but other than that I was very surprised
by the nicely maintained roads. Not only the quality of the surface but
also the lack of broken beer bottles and the general good manners of the
drivers towards bicyclists (but not each other- French drivers have
little tolerance for each other).
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:53:38
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On 31 Oct 2006 23:27:04 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>>> logistical vehicles.
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>
>>>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
>>>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>
>>> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have
>>> republican roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that
>>> can eat bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
>>> privatized.
>
>> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
>> bicycles:
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>
>> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
>> move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>
>> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
>> traffic.
>
>Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
>and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
>try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note that
>theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads in
>the Alps.
>
>Jobst Brandt
Dear Jobst,
My bicycle path has cracked and eroded asphalt because it's a cheap
strip of shallow asphalt laid on notoriously bad soil, often with huge
cottonwoods next to it.
Soil in this area tends toward bentonite clay, which has a nasty habit
of expanding wildly when wet and breaking the foundations of homes and
university buildings.
The cottonwood roots have broken more expensive concrete slabs
intended to fix things.
I'll try to remember to take a few pictures of the path versus the
road to illustrate the difference. I'll also try to take a picture of
the larger cracks, which were filled with asphalt recently. It will be
interesting to see if the goatheads just grow up through the new
asphalt next year.
Regrettably, some new state parks employees decided to save time by
using a full-size garbage truck instead of a pickup truck to collect
the garbage from the trash cans, so some sections of the path have
been smashed--you've mentioned how ground squirrels like to burrow
under roads because it gives them a solid roof over their heads.
As a rule of thumb, when grass and puncture vine grow in the cracks in
the middle of a desert or prairie road, there ain't enough traffic to
worry about maintaining things.
Given that I see half a dozen pedestrians and bicyclists on the path,
it's reasonable for the county not to bother spending much on the
upkeep of a path that turns into a state park halfway to the dam.
To give some idea of how little used the path is, I stop in summer to
shoo rattlesnakes off it. This afternoon, I counted 11 deer on the
path in about a mile.
And to be honest, it works fine for a bicycle. For 15 miles, I use my
touring bike's brakes only for right-angle corners.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:25:19
From:
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:53:38 -0700, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>On 31 Oct 2006 23:27:04 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
>>Carl Fogel writes:
>>
>>>>>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>>>>>> logistical vehicles.
>>
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>>
>>>>> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by
>>>>> the guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
>>
>>>> Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have
>>>> republican roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that
>>>> can eat bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
>>>> privatized.
>>
>>> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
>>> bicycles:
>>
>> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>>
>>> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
>>> move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>>
>>> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
>>> traffic.
>>
>>Oh! Is that why your favorite mine field has cracked eroded asphalt
>>and full of puncture vine, because it has heavy traffic? You might
>>try roads in (F), (D), (CH), (I), (SLO), (CRO), (NL),... and note that
>>theirs are without cracks and potholes, including mountain roads in
>>the Alps.
>>
>>Jobst Brandt
>
>Dear Jobst,
>
>My bicycle path has cracked and eroded asphalt because it's a cheap
>strip of shallow asphalt laid on notoriously bad soil, often with huge
>cottonwoods next to it.
>
>Soil in this area tends toward bentonite clay, which has a nasty habit
>of expanding wildly when wet and breaking the foundations of homes and
>university buildings.
>
>The cottonwood roots have broken more expensive concrete slabs
>intended to fix things.
>
>I'll try to remember to take a few pictures of the path versus the
>road to illustrate the difference. I'll also try to take a picture of
>the larger cracks, which were filled with asphalt recently. It will be
>interesting to see if the goatheads just grow up through the new
>asphalt next year.
>
>Regrettably, some new state parks employees decided to save time by
>using a full-size garbage truck instead of a pickup truck to collect
>the garbage from the trash cans, so some sections of the path have
>been smashed--you've mentioned how ground squirrels like to burrow
>under roads because it gives them a solid roof over their heads.
>
>As a rule of thumb, when grass and puncture vine grow in the cracks in
>the middle of a desert or prairie road, there ain't enough traffic to
>worry about maintaining things.
>
>Given that I see half a dozen pedestrians and bicyclists on the path,
>it's reasonable for the county not to bother spending much on the
>upkeep of a path that turns into a state park halfway to the dam.
>
>To give some idea of how little used the path is, I stop in summer to
>shoo rattlesnakes off it. This afternoon, I counted 11 deer on the
>path in about a mile.
>
>And to be honest, it works fine for a bicycle. For 15 miles, I use my
>touring bike's brakes only for right-angle corners.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carl Fogel
Some pictures of my daily dreadful "mine-field".
***
Here's the worst that I can find, some up-buckled concrete about ten
years old:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=344a_path_broken_concrete.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/up6qp
The cottonwood casting the shadow across the path is the most likely
suspect, but to be fair, there's only one other spot like this in
about six miles. A metal sign, torn down for fun every month or two,
warns "Caution Trail Damage Ahead." Luckily, I ride up the river
toward the camera, so it's just a launching ramp, not the ugly
rim-wrecker seen from this angle, often camouflaged by shadows
and leaves (which I scraped away with my shoe, like a Playboy
photographer removing lingerie blocking the view).
***
Here's a more typical section of concrete path heading up the Arkansas
River valley, taken a week or so ago. The river is off in the trees.
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=336a_yellow_leaves.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yndrc4
This section of the path is smooth and favored by lizards in summer,
deer the year round, tarantulas in early fall, and recumbents in
spring. A section of the old asphalt path can be seen to the left. The
silvery-brown brush is mostly dead ragweed, the yellow-leaf tree is a
young cottonwood, and the blue mountains twenty miles away are about
9,000 to 10,000 feet high and about 4,000 to 5,000 feet in relief, the
lower and undistinguished northern end of the Wet Mountain range.
Here's a fall tarantula on that section of concrete:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=290atarantula.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/ydrtag
The close-up shows that the concrete is in good shape.
***
Here's an example of a recent spate of path repair, presumably
undertaken in September by a state government desperate to win my
vote:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=346a_patched_goathead_crack.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/y78spb
They just patched the biggest cracks across the asphalt path in the
state park. (Concrete means Pueblo city and county, asphalt means
Colorado state park leased from the federal government. A wooden
bridge divides the two political realms.)
Come spring, I'll find out if the goatheads that were growing in most
of the cracks can grow up through the asphalt patches like the one
across the bottom of the picture. The picture shows the beginning of a
prime section of goathead territory--note how the leaves make it even
more ridiculous to claim that the goatheads can be spotted and dodged.
***
Here's where a misguided maintenance crew ran a full-size garbage
truck down the path instead of the usual pickup truck:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=347a_patched_garbage_truck_tracks.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/y7ch47
The dual-wheel tracks lead to where the heavily loaded tires broke
through and destroyed a ground-squirrel den under the asphalt. Look
through the bike frame to see the handsome new black asphalt patch,
which replaced an orange safety cone after a few months.
Come to think of it, here's a picture of that safety cone:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=186a_safety_cone.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/suoff
That's what heavy traffic does to shallow-laid asphalt. No bicycle
will do that kind of damage.
***
Here's a low-angle view of the same section, showing the patch without
the bicycle in the way, with an example in the foreground of a plant
or root mound bursting up through the path:
http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=349a_alternate_view_of_patched_garbage_truck_tracks.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/y2dcum
I know what happened to cause the patch because I met the garbage
truck head-on that day a little further down the path, which was like
running into an elephant lumbering down the sidewalk.
***
Today, total traffic on this six-mile stretch of what's called a
nature trail on a sunny 54-degree fall afternoon around 3pm consisted
of me, two touring bikes, and two people out for a walk, one with a
dog. It's hard to blame the government for not worrying too much about
the state of 20-year-old asphalt and 10-year-old concrete. Average
speed for this section is a little over 20 mph.
Most of the damage is just the freeze-thaw cycle when summer
temperatures regularly reach 100F and winter temperatures drop to
-15F, coupled with roots growing into the path and soils that swell
when flooded. Bicycles and pedestrians do no more damage to the
asphalt and concrete out there than they do to the sidewalks in front
of homes.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 20:33:02
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Two wheels does it
|
In article <66bfk2hgteblea5i3n419go4va7jj7kf6h@4ax.com >,
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2006 19:49:43 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> >Tim McNaa writes:
> >
> >>> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> >>> logistical vehicles.
> >
> > http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> >
> >> Good grief! That's amazing stuff. I was particularly amused by the
> >> guy carrying the car unibody on the front of his trike!
> >
> >Don't overlook the nicely paved streets. They don't have republican
> >roads over there as we do with potholes and cracks that can eat
> >bicycles. Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.
> >
> >Jobst Brandt
>
> Dear Jobst,
>
> Er, the priy traffic in most of those pictures appears to be
> bicycles:
>
> http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics
>
> The whole point is that people are using bicycles and motorcycles to
> move loads that we would normally carry in cars and trucks.
>
> Such roads tend to last longer than roads with heavy car and truck
> traffic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Bonus explanation: does that look like a nation especially prone to
frost heave?
Bonus bonus explanation: are the potholes worse in Utah or Illinois?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
|
