| |
Main
Date: 10 May 2006 18:43:19
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Some more newbie SWB observations:
* Disc brakes are amazing!!! NO FEAR -- I stopped on a dime,
basically. A handful of times I skidded another few inches, probably,
but I haven't felt so astounded since first meeting V-brakes ten years
ago! I have Avid BB7 mechanical disc brakes -- can only wonder what
those Magurar ta hydraulic ones stop like!!!
* Rear air shocks are great!!! I'm not sure that they're necessarily
better in performance than regular steel spring shocks -- I've only
tried the steel ones once, and just a few minutes over a few speed
bumps and some small potholes -- but they're certainly a hell lot more
easier to adjust!
* Schwalbe athon Plus tires are nice! Slow, too, I think -- I "feel
the road," if you know what I mean -- but there's also not been a
stretch of debris, rocks and wood splinters and glass and angular
stones which I've been worried about yet! I actually go through them
rather deliberately just to see if I can get a puncture! So far, I'm
very impressed, and still rather glad to sacrifice the speed in
exchange for peace of mind!
* Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
* Chains are incredible! By which I mean that I can't believe my chain
CUT THROUGH the metal clamp that was holding the teflon tubing -- which
it had shredded! I don't know how this happened; by the time I
noticed, top chain management was KIA!!! Interestingly, I haven't yet
suffered any visible leg grease...maybe it's the teflon lubrication??
I'm not sure whether (or how, exactly) to replace the top chain
tubing....
* A BITCH to haul!!! There's no obvious place to grab, really, and the
weight distribution makes it totally unwieldy for narrow stairways.
It's a chore just taking the damned thing out for a spin! I wonder if
my back's getting stressed from the contortions I have to make
manuevering it up and down four flights of narrow ("single-breasted")
stairs, thus somewhat under-cutting recumbent-riding's lower back
benefits! I've had to develop a very strict and careful way of
handling the 'bent, akin to observing proper form in weight-lifting!
* A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
|
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 13:44:48
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
That's the funny thing about poetry...no other way to communicate the
truth short of direct insight, but the easiest way to mislead and
confuse!
Peter Clinch wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
>
> Since cars typically come with passenger capacity, and bikes typically
> don't, this strikes ne as pretty dubious reasoning...
>
> > A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
>
> Most of them are just getting from A to B.
>
> > Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
> >
> > The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> > carbon fiber for their frames.
>
> But they're still highly reliant on others to provide them materials.
> It's not like they're smelting the metal themselves.
>
> > Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> > other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> > sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
>
> I think you'd find enough variation in boxers and pianists within their
> own groups that the fact they box or play piano ultimately won't mean much.
>
> > Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> > tend to be true -- at least in context!
>
> Only if they're established. "Cyclists are loners" is a new one on me!
>
> > Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> > equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
>
> Depends how much they worked on the switch... Not everyone just rides
> around in cars as delivered.
>
> "cycle culture" as you paint it exists, certainly, but it is certainly
> /not/ inclusive of all (or probably even the majority of) cyclists.
> Which is why Velovision isn't exactly a mass-ket cycling magazine.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 24 May 2006 00:41:43
From: Sorni
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> That's the funny thing about poetry...no other way to communicate the
> truth short of direct insight, but the easiest way to mislead and
> confuse!
Please stop top posting. Also, please trim your quoted material properly.
Polite Bill
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 23:59:48
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
"Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics
drift. And threads can diminish."
I used to observe these very elementary rules to perfection. In fact, I did
it better than anybody else on ARBR. As a former professional librarian I
have a natural genius for classifying and editing. But I have since changed
my mind about much of this. I now believe it is better to have several
newsgroups involved in almost all threads as well as not to do much editing
at all.
The reason for the above is that I saw a rather small newsgroup destroyed by
a criminal vandal troll. Some of us fought the good fight, but the newsgroup
was just too small to withstand an extended campaign of criminal vandal
trolling. If a newsgroup has many threads and other newsgroups involved, it
is far less likely it will be destroyed by a criminal vandal troll.
This is not to say that we should not use discretion when considering which
newsgroups to post to nor does it mean that messages can run on and on and
get overly long. But on balance, I believe it is better to error on the side
of too much rather than too little. I believe especially if the topic is
general and not specific that it is OK to post to multiple newsgroups. I
also believe that too much editing is far worse than too little editing or
no editing at all.
The messages of Vandeman and Curtiss are quite instructive in this matter of
editing. They do no editing at all and it does not slow me down. It means we
can linger over a single post or just quickly get to the new material if we
want. But in any event, everything on their posts is open and above board. I
never get the impression that one is being unfair to the other. This is very
important as most editing is done for exactly that purpose, i.e., to make
you look good and the other person look bad.
I do commend both Vandeman and Curtiss for their courage in not doing any
editing. They do not behave like cowards and scoundrels like so many do who
are heavily into editing. That was always my one and only complaint about
Tom Sherman (other than being wrongheaded about everything under the sun -
except recumbents). He knew how to edit to make you look bad, yet was
intelligent enough to know that it was wrong.
NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple newsgroups
and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can have wide
applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a topic or
subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The general is
always more interesting than the particular and will attract more posters. A
newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 22:56:44
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple newsgroups
> and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can have wide
> applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a topic or
> subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The general is
> always more interesting than the particular and will attract more posters. A
> newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
>
If the rest of the ARBRers are like you and NYC then you psychos deserve
a tiny part of Usenet. In fact, the tinier the better for your demented
raves.
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: 24 May 2006 01:16:29
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote in message
news:1277td06bm4dp39@corp.supernews.com...
[newgroups restored]
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple
>> newsgroups and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can
>> have wide applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a
>> topic or subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The
>> general is always more interesting than the particular and will attract
>> more posters. A newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
>>
>
> If the rest of the ARBRers are like you and NYC then you psychos deserve a
> tiny part of Usenet. In fact, the tinier the better for your demented
> raves.
>
> Greg
It is always good to hear from the peanut gallery, although I seldom bother
with them. NYC and Ed Dolan the Great always manage to say some few things
that will peak someone's interest. Can you say the same for yourself?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 23:43:15
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:1277td06bm4dp39@corp.supernews.com...
>
> [newgroups restored]
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple
>>>newsgroups and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can
>>>have wide applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a
>>>topic or subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The
>>>general is always more interesting than the particular and will attract
>>>more posters. A newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
>>>
>>
>>If the rest of the ARBRers are like you and NYC then you psychos deserve a
>>tiny part of Usenet. In fact, the tinier the better for your demented
>>raves.
>>
>>Greg
>
>
> It is always good to hear from the peanut gallery, although I seldom bother
> with them.
Then why the fuck do continue to annoy the peanut gallery if you seldom
bother with them? Hypocritical moron.
> NYC and Ed Dolan the Great always manage to say some few things
> that will peak someone's interest. Can you say the same for yourself?
>
What is up with you twisted fucks? Are you proud of yourselves?
Nothing you boring twits say is interesing. When are you going to come
to terms with that?
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: 24 May 2006 02:51:07
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote in message
news:1278043peqjkt14@corp.supernews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
>> news:1277td06bm4dp39@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> [newgroups restored]
>>
>>
>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple
>>>>newsgroups and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can
>>>>have wide applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a
>>>>topic or subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup.
>>>>The general is always more interesting than the particular and will
>>>>attract more posters. A newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If the rest of the ARBRers are like you and NYC then you psychos deserve
>>>a tiny part of Usenet. In fact, the tinier the better for your demented
>>>raves.
>>>
>>>Greg
>>
>>
>> It is always good to hear from the peanut gallery, although I seldom
>> bother with them.
>
> Then why the fuck do continue to annoy the peanut gallery if you seldom
> bother with them? Hypocritical moron.
Because it amuses me to do so! Why are you here, that is the question? Aww
... not having any fun. Too bad. Try to have some fun here on Usenet. After
all, that is all it is good for. Enuf wisdom for your very small brain for
one day.
>> NYC and Ed Dolan the Great always manage to say some few things that will
>> peak someone's interest. Can you say the same for yourself?
>>
>
> What is up with you twisted fucks? Are you proud of yourselves? Nothing
> you boring twits say is interesing. When are you going to come to terms
> with that?
Au contraire, EVERYTHING we say is interesting. Of course, all your type
ever wants is some excruciatingly dull facts about one thing or another. As
if facts are ever interesting in and of themselves. I am here to light a
fire under your dead ass. Why should Usenet be given over to dullards like
you? Either get with the program or get lost!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 May 2006 10:03:45
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:1278043peqjkt14@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It is always good to hear from the peanut gallery, although I seldom
>>>bother with them.
>>
>>Then why the fuck do continue to annoy the peanut gallery if you seldom
>>bother with them? Hypocritical moron.
>
>
> Because it amuses me to do so! Why are you here, that is the question? Aww
> ... not having any fun. Too bad. Try to have some fun here on Usenet. After
> all, that is all it is good for. Enuf wisdom for your very small brain for
> one day.
I'm sure everyone in your crossposted groups would have more fun if you
obnoxious twits went elsewhere. You're incredibly boring.
>
>>>NYC and Ed Dolan the Great always manage to say some few things that will
>>>peak someone's interest. Can you say the same for yourself?
>>>
>>
>>What is up with you twisted fucks? Are you proud of yourselves? Nothing
>>you boring twits say is interesing. When are you going to come to terms
>>with that?
>
>
> Au contraire, EVERYTHING we say is interesting. Of course, all your type
> ever wants is some excruciatingly dull facts about one thing or another. As
> if facts are ever interesting in and of themselves. I am here to light a
> fire under your dead ass. Why should Usenet be given over to dullards like
> you? Either get with the program or get lost!
>
Wow, if that ain't PKB I don't know what is. The only dullard around
here is you.
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: 24 May 2006 14:17:47
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com > wrote in message
news:12794fjb7g2593@corp.supernews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
<some stuff I deleted >
Don't like cross posted threads? Here is how to fix them.
Post an inflammatory reply to the thread that is sure to get both sides
slobbering at their keyboards. Delete your favorite newgroup and send it to
the rest. Simple and effective.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 May 2006 02:42:05
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:vcydnbvqiOnALOnZnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
> news:12794fjb7g2593@corp.supernews.com...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> <some stuff I deleted>
>
> Don't like cross posted threads? Here is how to fix them.
>
> Post an inflammatory reply to the thread that is sure to get both sides
> slobbering at their keyboards. Delete your favorite newgroup and send it
> to
> the rest. Simple and effective.
I stand behind everything I have ever written to any newsgroup. In fact, I
am proud of my humble efforts to enlighten all the idiots, morons and
imbeciles who infest newsgroups like a plague. I make damn sure that
anything I write gets posted to MY newsgroup, which happens to be ARBR. I
have much less concern with any of the other newsgroups, but I feel they
should benefit from my wisdom too, if at all possible. One thing I do know
for sure, ALL newsgoups are equally stupid and full of mostly nothing but
cretins.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 May 2006 00:12:34
From: Thomas Lee Elifritz
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>
> "Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics
> drift. And threads can diminish."
When I start a thread, which I occasionally do, I only crosspost to four
closely related obviously crackpot infested newsgroups, all science,
usually the 'big four'. This is usually representative of my natural
division of the hard sciences into the life sciences, earth sciences,
space sciences and the natural sciences (which traditionally covers
mathematics, but that would be a fifth group). Since most crackpots
ginally know how to use a filter file, it rarely causes problems.
I've some of my threads go a long way before a subject header change.
> I have a natural genius for classifying and editing.
Such modesty, too bad I didn't read any further.
Flame wars only start when you crosspost into the fringe cliques. Since
the big four are virtually nonstop flaming noise, I don't see a problem.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 May 2006 01:30:24
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Posting to Multiple Newsgroups and Some Editing Considerations
|
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cosmic@lifeform.org > wrote in message
news:dYRcg.720$Cy1.310@fe02.lga...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
>>
>> "Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics
>> drift. And threads can diminish."
>
> When I start a thread, which I occasionally do, I only crosspost to four
> closely related obviously crackpot infested newsgroups, all science,
> usually the 'big four'. This is usually representative of my natural
> division of the hard sciences into the life sciences, earth sciences,
> space sciences and the natural sciences (which traditionally covers
> mathematics, but that would be a fifth group). Since most crackpots
> ginally know how to use a filter file, it rarely causes problems.
I have chosen mainly the cycling newsgroups, but also some environmental
groups because I believe Vandeman is on them.
> I've some of my threads go a long way before a subject header change.
>
>> I have a natural genius for classifying and editing.
>
> Such modesty, too bad I didn't read any further.
All librarians have a talent for this, especially those in the cataloging
departments.
Yes, it is indeed too bad you did not read further. It is your loss, not
mine. After all, I know what I said and do not need either positive or
negative feedback. That is for lesser mortals than myself.
> Flame wars only start when you crosspost into the fringe cliques. Since
> the big four are virtually nonstop flaming noise, I don't see a problem.
Every newsgroup I have ever encountered has been chock full of flame wars.
Are you from s?
What are the big four? We need to know!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 13:42:12
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
Semantics.
'Nuff said.
teaser4ever@gmail.com wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> > teaser4ever@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> > > in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
> >
> > No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.
> >
> > A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
> >
> > A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
> >
>
> Seriously. A guy on a bike is a guy on a bike... no more, no less.
> maybe we Dutch are a bit more utilitarian in our bicycle use ^^. A
> bicycle doesn't equate a lifestyle here.
>
> > > They are rare.. I doubt they are loners :)
> >
> > Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.
> >
> > > How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> > > their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> > > disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> > > bikes.
> >
> > Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
> >
> > The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> > carbon fiber for their frames.
> >
>
> I really fail to see the difference. Then again, I do not own a car,
> and I do build bikes^^
>
> > > Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
> >
> > Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.
> >
>
> That is not a cross section of bicyclists, but at best a sub group:)
>
> > > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
> > others.
> >
>
> And you imply all Dutch and Danish are better than other people.
> Because yes, most of use bikes for mundane stuff. I refute this..
> cycling hasnt changed us. So the implication that cyclists are better
> people fails.
>
> > Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> > other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> > sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
> >
>
> 1. proof is in the pudding
> 2. it's dangerous to eark it with qualitative grades. A cyclist
> doesn't make someone superior:)
>
> > > Dank and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> > > as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> > > certainly not a better government.
> >
> > Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
> > enlightened.
> >
>
> The Danish ARE scandinavians. Dutch aren't.
>
> > And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
> > them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian shit
> > don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
> > so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.
> >
>
> Swedes aren't that known for cycling, but they are known for being
> car-users. Whats your argument here?:)
>
> > > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
> > generalization with another??
> >
> > Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> > tend to be true -- at least in context!
> >
>
> And I blow away your context so you remain with? What exactly?
>
> > > *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> > > same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.
>
> Maybe, just maybe a real utilitarian bike country as the Netherlands
> doesn't have your praised "bike culture"? We don't use our bicycles as
> badges of honor ^^
>
> >
> > > *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> > > with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
> > wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.
> >
>
> Nope, I see what you say and I vehemently disagree with it. It's not a
> bicycle that makes someone good, wise or a good example.
>
> > > So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> > > subliminal advertising?
> >
> > Does it, in your mind?
>
> Nope^^
>
> >
> > > I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> > > going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> > > wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
> >
> > Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.
> >
>
> It makes me think of how Communists and Fascists tended to depict their
> heroes (and no, I am not dumping you in that camp, but I do point out
> that your romanticism has some paralels in over romanticising, naive
> art.
>
> > > If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> > > all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> > > carbon ride.
> >
> > Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.
> >
>
> A bicycle is a tool for transport or sports... a lifestyle? Like a
> Ipod? :)
>
> > > LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
> >
> > Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> > equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
> >
>
> Here I agree:)
>
> > > Naive art indeed.
> >
> > What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
> > masturbation.
> >
>
> Ad hominem?
>
> > > I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> > > Ubermenschen... we aren't.
> >
> > You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
> > chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
> > intelligence??
>
> I do have a problem with your over romanticising view of cyclists. We
> have problems in this world and a Bicycle can be part of the solution.
> Elitarism or angering/scaring others doesn't help:) A bicycle is for
> everyone, not just the overbearing idealists.
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 07:31:24
From:
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> teaser4ever@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> > in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
>
> No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.
>
> A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
>
> A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
>
Seriously. A guy on a bike is a guy on a bike... no more, no less.
maybe we Dutch are a bit more utilitarian in our bicycle use ^^. A
bicycle doesn't equate a lifestyle here.
> > They are rare.. I doubt they are loners :)
>
> Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.
>
> > How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> > their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> > disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> > bikes.
>
> Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
>
> The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> carbon fiber for their frames.
>
I really fail to see the difference. Then again, I do not own a car,
and I do build bikes^^
> > Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
>
> Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.
>
That is not a cross section of bicyclists, but at best a sub group:)
> > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
> others.
>
And you imply all Dutch and Danish are better than other people.
Because yes, most of use bikes for mundane stuff. I refute this..
cycling hasnt changed us. So the implication that cyclists are better
people fails.
> Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
>
1. proof is in the pudding
2. it's dangerous to eark it with qualitative grades. A cyclist
doesn't make someone superior:)
> > Dank and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> > as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> > certainly not a better government.
>
> Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
> enlightened.
>
The Danish ARE scandinavians. Dutch aren't.
> And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
> them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian shit
> don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
> so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.
>
Swedes aren't that known for cycling, but they are known for being
car-users. Whats your argument here?:)
> > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
> generalization with another??
>
> Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> tend to be true -- at least in context!
>
And I blow away your context so you remain with? What exactly?
> > *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> > same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.
Maybe, just maybe a real utilitarian bike country as the Netherlands
doesn't have your praised "bike culture"? We don't use our bicycles as
badges of honor ^^
>
> > *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> > with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
> wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.
>
Nope, I see what you say and I vehemently disagree with it. It's not a
bicycle that makes someone good, wise or a good example.
> > So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> > subliminal advertising?
>
> Does it, in your mind?
Nope^^
>
> > I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> > going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> > wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
>
> Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.
>
It makes me think of how Communists and Fascists tended to depict their
heroes (and no, I am not dumping you in that camp, but I do point out
that your romanticism has some paralels in over romanticising, naive
art.
> > If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> > all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> > carbon ride.
>
> Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.
>
A bicycle is a tool for transport or sports... a lifestyle? Like a
Ipod? :)
> > LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
>
> Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
>
Here I agree:)
> > Naive art indeed.
>
> What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
> masturbation.
>
Ad hominem?
> > I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> > Ubermenschen... we aren't.
>
> You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
> chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
> intelligence??
I do have a problem with your over romanticising view of cyclists. We
have problems in this world and a Bicycle can be part of the solution.
Elitarism or angering/scaring others doesn't help:) A bicycle is for
everyone, not just the overbearing idealists.
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 07:18:35
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> They do? That must explain the complete absence of cycling clubs... ;-/
Actually, it explains the need for cycling clubs....
> No, just rarer. I never have problems cycling mine in company of upwrongs.
Neither do I. I also don't have any problems eating my veggies or
studying math.
> There are a great many cyclists who just get on and get to where they're
> going because it's the most practical method available. The nobility
> thing might sound nice but it's rather over-egging the pudding in a lot
> of cases.
"Over-egging" or whatever you people over there call "taking things out
of context" is you misapplying an analogy and then finding it lacking
because it doesn't apply to every situation you can think of.
Obviously I speak of the bicycle as a lifestyle choice. Of course many
of us also drive, or know how to, but we do not consider ourselves
motorists. Many motorists walk, obviously, but they do not consider
themselves pedestrians and don't seem to miss not being able to walk
about town; the way some places were designed you almost need a car to
get around!
The "connoisseurs" know what I mean. Everyone else will analyze the
"punchline" to death and then fault the "joke" for not being "funny."
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2006 16:25:04
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> "Over-egging" or whatever you people over there call "taking things out
> of context" is you misapplying an analogy and then finding it lacking
> because it doesn't apply to every situation you can think of.
More that it hardly applies to any situations at all, where your
phrasing suggests it's the rule rather than the exception.
> Obviously I speak of the bicycle as a lifestyle choice. Of course many
> of us also drive, or know how to, but we do not consider ourselves
> motorists. Many motorists walk, obviously, but they do not consider
> themselves pedestrians and don't seem to miss not being able to walk
> about town; the way some places were designed you almost need a car to
> get around!
My partner never realised she was a "cyclist" until she came to the UK.
Being Dutch she'd just taken cycling like walking as a pedestrian.
It's so normal there that it isn't in any way special or something to be
superior about. That is very much "bike culture", but not the one
you're on about.
> The "connoisseurs" know what I mean.
Where "connoisseurs" are generally self-appointed and snobbish to some
degree...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 07:03:20
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
teaser4ever@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.
A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
> They are rare.. I doubt they are loners :)
Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.
> How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> bikes.
Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
carbon fiber for their frames.
> Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.
> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.
That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
others.
Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
> Dank and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> certainly not a better government.
Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
enlightened.
And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian shit
don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.
> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.
LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
generalization with another??
Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
tend to be true -- at least in context!
> *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.
> *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.
> So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> subliminal advertising?
Does it, in your mind?
> I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.
> If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> carbon ride.
Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.
> LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
> Naive art indeed.
What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
masturbation.
> I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> Ubermenschen... we aren't.
You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
intelligence??
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2006 16:21:11
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
Since cars typically come with passenger capacity, and bikes typically
don't, this strikes ne as pretty dubious reasoning...
> A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
Most of them are just getting from A to B.
> Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
>
> The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> carbon fiber for their frames.
But they're still highly reliant on others to provide them materials.
It's not like they're smelting the metal themselves.
> Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
I think you'd find enough variation in boxers and pianists within their
own groups that the fact they box or play piano ultimately won't mean much.
> Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> tend to be true -- at least in context!
Only if they're established. "Cyclists are loners" is a new one on me!
> Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
Depends how much they worked on the switch... Not everyone just rides
around in cars as delivered.
"cycle culture" as you paint it exists, certainly, but it is certainly
/not/ inclusive of all (or probably even the majority of) cyclists.
Which is why Velovision isn't exactly a mass-ket cycling magazine.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 03:27:17
From:
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Too bad I never owned a motor vehicle ^^
But a good try nonetheless :)
|
| |
Date: 23 May 2006 01:34:59
From:
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Michael Warner wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
> > be a loner to enjoy it?
> >
> > --
> > Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>
>
> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>
> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place,
And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
> and
> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
They are rare.. I doubt they are loners :)
>Many build their own;
How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
bikes.
> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>
Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
> this current car culture of ours.
Dank and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
certainly not a better government.
Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>
*Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
> homogenization of thought and values.
*Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> Whoever heard of a biker
> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>
So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
subliminal advertising?
> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>
I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance.
If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
carbon ride.
> Such a nation
> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
> comes with speed by fiat.
>
LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
> is a man, after all.
Naive art indeed.
I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
Ubermenschen... we aren't.
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2006 05:08:03
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
<teaser4ever@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1148373299.747145.204760@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Michael Warner wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
>> > be a loner to enjoy it?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>>
>>
>> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>>
>> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place,
>
> And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
You bet, sitting alone in a car is just like riding your bike alone. Keep up
the good thinking teaser!
>> and
>> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
>
> They are rare.. I doubt they are loners :)
I am the ultimate loner. In fact, I am so alone that I consider myself to be
one of the last of the hermits on this earth. I once went ten years without
hardly talking to anyone, other than the most basic types of
acknowledgments. Needless to say, I did not bother to listen to anyone
either. That is the best part of being a hermit.
>>Many build their own;
>
> How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> bikes.
Only complete jerks work on their own cars. Are you such a jerk yourself?
>> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>>
>
> Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
Jeez, I have already told you I am a charter member of this group.
Independence is my middle name.
> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.
No, that is not true. We cyclists are far superior to run-of-the-mill people
like you.
>> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
>> this current car culture of ours.
>
> Dank and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> certainly not a better government.
Most cyclists are left wing nut jobs, but as you can so plainly see, I do
not fall into that category myself. By the way, neither Denk nor the
Netherlands is what I would call a cycling society. Are you from s?
> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.
Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!
Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them.
>> Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
>> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
>> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
>> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
>> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>>
>
> *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
"Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!
Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them." - Ed Dolan
>> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
>> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
>> homogenization of thought and values.
>
> *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
"Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!
Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them." - Ed Dolan
>> Whoever heard of a biker
>> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
>> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
>> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>>
>
> So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> subliminal advertising?
Car users are stupid period! Their blood has all settled in their dead
asses. Cyclists, on the other hand, are physically in motion and so their
blood is circulating. They are not brain dead like motorists - whose blood
has all settled in their dead asses.
>> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
>> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
>> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
>> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
>> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
>> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
>> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
>> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>>
>
> I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
The only one giving anyone any creeps here is yourself. God, I knew you
were a weirdo right off the bat. You need to get your blood circulating as
it has all settled in your dead ass from too much motoring.
>> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
>> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
>> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance.
>
> If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> carbon ride.
Cycling should be more about utility than anything else. It is insane to get
in a vehicle that weighs a ton to go get a pack of cigarettes that only
weighs a few ounces. Just another reason why we cyclists are so superior to
slobs like you.
>> Such a nation
>> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
>> comes with speed by fiat.
>>
>
> LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
Racers are few and far between and have nothing in common with 99% of all
cyclists, although some few misguided fools like to talk about bicycle
racers. But talking about it and doing it are two different things.
>> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
>> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
>> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
>> is a man, after all.
>
> Naive art indeed.
Teaser, please get a brain. That will be the hardest thing you will ever do
in your life. Once you have achieved a brain, you will have gotten some
maturity. Maybe by then you will be able to post a message that others will
want to read.
> I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> Ubermenschen... we aren't.
Well, maybe you aren't, but I sure am. And I think NYC is too. After all,
we have read our Neitsche and we know whereof we speak. Hells Bells, I am
always saying as a conclusion to my brilliant posts and sage sayings ...
Thus Spake Zarathustra!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 22 May 2006 19:25:28
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
Michael Warner wrote:
>
>
> Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
> be a loner to enjoy it?
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place, and
'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature. Many build their own;
such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
this current car culture of ours. Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
homogenization of thought and values. Whoever heard of a biker
listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance. Such a nation
would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
comes with speed by fiat.
Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
is a man, after all.
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2006 09:15:20
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place
They do? That must explain the complete absence of cycling clubs... ;-/
> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
No, just rarer. I never have problems cycling mine in company of upwrongs.
> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
There are a great many cyclists who just get on and get to where they're
going because it's the most practical method available. The nobility
thing might sound nice but it's rather over-egging the pudding in a lot
of cases.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | |
Date: 23 May 2006 04:11:12
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk > wrote in message
news:4dfukpF1a8k51U1@individual.net...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place
>
> They do? That must explain the complete absence of cycling clubs... ;-/
Bike clubs are quite rare and are mostly for the racing crowd.
>> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
>
> No, just rarer. I never have problems cycling mine in company of
> upwrongs.
Cyclists are loners as NYC correctly surmises. We can only get together on
special rare occasions.
>> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
>> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
>> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
>
> There are a great many cyclists who just get on and get to where they're
> going because it's the most practical method available. The nobility
> thing might sound nice but it's rather over-egging the pudding in a lot of
> cases.
Talk about over-egging, take a gander at his signature below. Does not your
disgust runneth over?
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Peter should strive for a modest and indeed humble signature like mine.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 23 May 2006 03:12:15
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1148351128.623775.163550@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
>> be a loner to enjoy it?
>>
>> --
>> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>
>
> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>
> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place, and
> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature. Many build their own;
> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>
> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
> this current car culture of ours. Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>
> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
> homogenization of thought and values. Whoever heard of a biker
> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>
> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>
> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance. Such a nation
> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
> comes with speed by fiat.
>
> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
> is a man, after all.
Excellent post NYC and I couldn't agree with you more. But this should have
been an original post so that others could not miss it. Never bury a really
great message in an ongoing thread. Most will not see it there. When you are
inspired, make it an original post.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2006 07:02:16
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
What's top-posting?
> Your unbound enthusiasms indicate to me that you are not yet old. You will
> know that you are old when, like me, you no longer give a damn about
> anything. Details are no longer interesting and your mind only lingers on
> the great generalities - like life and death. You become as one finally with
> the poet.
Are you kidding -- I'm so "old" I don't even bother making conversation
with all the pretty girls who tell me what nice cool bike I have! It's
weird, but the older I get the less interested in girls I become.
Unfortunately, it ain't total lack of interest, yet, but I hope to get
there soon! Far too much time is wasted on females and trying to get
in their pants -- I think I could've invented the cure for cancer by
now, if only...if only....
> "I grow old . I grow old .
> I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
>
> Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
> I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
> I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
>
> I do not think that they will sing to me.
>
> I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
> Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
> When the wind blows the water white and black.
>
> We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
> By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
> Till human voices wake us, and we drown."
>
> T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Let them think I love them more than I do,
Let them think I care, though I go alone,
If it lifts their pride, what is it to me
Who am self-complete as a flower or a stone?
It is one to me that they come or go
If I have myself and the drive of my will,
And strength to climb on a summer night
And watch the stars swarm over the hill.
My heart has grown rich with the passing of years,
I have less need now than when I was young
To share myself with every comer,
Or shape my thoughts into words with my tongue.
>From "Two Songs for Solitude: The Solitary" by Sara Teasdale
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2006 06:22:09
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Hey Princess, isn't it time for your beauty rest?
ST wrote:
>
>
> Dude! You fuckin jabber TOO much...........
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2006 06:17:37
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> news:1147528088.882649.298290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1147353106.881288.122510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> >> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> >> >> > definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> >> >> > 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately
> >> >> > I'll
> >> >> > always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
> >> >>
> >> >> You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on
> >> >> an
> >> >> upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders
> >> >> actually
> >> >> do
> >> >> get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because
> >> >> they
> >> >> ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is
> >> >> more
> >> >> work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
> >> >>
> >> >> For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
> >> >> preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent
> >> >> as
> >> >> it
> >> >> was just more enjoyable to ride.
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> > * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
> >> >> > athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing
> >> >> > huffing
> >> >> > and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
> >> >>
> >> >> You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known
> >> >> several
> >> >> guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would
> >> >> rather
> >> >> be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you
> >> >> get,
> >> >> the
> >> >> more important this becomes.
> >> >
> >> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> >> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> >> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> >> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> >> > upright's comfort or my age...
> >>
> >> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
> >> back to me on the comfort issue.
> >
> > Silly point...how many people ride 40 hrs per week?
>
> It is common as mud. The summers are just chock full of folks riding on
> supported group tours that last for a week with about 70 miles per day.
> Each day's ride can be anywhere from 4 to 8 hours, depending on speed and
> distance. I have done more of these kind of tours than I can count. Ever
> hear of RAGBRAI?
>
> > I can ride for 4 hours, easily, many timer per week...and it is NOT
> > uncomfortable..riding any more isn't a comfort issue but cycling
> > stength issue, I'm just not strong enough to ride 40 hrs per week,
> > being on a 'bent' wouldn't change that, still gotta pedal the thing.
>
> Yes, you could do it on a bent. I am not a strong person at all and I can
> easily do it on a bent, but there is no way in this world I could do it on
> an upright. If you get the right bent you are so damn comfortable that the
> miles and the hours just seem to fly by. And nothing hurts at the end of the
> day. It's like some kind of miracle. You suffer on an upright if you ride it
> all day.
Yep, sit in the lawn chair all day and pedal for 8hrs and what, cover
50-60 miles?
>
> > But if like yer bent, groovey, I would rather walk than ride one. I
> > broke my back 4 years ago-L1, L3, C-5, after getting hit by a pickup
> > from behind, while riding...and my quack mentioned it might be a 'bent
> > only for me...I said then, I'll walk, thanks...but I can ride my
> > upright w/o any problem or issues...
>
> I can see that you are considering a bent. That is the way it is at first
> with all of us. We began to think about it and once we take the plunge and
> get one we are hooked for the rest of our lives. Most of us end up with more
> than one bent because they are all so different from one another.
I guarantee I will never buy, ride or work on a 'bent. Of that I am
sure.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2006 20:46:48
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
In article <1147575746.188652@news01.syix.com >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@syix.com > writes:
> That opinion covers about
> 45 years of riding since I got my first Peugot in early 1962.
^^^^^^
Ahh, I remember lusting after those things as a kid stuck
with a CCM coaster-brake thingie, and then my Raleigh 3-speed.
Now I lust after bikes like my old Raleigh. Fortunately, my
Raleigh Twenty sorta fills that bill.
Speaking of old French bikes, I just scored a Mercier 12-spd
(6-spd freewheel) which sports decals saying "Special Tour
de France" and Greece colours. I dunno what I'm gonna do
with the damn'd thing. What with the cottered cranks, weird
threading, the stupid Pivo stem and the chromed rims, I'm half
inclined to just make a bong out of it.
I spent 10 bux for it. I can use the saddle on my main bike,
though -- it's in better shape than my current one.
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: 13 May 2006 10:23:20
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
[snip]
> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
> back to me on the comfort issue.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Dear Ed,
The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
day for 30 years.
He seems fairly comfortable with it.
"For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | |
Date: 14 May 2006 00:03:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1147541000.152042.252800@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
>> back to me on the comfort issue.
>
> Dear Ed,
>
> The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
> day for 30 years.
> He seems fairly comfortable with it.
>
> "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
> mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
> you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
> something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
> 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use to
putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists are
not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is because
we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill and
therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
hurts.
For every Freddie Hoffman, there are ten thousand like me. Please get real!
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 14 May 2006 23:03:28
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
In article
<ef2dnXB5H8yPJ_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com >,
"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1147541000.152042.252800@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
> >> back to me on the comfort issue.
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> >
> > The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
> > day for 30 years.
> > He seems fairly comfortable with it.
> >
> > "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
> > mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
> > you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
> > something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
> > 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
>
> The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
> all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
> tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use to
> putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists are
> not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is because
> we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill and
> therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
> ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
> hurts.
How does a typical recumbent bike perform on descents?
Technical descents?
Steep straight descents?
How nimble are they on quick corners?
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 May 2006 23:17:21
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Michael Press" <jack@abc.net > wrote in message
news:jack-144DF7.16032714052006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <ef2dnXB5H8yPJ_vZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@prairiewave.com>,
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
>> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1147541000.152042.252800@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then
>> >> get
>> >> back to me on the comfort issue.
>> >
>> > Dear Ed,
>> >
>> > The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
>> > day for 30 years.
>> > He seems fairly comfortable with it.
>> >
>> > "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
>> > mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
>> > you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
>> > something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
>> > 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
>>
>> The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
>> all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
>> tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use
>> to
>> putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists
>> are
>> not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is
>> because
>> we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill
>> and
>> therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
>> ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
>> hurts.
>
> How does a typical recumbent bike perform on descents?
Better than uprights.
> Technical descents?
Worse than uprights.
> Steep straight descents?
Much better than uprights.
> How nimble are they on quick corners?
Much worse than uprights.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | |
Date: 13 May 2006 23:27:03
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
On Sun, 14 May 2006 00:03:04 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
<edolan@iw.net > wrote:
>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1147541000.152042.252800@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
>>> back to me on the comfort issue.
>>
>> Dear Ed,
>>
>> The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
>> day for 30 years.
>> He seems fairly comfortable with it.
>>
>> "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
>> mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
>> you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
>> something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
>> 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
>
>The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
>all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
>tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use to
>putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists are
>not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is because
>we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill and
>therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
>ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
>hurts.
>
>For every Freddie Hoffman, there are ten thousand like me. Please get real!
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Dear Ed,
You said to ride an upright for 8 hours a day for a week and
get back to you--Freddie does it for us.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2006 10:00:03
From: Tuschinski
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Qui si Parla,
I'm talking about a Racer, with a horizontal back position (in the
drops). There are very very few people in the peloton who comfortably
ride like that for longer periods with no problems. With a low-rider
bent the position is always aerodynamically good.
I do not like bents, but I do comment that a bent should be faster on
the flats and that the shown list proves that(while the insinuation was
that it wasn't shown). I add to that that the "in the drops" position
isn't used as much as the on the hoods. Sure, there are limber riders
who can keep that position for hours, but that's rare.
For the record, I am racing courses on a decent level, so I am more an
upright racer than anything else:)
Peter,
Agreed, I was simplifying there, but I remain to say that a similar
purpose bent(so race vs. race) should be a tad faster. And yeah, a bent
ain't the second coming:) Everyone their own preference! And mine is...
upright racer all the way. But that wasn't the point of the
discusion/question, wich was surprise that a bent was slower than an
upright on the flats.
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2006 20:02:23
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Tuschinski wrote:
> Qui si Parla,
>
> I'm talking about a Racer, with a horizontal back position (in the
> drops). There are very very few people in the peloton who comfortably
> ride like that for longer periods with no problems. With a low-rider
> bent the position is always aerodynamically good.
>
> I do not like bents, but I do comment that a bent should be faster on
> the flats and that the shown list proves that(while the insinuation was
> that it wasn't shown). I add to that that the "in the drops" position
> isn't used as much as the on the hoods. Sure, there are limber riders
> who can keep that position for hours, but that's rare.
I never could get used to riding in the drops. That opinion covers about
45 years of riding since I got my first Peugot in early 1962. It does
not matter whether I am overweight or down to 140 pounds racing trim, as
in so skinny my neighbors thought I had cancer. It just does not feel
good unless maybe you want to devote your life to it. I can coast
downhill with my back in the drop position, or laying my chin on the
bars on my MTB but pedaling that way just doesn't get it. I am out for
fun and exercise when I ride, not just a workout with pain.
>
> For the record, I am racing courses on a decent level, so I am more an
> upright racer than anything else:)
>
> Peter,
>
> Agreed, I was simplifying there, but I remain to say that a similar
> purpose bent(so race vs. race) should be a tad faster. And yeah, a bent
> ain't the second coming:) Everyone their own preference! And mine is...
> upright racer all the way. But that wasn't the point of the
> discusion/question, wich was surprise that a bent was slower than an
> upright on the flats.
>
I still don't think that any kind of bent is for a serious fun cyclist
who likes the ability to take side roads of any kind, dirt, rock, mud,
carry the bike spots even.
For a fast (maybe) commute they might make sense on a level stretch of
good road, but not for my kind of riding.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2006 06:48:08
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> news:1147353106.881288.122510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> [...]
> >> > * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> >> > definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> >> > 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
> >> > always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
> >>
> >> You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on an
> >> upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders actually
> >> do
> >> get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because
> >> they
> >> ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is more
> >> work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
> >>
> >> For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
> >> preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent as
> >> it
> >> was just more enjoyable to ride.
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
> >> > 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
> >> > athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
> >> > and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
> >>
> >> You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known several
> >> guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would
> >> rather
> >> be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you get,
> >> the
> >> more important this becomes.
> >
> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> > upright's comfort or my age...
>
> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
> back to me on the comfort issue.
Silly point...how many people ride 40 hrs per week?
I can ride for 4 hours, easily, many timer per week...and it is NOT
uncomfortable..riding any more isn't a comfort issue but cycling
stength issue, I'm just not strong enough to ride 40 hrs per week,
being on a 'bent' wouldn't change that, still gotta pedal the thing.
But if like yer bent, groovey, I would rather walk than ride one. I
broke my back 4 years ago-L1, L3, C-5, after getting hit by a pickup
from behind, while riding...and my quack mentioned it might be a 'bent
only for me...I said then, I'll walk, thanks...but I can ride my
upright w/o any problem or issues...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2006 23:44:13
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1147528088.882649.298290@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147353106.881288.122510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> [...]
>> >> > * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
>> >> > definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
>> >> > 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately
>> >> > I'll
>> >> > always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
>> >>
>> >> You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on
>> >> an
>> >> upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders
>> >> actually
>> >> do
>> >> get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because
>> >> they
>> >> ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is
>> >> more
>> >> work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
>> >>
>> >> For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
>> >> preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent
>> >> as
>> >> it
>> >> was just more enjoyable to ride.
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on
>> >> > the
>> >> > 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
>> >> > athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing
>> >> > huffing
>> >> > and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
>> >>
>> >> You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known
>> >> several
>> >> guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would
>> >> rather
>> >> be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you
>> >> get,
>> >> the
>> >> more important this becomes.
>> >
>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
>> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
>> > upright's comfort or my age...
>>
>> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
>> back to me on the comfort issue.
>
> Silly point...how many people ride 40 hrs per week?
It is common as mud. The summers are just chock full of folks riding on
supported group tours that last for a week with about 70 miles per day.
Each day's ride can be anywhere from 4 to 8 hours, depending on speed and
distance. I have done more of these kind of tours than I can count. Ever
hear of RAGBRAI?
> I can ride for 4 hours, easily, many timer per week...and it is NOT
> uncomfortable..riding any more isn't a comfort issue but cycling
> stength issue, I'm just not strong enough to ride 40 hrs per week,
> being on a 'bent' wouldn't change that, still gotta pedal the thing.
Yes, you could do it on a bent. I am not a strong person at all and I can
easily do it on a bent, but there is no way in this world I could do it on
an upright. If you get the right bent you are so damn comfortable that the
miles and the hours just seem to fly by. And nothing hurts at the end of the
day. It's like some kind of miracle. You suffer on an upright if you ride it
all day.
> But if like yer bent, groovey, I would rather walk than ride one. I
> broke my back 4 years ago-L1, L3, C-5, after getting hit by a pickup
> from behind, while riding...and my quack mentioned it might be a 'bent
> only for me...I said then, I'll walk, thanks...but I can ride my
> upright w/o any problem or issues...
I can see that you are considering a bent. That is the way it is at first
with all of us. We began to think about it and once we take the plunge and
get one we are hooked for the rest of our lives. Most of us end up with more
than one bent because they are all so different from one another.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2006 05:56:14
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Gary wrote:
> I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the first
> few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents are
> definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to worry
> about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that there are
> riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there lives and never
> had a problem just like there are people that have smoked all of their
> lives and never had a problem but, why take the chance?
> Gary
Here we go.....riding an upright is like smoking and also causes
cancer......I'm out
>
>
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >
> > > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> > > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> > > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> > > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> > > upright's comfort or my age...
> >
> > While I have several upright bikes that I ride happily in comfort, the
> > simple fact of the matter is my 'bent is considerably /more/
> > comfortable. While I do not *need* that level of comfort, it is
> > certainly something I greatly appreciate when covering any sort of distance.
> >
> > Given the choice of something quite comfortable or extremely
> > comfortable, assuming both will otherwise do the jobs I need and I can
> > afford my preference, I see no reason to put up with 2nd best when it
> > makes a difference to my overall enjoyment of touring.
> >
> > Pete.
> > --
> > Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> > Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> > Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> > net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2006 01:41:52
From: ST
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
On 5/10/06 6:43 PM, in article
1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "NYC XYZ"
<jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Some more newbie SWB observations:
>
> * Disc brakes are amazing!!! NO FEAR -- I stopped on a dime,
> basically. A handful of times I skidded another few inches, probably,
> but I haven't felt so astounded since first meeting V-brakes ten years
> ago! I have Avid BB7 mechanical disc brakes -- can only wonder what
> those Magurar ta hydraulic ones stop like!!!
>
> * Rear air shocks are great!!! I'm not sure that they're necessarily
> better in performance than regular steel spring shocks -- I've only
> tried the steel ones once, and just a few minutes over a few speed
> bumps and some small potholes -- but they're certainly a hell lot more
> easier to adjust!
>
> * Schwalbe athon Plus tires are nice! Slow, too, I think -- I "feel
> the road," if you know what I mean -- but there's also not been a
> stretch of debris, rocks and wood splinters and glass and angular
> stones which I've been worried about yet! I actually go through them
> rather deliberately just to see if I can get a puncture! So far, I'm
> very impressed, and still rather glad to sacrifice the speed in
> exchange for peace of mind!
>
> * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
> always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
>
> * Chains are incredible! By which I mean that I can't believe my chain
> CUT THROUGH the metal clamp that was holding the teflon tubing -- which
> it had shredded! I don't know how this happened; by the time I
> noticed, top chain management was KIA!!! Interestingly, I haven't yet
> suffered any visible leg grease...maybe it's the teflon lubrication??
> I'm not sure whether (or how, exactly) to replace the top chain
> tubing....
>
> * A BITCH to haul!!! There's no obvious place to grab, really, and the
> weight distribution makes it totally unwieldy for narrow stairways.
> It's a chore just taking the damned thing out for a spin! I wonder if
> my back's getting stressed from the contortions I have to make
> manuevering it up and down four flights of narrow ("single-breasted")
> stairs, thus somewhat under-cutting recumbent-riding's lower back
> benefits! I've had to develop a very strict and careful way of
> handling the 'bent, akin to observing proper form in weight-lifting!
>
> * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
> 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
> athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
> and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
>
Dude! You fuckin jabber TOO much...........
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 15:14:28
From: Tuschinski
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Actually Carl... These numbers are rather favorable to the Bents.
1. A RACE-upright ridden with hands in the drops ginably beats a
Commuter-bent. How long can you ride with your hands in the drops? I am
a pretty good cyclists (decent course experience) and I cannot ride a
whole hour in the drops on my course-bike without getting
uncomfortable. Even pro's dont ride hours upon ends in the drops.
2. A race equiped 20-20 beats a race bike
3. A race equiped lowrider begins to widen the gap.
4. A bent has a much more comfortable positoin (once you are used to
it:) than a spartan Upright course bike.
This all with 160 watt.
To Pete: Compare a Trek 600 city bike against the bents you mention.
Bent vs. uprights is always apples and oranges, but at least compare
racing models or commuter models, dont mix and match.
There are quite a few reasons to prefer an upright, but speed is one
way or the other a big plus on them:)
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2006 09:34:38
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Tuschinski wrote:
> To Pete: Compare a Trek 600 city bike against the bents you mention.
> Bent vs. uprights is always apples and oranges, but at least compare
> racing models or commuter models, dont mix and match.
Though my point was "Buy an M5, they're fast" is giving someone a
mixed crate of apples and opranges and saying "this fruit is
juicier than those pears"! "M5" as a collective brand /is/ mix and
match (as is Optima, Challenge, HP vel, Nazca etc. etc.)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 18:55:06
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
On 12 May 2006 15:14:28 -0700, "Tuschinski"
<loknor@gmail.com > wrote:
>Actually Carl... These numbers are rather favorable to the Bents.
>
>1. A RACE-upright ridden with hands in the drops ginably beats a
>Commuter-bent. How long can you ride with your hands in the drops? I am
>a pretty good cyclists (decent course experience) and I cannot ride a
>whole hour in the drops on my course-bike without getting
>uncomfortable. Even pro's dont ride hours upon ends in the drops.
[snip]
Dear T.,
I tend to think of my upright as a touring bike, not a
racer. Someone will probably remind us that one advantage of
an upright touring bike is that you can ride on the drops,
on the hoods, on the bars, or sitting up no-hands, while a
recumbent offers pretty much only one position.
But I ride on the drops pretty much all the time, barring
the rare tailwind as I head up the ridge west of town on my
daily ride. It's only only 45-50 minutes at my normal pace,
but I occasionally do it twice a day, once with visiting
friends who like the scenery, and then again lest my
spreadsheet suffer from lack of data.
I never found standing up and bending over on trials
motorcycles uncomfortable, either, even on long trail rides,
probably because that's what I grew up riding.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 16 May 2006 08:42:53
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> I tend to think of my upright as a touring bike, not a
> racer. Someone will probably remind us that one advantage of
> an upright touring bike is that you can ride on the drops,
> on the hoods, on the bars, or sitting up no-hands, while a
> recumbent offers pretty much only one position.
But a lot of the reason drops are used on classic tourers is so the
rider can move around to adjust the compromise between loading on the
arms, neck and shoulders and the degree of aerodynamics. On a recumbent
that's basically irrelevant as there's no load taken by the arms, the
neck isn't being forced up and the rider aero position is usually pretty
good to start with.
Looking at professional drivers who spend far more time in their seats
more often than most cyclists and in greater numbers, and with room to
spare in a truck cab for the driver setup and weight a non-issue, seats
aren't made to move around to numerous positions on the go because
there's nothing much to gain by doing so. Better to have one single
comfy position that can be set up carefully to start than lots of
compromises to move between. And so it is with a recumbent touring bike.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | | |
Date: 15 May 2006 13:04:22
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Comparing bikes [was: Disc Brakes]
|
[newsgroups trimmed]
> I tend to think of my upright as a touring bike, not a
> racer. Someone will probably remind us that one advantage of
> an upright touring bike is that you can ride on the drops,
> on the hoods, on the bars, or sitting up no-hands, while a
> recumbent offers pretty much only one position.
That's true. However, there may be much more cause to
consider multiple hand positions an "advantage" on the
upright than it's lack a "disadvantage" on a recumbent.
In my experience (10,000+ miles recumbent) there is
little if any fatigue related to hand position on many
recumbents.
More of an issue is the lack of ability to recruit different
muscles (.e.g., to stand) for different modes or for relief.
And we haven't mentioned "recumbent butt" condition
which bothers some people (mostly new to recumbency).
Nor mentioned suitability for mixing with pacelines...
There are *many* things DF bikes do better than recumbents.
And vice versa. And there's much variation within the recumbent
category.
Jon Meinecke
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 13:49:52
From: john
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Ok! Ok! I see the light. I was a 'bent bigot. I guess I've never put
much thought into it. A 'bent does not = a 'bent.
Kinda reminds of me of a time when I was working w/ 4 other guys & we
were discussing Japanese cuisine. The 4th one popped up & said he
didn't like Chinese. I looked at him somewhat surprised & pointed out
that they are quite different. To which he commented, "They all have
rice, don't they?" The 3 of us looked @ each other & went back to our
conversation.
Thanks, John
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 13:21:10
From: john
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Thanks, John
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 07:46:04
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Get an M5 from the Netherlands. They are so much faster than uprights
(even without the Aero cap) that it isn't funny anymore.
A few years back during the pro tour Team Time-Trial the builder of the
M50 (Bram Moens) went over the same stretch in his record machine and
got SOLO a time wich was only beat by a few of the best teams. Bram is
a well trained rider, who is over 50 years old.....
Any upright is simply no match against a bent build for speed.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 16:03:14
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
teaser4ever@gmail.com wrote:
> Get an M5 from the Netherlands. They are so much faster than uprights
> (even without the Aero cap) that it isn't funny anymore.
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. An M5 Lowracer, possibly, but I
don't see why several of their models would rate as exactly fast. A
City Mate or a 20/20 Fatty won't break any records.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 07:45:30
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> That's a non issue IME. By "stacking up weight" I mean like a week's
> grocery shopping, with cans. 8 lbs on the back shouldn't dent the
> handling at all.
I didn't think it should be a factor, either. Maybe I was too tense in
the shoulders, as you say. I was certainly thrilled by the speeds I
was reaching...until it stopped at 29 mph!!
I love the SMGTe. I hope HP Velo sees fit for a carbon or titanium
version in the future! Surprised they haven't already done so.
Also, I hope in their next (re)iteration they redesign things to allow
for a better fit for standard bike accessories somehow...my CatEye
1000, my AirZound, my Arkel panniers...all do not fit as "cleanly"
out-of-the-box and require a bit of jerry-rigging....
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 15:59:34
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> I love the SMGTe. I hope HP Velo sees fit for a carbon or titanium
> version in the future! Surprised they haven't already done so.
ISTM they're quite conservative. For example, the first version of the
Speedmachine had a Chromo steel rear triangle, just to be on the safe side.
But if there's be a Ti or carbon version of anything I wouldn't have
thought the Streetmachine was the obvious place to start.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 07:27:36
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
That reminds me...I've always wondered whether athletes tend to wear
themselves out more...I'm definitely athletic compared to the average
American (and *look* like an Olympian -- but had a fat sailor beat me
in a sprint once, fair and square), but maybe it really is old age and
wear and tear that's got me preferring the comfort of my 'bent over the
speed and agility of my upright.
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are athletes.
> Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
> recumbent.
>
> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride than
> uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
> >> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
> >> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
> >> definitely riding 'bent!
> >
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2006 22:49:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1147444056.901710.250410@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
ALL TOP POSTERS ARE IDIOTS!
> That reminds me...I've always wondered whether athletes tend to wear
> themselves out more...I'm definitely athletic compared to the average
> American (and *look* like an Olympian -- but had a fat sailor beat me
> in a sprint once, fair and square), but maybe it really is old age and
> wear and tear that's got me preferring the comfort of my 'bent over the
> speed and agility of my upright.
Your unbound enthusiasms indicate to me that you are not yet old. You will
know that you are old when, like me, you no longer give a damn about
anything. Details are no longer interesting and your mind only lingers on
the great generalities - like life and death. You become as one finally with
the poet.
"I grow old . I grow old .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
I have seen them riding seaward on the waves
Combing the white hair of the waves blown back
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown."
T. S. Eliot - The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may
>> never
>> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
>> athletes.
>> Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
>> recumbent.
>>
>> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
>> than
>> uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 07:22:29
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>
> The SMGT is a very rider-centred machine. Touring luggage can have the
> heavy stuff under the rider between the wheels so it has very little
> effect on handling. Only by stacking up weight purely on the back will
> the steering get light.
Ah, well, that was me, then, though my kit weighed no more than eight
pounds, tops.
><SNIP>
>
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 15:36:01
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Ah, well, that was me, then, though my kit weighed no more than eight
> pounds, tops.
That's a non issue IME. By "stacking up weight" I mean like a week's
grocery shopping, with cans. 8 lbs on the back shouldn't dent the
handling at all.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 06:38:12
From: john
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Various posters:
(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
friendly (what's that called? FF?). I've worn a HRM mostly to keep my
heart rate below a certain level, to guard against blowing up. All my
life I've laughed @ Harleys owners arrogance, because they are ridding
slow assed, turn of the century tractors that can be out run in any
manor of speed contest, by most rice burners & euro bikes over 500cc.
I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!??? And obviously,
they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
bikes]; etc.)
Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
me, John
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 10:29:00
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
On 12 May 2006 06:38:12 -0700, "john" <jdrew96@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Various posters:
>(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>
>I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
>except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
>I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
>both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
>friendly (what's that called? FF?).
[snip]
>Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
>me, John
Dear John,
[quote myself from another thread]
It's common to assume that recumbents have an aerodynamic
advantage over the traditional diamond frame, but the
advantage is actually limited to fairly extreme recumbents.
You can see some of the surprising details on this speed
calculator page:
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Hovering the mouse over the radio button for the type of
recumbent will pop up a picture that gives an idea of what a
particular model looks like. After selecting a model,
clicking on calculate at the bottom will give a predicted
speed for the default values and the drag area used for the
calculation.
mph frontal type
17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base
17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base
19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
22.3 2.0397 df superman position
23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer
Obviously, these are idealized guides to what a particular
bike and rider will do, with different tires and
transmission efficiences affecting things. But for the same
rider and power, it takes a recumbent that stresses speed
instead of comfort to improve on the aerodynamics of an
ordinary diamond frame:
http://www.bicycleman.com/history/images/1933hour-record_lg.jpg
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 15 May 2006 08:14:12
From: Jon Meinecke
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote
> [quote myself from another thread]
>
> It's common to assume that recumbents have an aerodynamic
> advantage over the traditional diamond frame, but the
> advantage is actually limited to fairly extreme recumbents.
>
> [...]
>
> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
>
> [...]
>
> mph frontal type
> 17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base
> 17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
> 18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base
> 19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
> 20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
> 21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
> 22.3 2.0397 df superman position
> 23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer
>
Again, the numbers above are apples to oranges, or at least
apples to pears because they use different tire choices.
I quote from my previous response:
[...] the default tire choices on the kreuzotter website for
[non-race configured] recumbents are medium and wide.
The df tire choices are all high pressure, by default.
Here's the list with the high-pressure tire choices for the
LWB and SWB added**. [Also note that the modeled non-racer
SWB and LWB are less aero underseat steering style.]
mph frontal type
17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base (medium slick tires)
17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
18.0 3.8777 recumbent long wheel base (high-pressure tires)**
18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base (wide slick tires)
19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
19.5 2.8408 recumbent short wheel base (high pressure tires)**
20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
22.3 2.0397 df superman position
23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer
I can confirm anecdotally a measurable speed difference in coast
down between a non-extreme SWB "highracer" and a df with
hands on drops.
I agree these numbers do not show the overwhelming aerodynamic
advantage that some may expect. Fast df riders who switch to
recumbents expecting 20% improvements, will be disappointed
almost certainly.
But perhaps a 5% to 8% difference is not unreasonable. And
you don't have to go extreme to gain some advantage and
retain still some comfort.
Jon Meinecke
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 16:14:55
From: David Damerell
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Quoting john <jdrew96@yahoo.com >:
>Various posters:
>(In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
>except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
One missing consideration here is that the stronger the rider, the greater
the proportion of their power output goes on overcoming wind resistance
over a given course. Hence a bike that decreases wind resistance but
climbs more slowly may be faster for a very strong rider but slower for a
normal one; this is why speed records - over real routes as well as salt
flats - tend to be held by recumbents.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk > Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Thursday, May.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 15:16:59
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
john wrote:
> I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
> except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
"Recumbents" covers a very wide range of bikes, and so as far as their
speed goes it makes no more sense to assume a BikeE is as fast as an M5
Crabon Lowracer than it does to assume a Schwinn Cruiser is as fast as a
Trek Madone.
> I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
> both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
> friendly (what's that called? FF?).
Yes, but... the particular bike the OP is about is not especially
aerodynamic and his (and mine) doesn't have a fairing. It's built as a
recumbent for reasons of comfort and load carrying as an expedition
tourer, jobs at which I think it's exceptionally good, but fast it ain't.
> I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
> they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!???
The "if" depends on the model. If you want to go fast get one built for
speed. The OP's bike is emphatically not.
> they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
> sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
> bikes]; etc.)
Length will also depend on models, FWD models don't have long chains,
plenty exist with matched wheel sizes, most of the parts /are/ standard
on many examples (mine has standard wheels, brakes, gearing, cranks,
pedals, headset, bottom bracket and takes standard panniers). By
careful choice from a huge range of models available you can fine tune
what you want and get a great deal, but just going out and buying "a
recumbent, generic" will probably leave you sorely disappointed.
> Where did I get the idea they are fast?
Maybe the 30% better hour record and 81 mph flying 200m speed record...
On "real roads" a recumbent holds the UK "End to End" John O'Groats to
Land's End record, and so on. But those aren't any old recumbents,
they're built for speed.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 09:03:26
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"john" <jdrew96@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1147441092.282258.41460@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Various posters:
> (In a nutshell; bents are slower than uprights on the flats)
>
> I'm amazed! I've always thought that recumbents were faster everywhere
> except up hill. Why are all absolute top speed records held by bents?
> I've thought it was due to reduced wind resistance due to not having
> both leg & shoulder cross section in the wind. Plus being more fairing
> friendly (what's that called? FF?). I've worn a HRM mostly to keep my
> heart rate below a certain level, to guard against blowing up. All my
> life I've laughed @ Harleys owners arrogance, because they are ridding
> slow assed, turn of the century tractors that can be out run in any
> manor of speed contest, by most rice burners & euro bikes over 500cc.
> I've considered getting a bent for the supposed speed advantage. If
> they are not faster, then why in gods name bother!!!??? And obviously,
> they are a lot of bother (40#; 8' long; 16' long chains; mixed wheel
> sizes; non-standard parts [even more non-standard than conventional
> bikes]; etc.)
>
> Where did I get the idea they are fast? This doesn't make any sense to
> me, John
You get a recumbent priily for the comfort, not the speed. However, you
can be fast enough on a recumbent if you work at it a bit. But they are slow
going uphill for a number of reasons. If you are into nothing but speed,
then stick with an upright road bike. They can't be beat for speed. Only
fully faired recumbents will be faster on the flats.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 05:47:38
From: john
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Peter wrote:
>FUD for thought
FUD = ? (Please?)
Thanks, John
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 14:04:26
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
john wrote:
> FUD = ? (Please?)
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
Coincidentally in this thread, often a reason not to try a recumbent...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 09:00:51
From: David Kerber
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
In article <1147438058.561876.69790@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
jdrew96@yahoo.com says...
> Peter wrote:
>
> >FUD for thought
>
> FUD = ? (Please?)
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2006 05:28:40
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >
> >
> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> > upright's comfort or my age...
>
>
>
> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
a 'bent ride.
>
> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
> definitely riding 'bent!
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 08:42:39
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1147436920.658967.121700@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
>> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
>> > upright's comfort or my age...
>>
>>
>>
>> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
>> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
>> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
>
> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
> a 'bent ride.
It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are athletes.
Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit from a
recumbent.
Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride than
uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
>> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
>> definitely riding 'bent!
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 10:13:26
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
> news:1147436920.658967.121700@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get
>>> > a 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of
>>> > my upright's comfort or my age...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
>>> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
>>> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
>>
>> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
>> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
>> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
>> a 'bent ride.
>
> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may never
> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
> athletes. Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit
> from a recumbent.
Damn,
I finally am provoked enough to answer a 'Dolan' post.
I am 57 and would not consider a bent for anything. MTB and rough roads and
exploring are where it's at for me, not playing sissy and old. Not even
when I hit 70+ do I plan on acting over 50, not like the 'great' Ed
suggests.
He missed the whole point of having fun on a bike. I still take my grand
kids out and since one is just turning 5 I will have ten years more to take
him out, then there will be great grand kids to take riding, and I don't
plan on letting them down either.
>
> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
> than uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
DUH?
Ed seems to have an 'old' mentality.
Bill Baka
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
>
>
>
>>> The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
>>> For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
>>> definitely riding 'bent!
>>
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 May 2006 23:07:43
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Bill" <bbaka@syix.com > wrote in message
news:1147453864.195131@news01.syix.com...
Newsgroups restored.
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147436920.658967.121700@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> NYC XYZ wrote:
>>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
>>>> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
>>>> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get
>>>> > a 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because
>>>> > of
>>>> > my upright's comfort or my age...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
>>>> months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
>>>> my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
>>>
>>> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
>>> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
>>> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
>>> a 'bent ride.
>>
>> It is largely a matter of age. If you are indeed an athlete, you may
>> never
>> need a recumbent bicycle. But look around you. How many of us are
>> athletes. Almost everyone by the time they are in their 50's will benefit
>> from a recumbent.
>
> Damn,
> I finally am provoked enough to answer a 'Dolan' post.
> I am 57 and would not consider a bent for anything. MTB and rough roads
> and
> exploring are where it's at for me, not playing sissy and old. Not even
> when I hit 70+ do I plan on acting over 50, not like the 'great' Ed
> suggests.
Recumbents do not work at all well on rough roads. They are for paved
surfaces only.
Bill, you are still a young whippersnapper, but trust me on this, each and
every year takes its' toll. By the time you are 70 you will find that your
get up and go has got up and gone. Welcome to the world of the old and the
dying.
When I was in my 50's I thought those kind of years would go on forever too,
but they don't. Enjoy them while you can. The Grim Reaper is right around
the corner waiting for you and for me.
> He missed the whole point of having fun on a bike. I still take my grand
> kids out and since one is just turning 5 I will have ten years more to
> take
> him out, then there will be great grand kids to take riding, and I don't
> plan on letting them down either.
>>
>> Recumbents are mostly about comfort, but they are also more fun to ride
>> than uprights once you get rid of your sport mentality.
>
> DUH?
> Ed seems to have an 'old' mentality.
The advantage of a recumbent is that you will ride it longer into your old
age than you ever will an upright. Old Bill Baka will one of these days get
himself a recumbent. Nothing is more certain than that provided he wants to
continue cycling into his 70's.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 14:02:15
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> 700 miles for me is about 3 weeks on my upright. Once more, 'bents
> answer no question, solve no problem with regard to a well fitting
> upright ridden by a cyclist with no physical problems that dictate only
> a 'bent ride.
This is true, but it still doesn't mean there's no point in riding one.
You can make exactly the same argument about any transmission system
with more than about 5 well spaced gears, yet /many/ cyclists choose far
more elaborate setups because optimising gearing makes a lot of sense
rather than just choosing something adequate.
Just because you don't *require* a recumbent does not mean it won't be
more comfortable or better in some respect. There's no *requirement* to
sleep in beds rather than on the floor. They solve no problems for a
sleeper with no physical problems that dictate a bed, so do you always
sleep on the floor?
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 13:41:13
From:
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Peter Clinch wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > Even on a clear and all-out downhill run I've only been able to post 29
> > mph on this 'bent. On the same slope with my Trek 1000c I've reached
> > top speeds of 36 mph! Also, the 'bent feels noticeably unstable at its
> > top speeds.
>
> IME most people reporting wibbles on an SMGT have not been relaxed. A
> friend reported a shimmy he got at around 30 on a test bike, I found the
> exact same machine rock solid, /but/ I had a couple if years' 'bent
> experience at that point.
>
> I've found if you keep a very light touch on the bars the bike is rock
> solid past 40 mph with or without full touring gear, even through bends
> on bumpy roads.
Might this have something to do with rider size and the fore-aft weight
balance on the bike? I've never ridden a 'bent but I have been
considering it. I was leaning toward a SWB USS but if long heavy legs
sticking way out over the front wheel contributes to instability, I'll
reconsider LWB. The fact that the seat is fixed more or less on most
'bents and they are supposed to suit a wide range if rider sizes by
extending the boom seems to me to be creating a wide range of rider
center of gravity positions relative to the contact patches.
Is this an issue?
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 09:19:32
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
joseph.santaniello@gmail.com wrote:
> Might this have something to do with rider size and the fore-aft weight
> balance on the bike?
The SMGT is a very rider-centred machine. Touring luggage can have the
heavy stuff under the rider between the wheels so it has very little
effect on handling. Only by stacking up weight purely on the back will
the steering get light.
> I've never ridden a 'bent but I have been
> considering it. I was leaning toward a SWB USS but if long heavy legs
> sticking way out over the front wheel contributes to instability, I'll
> reconsider LWB.
My advice is don't get hung up on where the steering is or what the
wheelbase configuration is, shortlist for functionality (tourer, racer
etc.) and then ride everything you can in that category irrespective of
the bars and wheel positions. Then you'll see what works best for you
much better than you can ever decide on paper.
> The fact that the seat is fixed more or less on most
> 'bents and they are supposed to suit a wide range if rider sizes by
> extending the boom seems to me to be creating a wide range of rider
> center of gravity positions relative to the contact patches.
Because of the recline the only bit that's "fixed" is your backside. As
the legs extend forward, so the torso and head extend further backwards
to help balance the whole. Probably more weight in the torso, but it's
not going back so far as it's at an angle.
> Is this an issue?
Not that I've ever noticed. I'm 5'8" and have never had trouble riding
German and Dutch bikes which are mainly designed for Dutch and German
riders, who are generally quite a bit taller than I am.
But b personally testing as many machines in the functional category
you're looking for, you stand the best chance of a good match. I
personally find tiller bars a bit twitchy, I've yet to dial in to them,
including on bikes where I've found superman or USS bars no trouble.
Plenty of people using them no problems, so it's just me and that
particular thing. You can only find these things out by trying in person.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 07:56:52
From: Gary
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the first
few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents are
definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to worry
about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that there are
riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there lives and never
had a problem just like there are people that have smoked all of their
lives and never had a problem but, why take the chance?
Gary
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> > statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> > older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> > 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> > upright's comfort or my age...
>
> While I have several upright bikes that I ride happily in comfort, the
> simple fact of the matter is my 'bent is considerably /more/
> comfortable. While I do not *need* that level of comfort, it is
> certainly something I greatly appreciate when covering any sort of distance.
>
> Given the choice of something quite comfortable or extremely
> comfortable, assuming both will otherwise do the jobs I need and I can
> afford my preference, I see no reason to put up with 2nd best when it
> makes a difference to my overall enjoyment of touring.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 13:40:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
In article <1147359411.917382.88700@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Gary" <artist200@bresnan.net > wrote:
> I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the
> first few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents
> are definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to
> worry about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that
> there are riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there
> lives and never had a problem just like there are people that have
> smoked all of their lives and never had a problem but, why take the
> chance?
Because there is a known cause-and-effect relationship between smoking
and lung diseases like COPD and cancer, but there is no known cause and
effect relationship between bicycling and prostate disease.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 May 2006 23:15:08
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-050F4B.13405711052006@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <1147359411.917382.88700@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Gary" <artist200@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the
>> first few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents
>> are definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to
>> worry about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that
>> there are riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there
>> lives and never had a problem just like there are people that have
>> smoked all of their lives and never had a problem but, why take the
>> chance?
>
> Because there is a known cause-and-effect relationship between smoking
> and lung diseases like COPD and cancer, but there is no known cause and
> effect relationship between bicycling and prostate disease.
On the other hand, there are definitely all kinds of problems for the human
groin with the conventional bike saddle, no matter its' configuration.
Racing type saddles are killers and there is nothing good to say about them
except that they look cool and are light weight.
By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer. Women also need to
very wary around the conventional bike saddle. Our nether parts are really
designed for seats, not saddles.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 16:31:46
From: Tim Lines
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
> saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer.
It's about as accurate as the claim that riding a recumbent causes your
brain to fall out. The evidence to support either supposition is about
as strong.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 May 2006 23:24:32
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Tim Lines" <linest253@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:tdmdnYjqlJF_h_jZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>> By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
>> saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer.
>
> It's about as accurate as the claim that riding a recumbent causes your
> brain to fall out. The evidence to support either supposition is about as
> strong.
There is tons of anecdotal evidence. Ever had a numb penis from riding your
bike? Maybe Lance Armstrong got his testicular cancer from all his cycling.
The fact is that the groin area has many nerves concentrated there. How is
the pressure from a bike saddle good for that? Try to get some common sense,
why don't you?
The casual occasional rider has nothing to worry about, but if you ride your
bike many hours a day year around, who knows?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 May 2006 22:15:56
From: Jasper Janssen
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:15:08 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote:
>By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
>saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer. Women also need to
>very wary around the conventional bike saddle. Our nether parts are really
>designed for seats, not saddles.
Funny how I never hear about those old-time knights (lit: Horseman)
fathering no bastards at all on all those commoners they slept with.
Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.
Jasper
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 May 2006 23:15:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Jasper Janssen" <jasper@jjanssen.org > wrote in message
news:b72a62de77hmah331995lflckmiop7ou1g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 23:15:08 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote:
>
>>By the way, I am not so sure about there being no connection between bike
>>saddles and prostate cancer and/or testicular cancer. Women also need to
>>very wary around the conventional bike saddle. Our nether parts are really
>>designed for seats, not saddles.
>
> Funny how I never hear about those old-time knights (lit: Horseman)
> fathering no bastards at all on all those commoners they slept with.
There can be no doubt at all that the conventional bike saddle causes all
kinds of problems in the groin area.
> Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.
The Chinese and the Dutch do not ride their bikes for sport. They ride them
for utility purposes. It is the sport rider who is most at risk of
developing groin problems from a bike saddle.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 May 2006 08:34:33
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.
>
>
> The Chinese and the Dutch do not ride their bikes for sport. They ride them
> for utility purposes. It is the sport rider who is most at risk of
> developing groin problems from a bike saddle.
>
> Regards,
I don't know about the Chinese but a LOT of the Dutch ride their bikes
ALSO for sports.
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 May 2006 02:29:34
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Lou Holtman" <lholremovethis@planet.nl > wrote in message
news:4466cf83@news.nb.nu...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>
>>>Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.
>>
>>
>> The Chinese and the Dutch do not ride their bikes for sport. They ride
>> them for utility purposes. It is the sport rider who is most at risk of
>> developing groin problems from a bike saddle.
>
> I don't know about the Chinese but a LOT of the Dutch ride their bikes
> ALSO for sports.
The last time I was in Holland I noted that 9 out of 10 bikes were total
klunkers, good for nothing but the briefest kind of rides. A sport rider
will ride his bike for maybe a couple of hours a day year around. This is
the kind of bike rider who will likely experience groin problems related to
the saddle. He will normally end up acquiring several different kinds of
saddles to try to alleviate the problem, but the only real solution is to
get a recumbent style of bicycle. Most cyclists simply give up if the saddle
causes them too many problems. After all, who rides a bike to experience
pain?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 May 2006 11:48:03
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Lou Holtman" <lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:4466cf83@news.nb.nu...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Also funny how the Chinese and the Dutch haven't died out yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Chinese and the Dutch do not ride their bikes for sport. They ride
>>>them for utility purposes. It is the sport rider who is most at risk of
>>>developing groin problems from a bike saddle.
>>
>>I don't know about the Chinese but a LOT of the Dutch ride their bikes
>>ALSO for sports.
>
>
> The last time I was in Holland I noted that 9 out of 10 bikes were total
> klunkers, good for nothing but the briefest kind of rides. A sport rider
> will ride his bike for maybe a couple of hours a day year around. This is
> the kind of bike rider who will likely experience groin problems related to
> the saddle. He will normally end up acquiring several different kinds of
> saddles to try to alleviate the problem, but the only real solution is to
> get a recumbent style of bicycle. Most cyclists simply give up if the saddle
> causes them too many problems. After all, who rides a bike to experience
> pain?
>
> Regards,
Lots of the Dutch, like me, have more than one bike. The klunkers as you
call them we use to go around in the cities and go to work/school. Our
good sporty bikes we ride in our free time, after work and in the
weekend. All of my ride buddy's can ride them for more than 3 hours
every day without problems.
Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 16:29:24
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Gary wrote:
> I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the first
> few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents are
> definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to worry
> about my prostate like I would on an upright.
You /have/ to worry about your prostate on an upright? Ummm, why?
Unless you've deliberately selected a terrible saddle that doesn't fit
you at all this has long been known to be a non-issue.
> why take the chance?
Because it's long been known to be a non-issue. Does NL and Denk
have a huge prostate problem striking down half of the population? Not
that I'm aware.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 11:00:08
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Gary wrote:
> I also have a couple of uprights and they are comfortable for the first
> few minutes and then I can't stand to ride them. My recumbents are
> definately more comfortable. Not only that but, I don't have to worry
> about my prostate like I would on an upright. I know that there are
> riders out there that have ridden uprights all of there lives and never
> had a problem just like there are people that have smoked all of their
> lives and never had a problem but, why take the chance?
FUD for thought.
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 07:10:19
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
k Leuck wrote:
>
>
> So what is your new average speed?
It seems to be 15 mph. =(
Even on a clear and all-out downhill run I've only been able to post 29
mph on this 'bent. On the same slope with my Trek 1000c I've reached
top speeds of 36 mph! Also, the 'bent feels noticeably unstable at its
top speeds. The upright, hardly.
I'm curious how a faster 'bent would perform....
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 15:23:24
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Even on a clear and all-out downhill run I've only been able to post 29
> mph on this 'bent. On the same slope with my Trek 1000c I've reached
> top speeds of 36 mph! Also, the 'bent feels noticeably unstable at its
> top speeds.
IME most people reporting wibbles on an SMGT have not been relaxed. A
friend reported a shimmy he got at around 30 on a test bike, I found the
exact same machine rock solid, /but/ I had a couple if years' 'bent
experience at that point.
I've found if you keep a very light touch on the bars the bike is rock
solid past 40 mph with or without full touring gear, even through bends
on bumpy roads.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 07:05:51
From: NYC XYZ
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
>
> I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> upright's comfort or my age...
My Trek 1000c is the most comfortable upright I've ever had! In two
months I had 700 miles on it already. But nothing is as comfortable as
my SMGTe! It's like the difference between night and day.
The Trek is now relegated to errand-running in the neighborhood, etc.
For long rides where I don't have to leave my bike out of site, I am
definitely riding 'bent!
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 06:11:46
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> > * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> > definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> > 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
> > always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
>
> You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on an
> upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders actually do
> get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because they
> ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is more
> work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
>
> For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
> preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent as it
> was just more enjoyable to ride.
> [...]
>
> > * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
> > 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
> > athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
> > and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
>
> You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known several
> guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would rather
> be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you get, the
> more important this becomes.
I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
upright's comfort or my age...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 23:03:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in message
news:1147353106.881288.122510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
>> > * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
>> > definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
>> > 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
>> > always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
>>
>> You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on an
>> upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders actually
>> do
>> get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because
>> they
>> ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is more
>> work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
>>
>> For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
>> preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent as
>> it
>> was just more enjoyable to ride.
>> [...]
>>
>> > * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
>> > 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
>> > athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
>> > and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
>>
>> You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known several
>> guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would
>> rather
>> be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you get,
>> the
>> more important this becomes.
>
> I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> upright's comfort or my age...
Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
back to me on the comfort issue.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| | |
Date: 11 May 2006 15:08:30
From: Peter Clinch
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> I always read 'bent threads because I can always count on the last
> statement.....uprights by definition, are not 'uncomfortable' and the
> older you get(I'm 55), it is not automatically important that you get a
> 'bent....My upright is comfy, I see no need to get a bent because of my
> upright's comfort or my age...
While I have several upright bikes that I ride happily in comfort, the
simple fact of the matter is my 'bent is considerably /more/
comfortable. While I do not *need* that level of comfort, it is
certainly something I greatly appreciate when covering any sort of distance.
Given the choice of something quite comfortable or extremely
comfortable, assuming both will otherwise do the jobs I need and I can
afford my preference, I see no reason to put up with 2nd best when it
makes a difference to my overall enjoyment of touring.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 05:26:31
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
> always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
You will always be somewhat slower on a recumbent than you will be on an
upright, all things being equal. However, some recumbent riders actually do
get faster than they ever were on their uprights, but that is because they
ride their recumbents more and hence get stronger. But overall it is more
work to go fast on a recumbent, especially uphill.
For many years when I wanted a good workout I would ride my upright in
preference to my recumbent, but eventually I settled on the recumbent as it
was just more enjoyable to ride.
[...]
> * A real work-out! I still haven't met a hill I can't yet climb on the
> 'bent, but I am definitely breathing harder -- and I'm a B-grade
> athelete! I enjoy the work-out, but it's rather embarrassing huffing
> and puffing, giving a less-than-stellar impression of the 'bent.
You will be much slower going uphill on a recumbent. I have known several
guys who gave up on recumbents for precisely that one reason. I would rather
be slow and comfortable than fast and uncomfortable. The older you get, the
more important this becomes.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
| |
Date: 11 May 2006 03:58:22
From: Mark Leuck
Subject: Re: Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!
|
"NYC XYZ" <jack_foreigner@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1147311799.657853.168100@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> * Speed sucks!!! I'm over 5 mph slower than my upright! This is
> definitely the case. With a change of tires and more developed
> 'bent-muscles that might narrow a mile or two, but unfortunately I'll
> always be far slower than on an upright. Sigh!
So what is your new average speed?
|
|
