| |
Main
Date: 03 Oct 2007 03:24:50
From:
Subject: Ride Carbon Bike
|
Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
Jobst Brandt
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 05:43:10
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
jim beam wrote:
>
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >
> > Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>
> troll.
But what was the coefficient?
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:15:03
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>
troll.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 10:47:58
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:NvednU2G6NLaip7anZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>>
>
> troll.
Fraudulent lying tard.
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 20:35:53
From: Paul Borg
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>
> Jobst Brandt
What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but the
steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:58:17
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org >, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
wrote:
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but
> the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was heavier
with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with all the
other stuff going on, the difference would have been immeasurable.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 23:17:48
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-1D6C0A.22581702102007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
> wrote:
>
>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>> news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> > Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>> >
>> > http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>> >
>> > Jobst Brandt
>>
>> What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but
>> the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
>
> A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was heavier
> with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with all the
> other stuff going on, the difference would have been immeasurable.
I'll buy most of that, but why "immeasurable" - I'm not precisely familar
with the physics involved but at about 210 pounds, I consistently coast down
hills a few miles per hour faster than lighter riding partners riding in
equally aerodynamic positions on roughly equal bikes.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 00:23:10
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
In article <47030c00$0$26399$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-1D6C0A.22581702102007@news.iphouse.com...
> > In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg"
> > <xpostroll@webtv.nit> wrote:
> >
> >> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> >> news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> > Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
> >> >
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
> >> >
> >> > Jobst Brandt
> >>
> >> What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also,
> >> but the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
> >
> > A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was
> > heavier with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with
> > all the other stuff going on, the difference would have been
> > immeasurable.
>
> I'll buy most of that, but why "immeasurable" - I'm not precisely
> familar with the physics involved but at about 210 pounds, I
> consistently coast down hills a few miles per hour faster than
> lighter riding partners riding in equally aerodynamic positions on
> roughly equal bikes.
Because the difference would be no more than a pound or so, compared to
your situation. "All the other stuff" includes the soft deforming
surface, heavily treaded tires, wind resistance, etc. Lots of chaotic
variables that aren't present on a road descent. The difference
provided by a pound in bike weight would be lost in all the other noise.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 22:44:44
From:
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:17:48 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>
>"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>news:timmcn-1D6C0A.22581702102007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>>> news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> > Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>>> >
>>> > http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>>> >
>>> > Jobst Brandt
>>>
>>> What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but
>>> the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
>>
>> A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was heavier
>> with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with all the
>> other stuff going on, the difference would have been immeasurable.
>
>I'll buy most of that, but why "immeasurable" - I'm not precisely familar
>with the physics involved but at about 210 pounds, I consistently coast down
>hills a few miles per hour faster than lighter riding partners riding in
>equally aerodynamic positions on roughly equal bikes.
Dear Jeff,
Well, since you ask . . .
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
Use the defaults and chose hands-on-tops, but set the watts to 0, the
slope to -90 (close to 45 degrees), use a pair of robust touring
tires, and change the bike weight to anywhere from 21.48 to 21.83
pounds, and you should see 100.0 mph. Go outside that weight range,
and you gain or lose a tenth of a mile per hour.
To gain a full mile per hour and go 101.0 mph, raise the weight to
25.09 pounds from the 21.48 to 21.83 range that gives 100.0 mph.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 07:59:26
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:4676g3h4drp0cp24euf9b9kjad7nj3kcdr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 23:17:48 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote:
>
> Well, since you ask . . .
>
> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
>
> Use the defaults and chose hands-on-tops, but set the watts to 0, the
> slope to -90 (close to 45 degrees), use a pair of robust touring
> tires, and change the bike weight to anywhere from 21.48 to 21.83
> pounds, and you should see 100.0 mph. Go outside that weight range,
> and you gain or lose a tenth of a mile per hour.
>
> To gain a full mile per hour and go 101.0 mph, raise the weight to
> 25.09 pounds from the 21.48 to 21.83 range that gives 100.0 mph.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Okay, I wasn't thinking that the bike weight would only change about a
pound. That calculator does seem to give me figures that approximate my
experience. ...coasting down a 5% grade I go about 2 mph faster at 210 that
do others at 160 or so.
Jeff
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 04:12:27
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrs?=
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
> wrote:
>
>
>><jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>>news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>
>>>Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>>>
>>>Jobst Brandt
>>
>>What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but
>>the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
>
>
> A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was heavier
> with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with all the
> other stuff going on, the difference would have been immeasurable.
It would still be crazy, there is no point getting busted up real bad
unless a really cute chick is watching.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:29:49
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
� wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>>> news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>
>>>> Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>>>>
>>>> Jobst Brandt
>>>
>>> What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but
>>> the steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
>>
>>
>> A steel bike would have been theoretically faster because it was
>> heavier with no increase in frontal area. Basic physics. But with
>> all the other stuff going on, the difference would have been
>> immeasurable.
>
>
> It would still be crazy, there is no point getting busted up real bad
> unless a really cute chick is watching.
don't tell jambo that. he'll vent all kinds of odd repressions about
how it's connected to prostitution.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 10:49:47
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in message
news:M6CdnRQVn5sjh57anZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>? wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> It would still be crazy, there is no point getting busted up real bad
>> unless a really cute chick is watching.
>
> don't tell jambo that. he'll vent all kinds of odd repressions about how
> it's connected to prostitution.
Down beamboy, you just blew a lot of money on hookers, remember? Wait and
save up some more....
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 22:05:28
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
Beamboy and Jambo.
You two ought to get married. You make a couple of complementary assholes.
"Jambo" <-@-.- > wrote in message
news:4703abd8$0$15410$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:M6CdnRQVn5sjh57anZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >? wrote:
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <fdv2kd$k3f$1@aioe.org>, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit>
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >> It would still be crazy, there is no point getting busted up real bad
> >> unless a really cute chick is watching.
> >
> > don't tell jambo that. he'll vent all kinds of odd repressions about
how
> > it's connected to prostitution.
>
> Down beamboy, you just blew a lot of money on hookers, remember? Wait and
> save up some more....
>
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 19:18:32
From: Jambo
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
"Bill" <bill@example.invalid > wrote in message
news:ImUMi.632298$p47.143323@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Beamboy and Jambo.
> You two ought to get married. You make a couple of complementary assholes.
Yawn. That's really old Bill....
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2007 21:45:00
From:
Subject: Re: Ride Carbon Bike
|
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 20:35:53 -0800, "Paul Borg" <xpostroll@webtv.nit >
wrote:
>
><jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>news:47030b82$0$14103$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> Not that the 100mph crash was on a carbon bike:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ynosab
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
>What's your point? A steel bike probably would've broken also, but the
>steel bike would have been heavier and not as fast.
Dear Paul,
The weight difference between a carbon and a steel bike would probably
be less than the rider's suit and helmet, but why would a slightly
heavier bike be slower downhill?
I don't know what that bike was made of, but it wasn't made very
well--the desert racing motorcycle crowd would wonder why the front
end would break off like that in a short run.
I'm out-of-date, but I'm going to be surprised if motorycle desert
racers are using carbon frames.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
|
