Dumb question #3 - counting gears
Badger_South
Ok, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears with
annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear count without
actually bending down with the bifocals?
Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of experience
and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them - so how did you
do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count and then mount it on the
top tube - eventually you'll be able to do 'cyclespeak' and talk about the
one of the puzzling esoterics of biking! ;-p
-B
Bob in CT
I have no idea what my gears are. The only time I find out is when I need
to replace my cassette. I have seen people who use charts of gears versus
speed at a certain rpm, but I'm not that industrious.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear count without
>actually bending down with the bifocals?
Do you mean the tooth count for an individual gear, or knowing which
gear you're in as you ride?
Tooth count can be had a few ways:
1. If it's the cassette that came on your bike, look up the specs
2. If not, read the number stamped on the gear (if present)
(requires bifocals, for you anyway)
3. Count the teeth -- you can do it with your fingers if they're
already too greasy to grab the bifocals. Or, a pencil. It's easier
if you have a reference point; I make a mark.
>Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of experience
>and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them - so how did you
>do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count and then mount it on the
>top tube - eventually you'll be able to do 'cyclespeak' and talk about the
>one of the puzzling esoterics of biking! ;-p
I remember my three front gears, and the largest and smallest rear.
30-42-52 crank, and 11-27 cassette. I still want for a wider range,
on both ends.
--
Rick Onanian
Frank Krygowski
> Ok, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears with
> annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear count without
> actually bending down with the bifocals?
Well, I've experimented a bit with different gear ratios, so I actually
have gotten down there and counted teeth. For most bikes, I've got
those counts recorded somewhere. But once the sprockets are chosen and
installed, the exact numbers of teeth don't matter much.
>
> Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of experience
> and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them...
But I've never memorized them. The only thing I _really_ memorize is,
which gear is my best for quick starts, such as getting going quickly
when the light turns green? I remember to shift to that gear as I'm
coming to a stop.
I also pay some attention to remembering the drill for going "just one
gear" lower or higher, when that involves changing the front chainring.
(Usually, it's shift the front one way, then shift the back a cog or
two the other way to compensate.)
--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@mousepotato.com> >
> I also pay some attention to remembering the drill for going "just one
> gear" lower or higher, when that involves changing the front chainring.
> (Usually, it's shift the front one way, then shift the back a cog or
> two the other way to compensate.)
Very funny Frank, but when you're out with the guys
you will always be in the big ring.
Ron Hardin
the big ring doesn't quite have the perfect gear for. Switching
rings and compensating with one or two cogs leaves me a half gear
above or below the gear I was in.
If it's not going to be for a while, it's not worth the trouble.
The front changer isn't one of those smooth operating ones.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Bob in CT
wrote:
Even up the Plateau de Beille or Alpe d'Huez?
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Bob in CT" <ctvig...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:opscmv6g...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
>> Even up the Plateau de Beille or Alpe d'Huez?
>
>
You know I wasn't referring to steep climbs.
Pete
"Ron Hardin" <rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> If it's not going to be for a while, it's not worth the trouble.
> The front changer isn't one of those smooth operating ones.
And that is why few of us reading this ride huffy's.
Pete
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> OK, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears
> with annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear
> count without actually bending down with the bifocals?
For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known, for
instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned system
and two chainwheels, the 46-50t. I've had these for a long time and
in the old days, when there were not so many gears, the question is
whether one had the "right" gear for a certain course.
> Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of
> experience and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them
> - so how did you do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count
> and then mount it on the top tube - eventually you'll be able to do
> 'cyclespeak' and talk about the one of the puzzling esoterics of
> biking!
I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the question
is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed what others
ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what people think they
are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
coasting.
Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here or
in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having the
"right" cadence. The oddest one in this vein is when relatively
newcomers advise me on what gears to ride to prevent damaging my
knees. These folks wouldn't recognize and old bikie if they were
introduced. They would advise Michael Schumacher on how to drive a
car.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Ron Hardin
One of my brakes sticks, too. Both are a result of not using them
much. Grit gets in there and sets up housekeeping, over the course
of, what, hmm...
2004 1998-8000*p
48000 miles on this Huffy.
3rd BB set, 2nd derailleur, 3rd MRX shifter set, 2nd set of brakepads,
2nd Terry Liberator saddle.
Next brake pad change I'm going to have to replace the unused brake
entirely because the pad thingy has frozen to the brake arm, in fact.
Stuff gets old and wears out.
When the bike was new, everything shifted great. In fact I was amazed
how much shifting you could usefully do in rolling country, once
the shifters were on the bar ends and you had 21 speeds. Now I've
settled into a favorite few, long since.
Bob in CT
> Badger South writes:
>
>> OK, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears
>> with annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear
>> count without actually bending down with the bifocals?
>
> For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known, for
> instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned system
> and two chainwheels, the 46-50t. I've had these for a long time and
> in the old days, when there were not so many gears, the question is
> whether one had the "right" gear for a certain course.
>
>> Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of
>> experience and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them
>> - so how did you do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count
>> and then mount it on the top tube - eventually you'll be able to do
>> 'cyclespeak' and talk about the one of the puzzling esoterics of
>> biking!
>
> I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
> maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the question
> is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed what others
> ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what people think they
> are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
> coasting.
I ride those gears simply because most of my ride is uphill, where I'm
going slow, and I try to make up the time when I hit a "flat" (i.e.,
downhill but not too steep) section. Plus, after getting hammered on/by
the hills, I like to do some hammering myself!
> Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here or
> in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having the
> "right" cadence. The oddest one in this vein is when relatively
> newcomers advise me on what gears to ride to prevent damaging my
> knees. These folks wouldn't recognize and old bikie if they were
> introduced. They would advise Michael Schumacher on how to drive a
> car.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
--
Bill Davidson
> Ok, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears with
> annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear count without
> actually bending down with the bifocals?
Many sprockets actually have the tooth count stamped into their
surface so you can read it if you have good eye sight. Even if
they don't, it's quite east to count the teeth. The biggest
common rear cogs are only 34 teeth. Front chain rings usually
have the number of teeth stamped into them but they can easily
be counted too if not. If you still have the specs on your
freewheel, you may be able to just look up the cogs sizes.
> Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of experience
> and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them - so how did you
> do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count and then mount it on the
> top tube - eventually you'll be able to do 'cyclespeak' and talk about the
> one of the puzzling esoterics of biking! ;-p
It's not really tough. My chainrngs are 28-38-48. Is that hard
to remember? My cogs are 13-15-17-19-21-23-26. Notice that it
starts with 13 and progresses by 2 up until 23 after which there's
a 3 tooth jump. That makes it pretty easy to remember. Most
clusters are put together with some sort of sequence in mind that's
easy to remember once you figure it out. Admittedly, sometimes if
I want to know how many teeth it is, I find myself thinking "third
cog, 13-15-17: It's 17." rather than thinking "third cog, 17".
Ron Hardin
> ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what people think they
> are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
> coasting.
Back in the early 70s I would have given a lot for a 52-11 or even
a 52-13. I powered through everything and ran into my fairly slow
spin comfort limit very quickly. I'd wind up riding the brakes on
downhills so I had something to pedal against.
52-14 was the biggest gear I could find anywhere.
I hooked the 14 cog almost instantly, too. It would have been
really bad on an 11.
No other cog ever wore much.
Drew Eckhardt
Badger_South <Bad...@South.net> wrote:
>
>Ok, after reading a few more messages where riders quote their gears with
>annoying alacrity, I'm asking - where do you get your gear count without
>actually bending down with the bifocals?
>Why do people end up memorizing them?
So you know what to buy next time.
I really don't need anything bigger than a 52x14, rarely want smaller than
39x28, and really like having 52x19 or 39x16 - so I picked a 50-40-30 x
13-14-15-16-17-18-19-21. When I couldn't get that 8-speed cassette any more I
went with the same thing in 9-speeds with a 23 on the end because I'd use that
more than a 12 cog.
With 10 speeds, something like 50-37 x 13-26 might do the trick. Or
46-32 x 12-23. Etc.
--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Bob in CT" <ctvig...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:opscmv6g...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
> >
>
About the d'Heuz, I've check back on my racing
journals and it looks like mostly on the 39x17 or
39x18, any gear smaller than that on that climb and
you will be dropped from the group.
Bill Baka
Over 5,000 miles on my Huffy. My Schwinn Super Sport looks fast but
those time trail type tires won't go where I want, which is just
about anywhere around here. The roads really need some work in my
part of California. That and 2 bio-pace chainrings...
The Schwinn has some serious limitations as to where I can ride.
Bill Baka
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Bill Baka" <bb...@syix.com> wrote in message news:opscm5ox...@news.syix.com...
> > >
> my Huffy.
I going to go ahead and assume you're trying to be funny.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
>> maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the
>> question is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed
>> what others ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what
>> people think they are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that
>> can't be better done by coasting.
> I ride those gears simply because most of my ride is uphill, where
> I'm going slow, and I try to make up the time when I hit a "flat"
> (i.e., downhill but not too steep) section. Plus, after getting
> hammered on/by the hills, I like to do some hammering myself!
I haven't seen anyone make any headway with such a gear even downhill
where I often coast by people pushing such gears. Just because a
racer who IS coasting down a hill can make a sprint to the line in
such a gear does not make it a useful one. The ratio is so high that
the sustained additional power one can deliver over a higher gear is
useless and counter productive except for a downwind or downhill
short sprint.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Claire Petersky
"Bill Davidson" <bil...@cox.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rvRSc.34381$Uh.25685@fed1read02...
> It's not really tough. My chainrngs are 28-38-48. Is that hard
> to remember?
Yes.
> My cogs are 13-15-17-19-21-23-26. Notice that it
> starts with 13 and progresses by 2 up until 23 after which there's
> a 3 tooth jump. That makes it pretty easy to remember.
The only phone numbers I have memorized are my mom's and my office's, and
one of our cell phones. Geez, my husband had the same phone number at his
office for three years and I never memorized it. I know my Group Health
number, only because I've had it since birth, my social security number, and
my library card number (also the same for years). Some people have the sort
of head where numbers are easily memorized. My head's not one of them.
I know pi out to a few digits because of "may I have a large container of
coffee?" If you could work out a song (doesn't need a catchy melody) in
which you had the number of letters in each word correspond to the numbers
of teeth in my cogs, I might be able to work it that way. But just
memorizing some jumble of numbers -- forget it.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
Rick Onanian
>are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
>coasting.
I've tested it myself. For my body, my legs, my weight, my bike, my
setup, and my roads, I achieve significantly higher speeds with very
tall gears.
I broke my own record a couple days ago, with a recorded max of 47.7
mph; I had even braked at one point when visibility was bad. I
intend to try that hill again knowing the road is clear, and while
I'm at it, maybe I'll give it another try limiting my gear to 52-14.
Yes, I have grand plans of testing and posting results, and like
every time before, I'll forget shortly after posting this -- maybe
I'll be distracted by the "Lance Armstrong is a space alien" thread.
--
Rick Onanian
Bill Davidson
> I haven't seen anyone make any headway with such a gear even downhill
> where I often coast by people pushing such gears. Just because a
> racer who IS coasting down a hill can make a sprint to the line in
> such a gear does not make it a useful one. The ratio is so high that
> the sustained additional power one can deliver over a higher gear is
> useless and counter productive except for a downwind or downhill
> short sprint.
My speedometer disagrees with you.
Admittedly, I've never had anything smaller than a 13 in the back
but I did have a 54 up front years ago. I used to go down a steep
hill on the way home every day and there's was a very noticable
difference in speed if I pedaled or just coasted down the hill.
That particular hill would get me around 40mph just coasting in
a tight tuck. Sometimes when pedalling down the initial steep part
of the hill would allow me to get as high as 50mph on the really
steep part that followed. Admittedly, I was coasting by then.
Now I have a 48 in the front so I can't pedal much past 35mph and
even then it's a little silly because the cadence is so high. These
days my arthritic knees win out over my need for speed so my gears
are low but I still love a fast smooth downhill (on a bike or skis).
One of these days I've got to try street luge.
Rick Onanian
<cpet...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>I know pi out to a few digits because of "may I have a large container of
>coffee?"
Whoever came up with that one must have already had a large
container of coffee.
--
Rick Onanian
Peter Cole
>
> For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known, for
> instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned system
> and two chainwheels, the 46-50t.
> I am only amazed at what people think they
> are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
> coasting.
>
> Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here or
> in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having the
> "right" cadence.
But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and me in my
53x11, the only difference would be our cadence. By saying people have no need
for such a ratio, you're just saying your cadence is the "right" one for
everybody. I think you'd have to admit that there is a variation as to what
cadence (range) is preferred, and the difference between a 50x13 and 53x11
might simply reflect that preference.
Bill Davidson
> If you could work out a song (doesn't need a catchy melody) in
> which you had the number of letters in each word correspond to the numbers
> of teeth in my cogs, I might be able to work it that way. But just
> memorizing some jumble of numbers -- forget it.
The point I was trying to make was that there's often a pattern.
With my cluster, all I have to remember is that it starts with 13
and goes up by two for each cog except for the last cog that goes
up by three. Usually there's a pattern that can be seen that makes
it something other than a jumble of numbers.
Zoot Katz
Bill Davidson <bil...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>One of these days I've got to try street luge.
Go ahead. You're old enough.
Est. Top Speed 180+ M.P.H.
http://www.fastlanerocketluge.com/
--
zk
Michael Warner
> Why do people end up memorizing them? I guess that's the sign of experience
> and time, but there must have been a reason to learn them - so how did you
> do this memory feat? I'm thinking figure the count and then mount it on the
> top tube - eventually you'll be able to do 'cyclespeak' and talk about the
> one of the puzzling esoterics of biking! ;-p
I know my chainrings and the extremes of the cassette, since the former
are pretty standard and I changed the latter when buying the bike.
The true geek can list all of the cogs in his cassette, and the resulting
gear travel (inches or cm per pedal rev) for all cog/ring combinations :-)
--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
Michael Warner
> I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
> maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the question
> is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed what others
> ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what people think they
> are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
> coasting.
I find that if I don't keep my legs turning over gently on downhills,
especially in cold weather, they're a bit stiff when I want to take off
again at the bottom. The very high gears are handy for that (and
a bit more speed never hurts!)
Frank Krygowski
>
> Back in the early 70s I would have given a lot for a 52-11 or even
> a 52-13. I powered through everything and ran into my fairly slow
> spin comfort limit very quickly. I'd wind up riding the brakes on
> downhills so I had something to pedal against.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The older I get, the faster I was, too. ;-)
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I've tested it myself. For my body, my legs, my weight, my bike, my
> setup, and my roads, I achieve significantly higher speeds with very
> tall gears.
>
> I broke my own record a couple days ago, with a recorded max of 47.7
> mph...
The argument against super-high gearing isn't that you can _always_
coast as fast as you can pedal. It's that, unless you're trying for a
momentary maximum speed, the super-high gearing isn't useful.
Churning away in a 53-11 on a steep downhill may get you a few extra
miles per hour. But the guy you're riding with can just get low, tuck
in, and stay right with you, using no energy to speak of. Replay this
enough times on a rolling ride and he'll finish ahead of you every time,
assuming equal physical attributes.
Not racing? Just riding solo? Then the 53-11 is similarly useless.
You'll be further ahead (literally) by getting aero and coasting those
downhills.
The _only_ practical application is for a downhill sprint finish. For
Lance & company, that's important. For almost everyone else, it's
important only to be able to say "I've got the same gears Lance does!!!!"
Frank Krygowski
Few people realize that the individual words of Carl Sagan's novel
"Contact" actually code PI out to 314,159 digits.
(OK, just kidding.)
David Reuteler
> Few people realize that the individual words of Carl Sagan's novel
> "Contact" actually code PI out to 314,159 digits.
>
> (OK, just kidding.)
are you sure? that would explain an awful lot.
--
david reuteler
reut...@visi.com
Zoot Katz
<411c3741$0$65561$a186...@newsreader.visi.com>, David Reuteler
<reut...@visi.com> wrote:
>Frank Krygowski <frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>> Few people realize that the individual words of Carl Sagan's novel
>> "Contact" actually code PI out to 314,159 digits.
>>
>> (OK, just kidding.)
>
>are you sure? that would explain an awful lot.
Thanks! You just spoiled the ending.
I already know that the great pyramids at Giza are the embodiment of
PI out to 666,666 digits
--
zk
Ron Hardin
>
> Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> >
> > Back in the early 70s I would have given a lot for a 52-11 or even
> > a 52-13. I powered through everything and ran into my fairly slow
> > spin comfort limit very quickly. I'd wind up riding the brakes on
> > downhills so I had something to pedal against.
>
> Yeah, I know what you mean. The older I get, the faster I was, too. ;-)
I preferred a low cadence, not high speed. I have no idea how fast I was; there
were no other bike riders to speak of to compare to, no pass and be passed clues
on the roads. I went for distance, and carried enormous amounts of junk in
Gerry panniers in the back.
Mostly I did routes with hills, which I liked going up, and still do; but now I use a much
higher cadence all the time.
the black rose
Oh my stars and garters. Let's just lie down on miniature rocket
engines, shall we? =:-O
-km
--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
the black rose
> Some people have the sort
> of head where numbers are easily memorized. My head's not one of them.
*raises hand* Mine is. Numbers just stick. I remember what our phone
number was when I was 12. Names don't stick. I've been known to
remember someone's phone number and forget their name.
Rick Onanian
<frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>The argument against super-high gearing isn't that you can _always_
>coast as fast as you can pedal. It's that, unless you're trying for a
>momentary maximum speed, the super-high gearing isn't useful.
>Not racing? Just riding solo? Then the 53-11 is similarly useless.
>You'll be further ahead (literally) by getting aero and coasting those
>downhills.
Your argument is that such a tall gear won't result in any net
decrease in time / increase in avg speed / positional gain in a
race. The usual argument seems to be that, in fact, you _can_ always
cost as fast as you can pedal. In this thread, Jobst only implied
it, rather than clearly stating it:
>>>I am only amazed at what people think they
>>>are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by
>>>coasting.
I don't race. I don't try to get somewhere in a shorter time. I
simply ride for fun, often solo, or with a group where we usually
don't draft much except on windy days.
I ride for fresh air, scenery, and the occasional bit of excitement
found while going down a hill, or found on the rare occasion that I
actually carry lots of speed into a curve. A higher momentary top
speed, for me, adds to my bicycling experience; it is fun, and it is
a source of pride, and it makes me feel good.
So, the gut-wrench anti-tall-gear condescending snobbish attitude
often presented is no better, IMO, than the attitude that bikes
can't be serious transportation.
Speaking of that attitude, Frank, you might be able to help me with
this: I work in the family business, and we often have to move more
trucks than we have drivers. When only a short distance is involved,
and we can't figure out how to get me moved around after I deliver
(or before I pick up) a truck, I always suggest I could take a bike.
My dad thinks it's 100% preposterous. Often we're talking 2.5 miles
to the mechanic that does our oil changes. Any suggestions?
--
Rick Onanian
H. M. Leary
wrote:
> Rick Onanian wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 23:34:12 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
> > <cpet...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I know pi out to a few digits because of "may I have a large container of
> >>coffee?"
> >
> >
> > Whoever came up with that one must have already had a large
> > container of coffee.
>
> Few people realize that the individual words of Carl Sagan's novel
> "Contact" actually code PI out to 314,159 digits.
>
>
>
> (OK, just kidding.)
OH! I thought it was "Billions and billions"
HAND
We are essentially star stuff.
--
"Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness"
- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
Frank Krygowski
>
> I ride for fresh air, scenery, and the occasional bit of excitement
> found while going down a hill, or found on the rare occasion that I
> actually carry lots of speed into a curve.
Me too - and more!
> A higher momentary top
> speed, for me, adds to my bicycling experience; it is fun, and it is
> a source of pride, and it makes me feel good.
I understand that. But in a downhill situation, I do it by seeing how
tight I can tuck. I go belly to the saddle when I'm trying hardest.
> So, the gut-wrench anti-tall-gear condescending snobbish attitude
> often presented is no better, IMO, than the attitude that bikes
> can't be serious transportation.
I don't think that anyone is against playing on the bike. But there
really do seem to be lots of people that think the key to faster cycling
_in general_ is higher gears (or, for some, more gears).
Some of us codgers have been hearing this for 30 years now.
"This bike's faster than my old one. It's got 12 speeds, and my old one
only had ten!"
"I can't keep up with my riding buddies. Can you tell me where to get a
60 tooth chainring?"
>
> Speaking of that attitude, Frank, you might be able to help me with
> this: I work in the family business, and we often have to move more
> trucks than we have drivers. When only a short distance is involved,
> and we can't figure out how to get me moved around after I deliver
> (or before I pick up) a truck, I always suggest I could take a bike.
> My dad thinks it's 100% preposterous. Often we're talking 2.5 miles
> to the mechanic that does our oil changes. Any suggestions?
Sure. Take a bike! Just do it. Even fathers can learn from a clear
demonstration (as my kids have proven). ;-)
FWIW, the few times I have other people work on my cars (most often,
that's tire changes) I _always_ use the bike to get back and forth. I
see people sitting in the waiting room, bored to tears, and pity them.
A bike is also the neatest solution I know to the canoe or kayak shuttle
problem. I've driven to the end, dropped off the bike (and locked it
securely), driven to the start, and boat down to the bike.
Next step in that evolution is a folding bike, to save the preliminary
trip to the takeout point. But now that I've switched to a kayak, my
boat's too small and my folding bike is too big.
Ron Hardin
> I understand that. But in a downhill situation, I do it by seeing how
> tight I can tuck. I go belly to the saddle when I'm trying hardest.
I have always been concerned to slow down on downhills; I prefer
uphills. I've always been a ``safe'' driver too; I attribute it all
to flying before I could drive, and satisfying the urge for speed in
quasi-safety. Eventually I gave up flying for bike riding full time,
evidently having aged to the point where insurance rates normally
drop.
Aircraft insurance didn't have a pilot age factor, by the way. That's
probably the same effect restated statistically.
Leo Lichtman
"Frank Krygowski" wrote: (clip) Next step in that evolution is a folding
bike,(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any time I am going somewhere that parking is difficult, or expensive, I put
my Dahon in the car. At the county fair, for example, I drop my wife off at
the gate, drive a mile or two, and park. She gets in line to buy the
tickets while I ride back and meet her.
I also enjoy the envious glances I get from the people I pass, who are
walking from their cars. (At least I imagine they are envious.)
Frank Krygowski
> "Frank Krygowski" wrote: (clip) Next step in that evolution is a folding
> bike,(clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Any time I am going somewhere that parking is difficult, or expensive, I put
> my Dahon in the car. At the county fair, for example, I drop my wife off at
> the gate, drive a mile or two, and park. She gets in line to buy the
> tickets while I ride back and meet her.
Good idea!
>
> I also enjoy the envious glances I get from the people I pass, who are
> walking from their cars. (At least I imagine they are envious.)
>
Do people normally chortle when they're envious? ;-)
Rick Onanian
<frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>I don't think that anyone is against playing on the bike. But there
>really do seem to be lots of people that think the key to faster cycling
>_in general_ is higher gears (or, for some, more gears).
>Some of us codgers have been hearing this for 30 years now.
>
>60 tooth chainring?"
That does sound silly, although for somebody who prefers a glacially
slow cadence (and has the muscles to make it work), that might be
realistic.
However, the "53x11 is useless" attitude is invalid.
>> My dad thinks it's 100% preposterous. Often we're talking 2.5 miles
>
>Sure. Take a bike! Just do it. Even fathers can learn from a clear
>demonstration (as my kids have proven). ;-)
I'm not so sure. He's pretty headstrong about it, and he will likely
say that he finds it embarrassing for me to show up on a bike at a
place where we do business.
>FWIW, the few times I have other people work on my cars (most often,
>that's tire changes) I _always_ use the bike to get back and forth. I
>see people sitting in the waiting room, bored to tears, and pity them.
I don't mind waiting; I'm just as happy to read a book as I am to
ride a bike. I usually have stuff to do that I can bring with me
anyway.
>A bike is also the neatest solution I know to the canoe or kayak shuttle
>problem. I've driven to the end, dropped off the bike (and locked it
>securely), driven to the start, and boat down to the bike.
Nice. I gotta get a canoe or kayak so I can do that too. ;)
--
Rick Onanian
Rick Onanian
<rhha...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I have always been concerned to slow down on downhills; I prefer
>uphills.
Ooh! I have the answer: A bike trailer that can hold an adult; a
short-duration sedative; and you drag me up hills, while I race us
down! ;)
--
Rick Onanian
Peter Cole
>
> Churning away in a 53-11 on a steep downhill may get you a few extra
> miles per hour. But the guy you're riding with can just get low, tuck
> in, and stay right with you, using no energy to speak of. Replay this
> enough times on a rolling ride and he'll finish ahead of you every time,
> assuming equal physical attributes.
>
> Not racing? Just riding solo? Then the 53-11 is similarly useless.
> You'll be further ahead (literally) by getting aero and coasting those
> downhills.
>
> The _only_ practical application is for a downhill sprint finish. For
> Lance & company, that's important. For almost everyone else, it's
> important only to be able to say "I've got the same gears Lance does!!!!"
53x11 gives a cadence of 60 at 23 mph. For those of us who favor a cadence
that low it's a very useful ratio for flats and/or slight downhills.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I haven't seen anyone make any headway with such a gear even
>> downhill where I often coast by people pushing such gears. Just
>> because a racer who IS coasting down a hill can make a sprint to
>> the line in such a gear does not make it a useful one. The ratio
>> is so high that the sustained additional power one can deliver over
>> a higher gear is useless and counter productive except for a
>> downwind or downhill short sprint.
> My speedometer disagrees with you.
> Admittedly, I've never had anything smaller than a 13 in the back
> but I did have a 54 up front years ago. I used to go down a steep
> hill on the way home every day and there's was a very noticable
> difference in speed if I pedaled or just coasted down the hill.
> That particular hill would get me around 40mph just coasting in a
> tight tuck. Sometimes when pedalling down the initial steep part of
> the hill would allow me to get as high as 50mph on the really steep
> part that followed. Admittedly, I was coasting by then.
I assume you did not crouch down into a minimal position when
coasting, nor put your arms in your gut with hands on the stem. the
increased drag from using such a position to a pedaling posture is far
greater than you can muster at over 30mph. It is this effect that I
experience often when descending with riders with 11t and 12t
sprockets and large chainwheels who pedal to go faster.
> Now I have a 48 in the front so I can't pedal much past 35mph and
> even then it's a little silly because the cadence is so high. These
> days my arthritic knees win out over my need for speed so my gears
> are low but I still love a fast smooth downhill (on a bike or skis).
> One of these days I've got to try street luge.
How long can you do this, 200yards or so? On descents on 6% highways,
coasting has always been faster than pedaling because speeds are over
30mph just from the gradient when the rider makes himself small on the
bicycle.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known,
>> for instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned
>> system and two chainwheels, the 46-50t.
>> I am only amazed at what people think they are going to do with
>> 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by coasting.
>> Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here
>> or in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having
>> the "right" cadence.
> But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and
> me in my 53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
My cadence is zero at that time. Only when the grade levels off will
I sit up and use that gear. I use it to ride between 25 and 30mph
with tail winds on on some lesser slopes.
> By saying people have no need for such a ratio, you're just saying
> your cadence is the "right" one for everybody. I think you'd have
> to admit that there is a variation as to what cadence (range) is
> preferred, and the difference between a 50x13 and 53x11 might simply
> reflect that preference.
I think you are jumping to conclusions.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
>> maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the
>> question is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed
>> what others ride on various courses. I am only amazed at what
>> people think they are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that
>> can't be better done by coasting.
> I find that if I don't keep my legs turning over gently on
> downhills, especially in cold weather, they're a bit stiff when I
> want to take off again at the bottom. The very high gears are handy
> for that (and a bit more speed never hurts!)
When I was "young and beautiful" I wondered why riders coasted down
hills slowly pedaling "in neutral". Now that I've ridden a few more
miles, I tend to do that when descending... but I don't need a big
gear to do that. It even works pedaling backwards. Try it.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Peter Cole
news:jS6Tc.7312$54.1...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Peter Cole writes:
>
> >> For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known,
> >> for instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned
> >> system and two chainwheels, the 46-50t.
>
> >> I am only amazed at what people think they are going to do with
> >> 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by coasting.
>
> >> Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here
> >> or in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having
> >> the "right" cadence.
>
> > But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and
> > me in my 53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
>
> My cadence is zero at that time.
Which time is that?
> Only when the grade levels off will
> I sit up and use that gear. I use it to ride between 25 and 30mph
> with tail winds on on some lesser slopes.
OK, let's take that case then, although I might use it down to 23 mph or so,
which I can maintain on flats. I just prefer a 60 rpm cadence to 80.
>
> > By saying people have no need for such a ratio, you're just saying
> > your cadence is the "right" one for everybody. I think you'd have
> > to admit that there is a variation as to what cadence (range) is
> > preferred, and the difference between a 50x13 and 53x11 might simply
> > reflect that preference.
>
> I think you are jumping to conclusions.
I think you're dodging.
Bob in CT
I really don't understand this argument. I use large gears all the time
(well, that's an overstatement), and I use them because my ride is mainly
uphill, then I turn around (it's not 100% like that, as there are two very
hard hills on the way back). When I get to areas where I get get on the
drops, into an aerodynamic position, and push big gears, I do. I do this
because I never get to do it at any other time and it increases my speed.
--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply
Bill Baka
<blackro...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:03:01 -0700, <XyTSc.34407$Uh.33091@fed1read02>,
>> Bill Davidson <bil...@cox.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> One of these days I've got to try street luge.
>>
>>
>> Go ahead. You're old enough.
>>
>> Est. Top Speed 180+ M.P.H.
>> http://www.fastlanerocketluge.com/
>
> Oh my stars and garters. Let's just lie down on miniature rocket
> engines, shall we? =:-O
>
> -km
>
Now that someone mentioned rockets, I just have to add some totally
non relevant trivia. Back in the 1960s there was a company out
of Florida called Turbonique, that made miniature rockets and
turbines for the quarter mile crowd. The turbines put
out an insane 1,000HP for about 5 seconds with a gallon or
so of fuel. The rockets, which only weighed about 50 pounds
each put out hundreds of pounds of thrust. Some crazy guy put
2 of them on a go cart and took it to the drag races. That thing
did over 200 MPH in the quarter mile, with a man on it.
HE was nuts, enough to make any of us, me included, look very sane.
The thrust to weight ratio was enough that if he ever hit a bump
he would have accelerated 'straight up'.
I will be perfectly happy to coast a bike downhill at 'only' 50 MPH.
Bill Baka
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Bill Baka
wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I understand that. But in a downhill situation, I do it by seeing how
>> tight I can tuck. I go belly to the saddle when I'm trying hardest.
Ditto on the tuck. It is too hard to pedal while aero tucking, and I
can't pedal that fast anyway.
>
> I have always been concerned to slow down on downhills; I prefer
> uphills. I've always been a ``safe'' driver too; I attribute it all
> to flying before I could drive, and satisfying the urge for speed in
> quasi-safety. Eventually I gave up flying for bike riding full time,
> evidently having aged to the point where insurance rates normally
> drop.
I am also an ex pilot (permanent student actually) and gave it up
about 1980 when the sky got too crowded. I used to take a J-3 when
available and just go up for the sightseeing, VFR only. That was
my getaway, and hanging a camera out got me some nice air photos.
>
> Aircraft insurance didn't have a pilot age factor, by the way. That's
> probably the same effect restated statistically.
BTW, my top gear on my most used bike is a 48-14 and that takes some
effort to maintain a cadence of 85, even though it is useless on a
downhill blast. I may try a 56 chainring I have in my parts bin but
I know I couldn't pull it on the flat. It may be good for the 2 or 3
miles of downhill I can get to, but little use anywhere else.
If I changed the rear to an 11 tooth and had the 56 up front maybe
I could pedal at 50 MPH, but why? At that speed it is far easier to
just coast past any cars in the way after adding a few extra MPH
by drafting them. The big reward is the look on the drivers face
after 1) seeing you in the rear view mirror and 2) actually
passing the car.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> For most folks who have ridden awhile the gear cluster is known,
>>>> for instance, I know I have 13,15,17,19,21,24 on my old fashioned
>>>> system and two chainwheels, the 46-50t.
>>>> I am only amazed at what people think they are going to do with
>>>> 52-11 or even 52-13 that can't be better done by coasting.
>>>> Other than that, just watch when a "spinning" subject comes up here
>>>> or in the "tech" group and the significance attributed to having
>>>> the "right" cadence.
>>> But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and
>>> me in my 53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
>> My cadence is zero at that time.
> Which time is that?
Follow the bouncing ball in this movie and you'll find it.
When you are descending and pedaling a 52-11, I'll be coasting at zero
cadence. I though that is what I read just above your question.
>> Only when the grade levels off will I sit up and use that gear. I
>> use it to ride between 25 and 30mph with tail winds on on some
>> lesser slopes.
> OK, let's take that case then, although I might use it down to 23
> mph or so, which I can maintain on flats. I just prefer a 60 rpm
> cadence to 80.
So what. The point is that pedaling down hills over 30 in a 52-11 is
slower than casting and more work.
>>> By saying people have no need for such a ratio, you're just saying
>>> your cadence is the "right" one for everybody. I think you'd have
>>> to admit that there is a variation as to what cadence (range) is
>>> preferred, and the difference between a 50x13 and 53x11 might
>>> simply reflect that preference.
>> I think you are jumping to conclusions.
> I think you're dodging.
No. I'm coasting.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
the black rose
> I will be perfectly happy to coast a bike downhill at 'only' 50 MPH.
I feel quite daring at 30 mph. But then, I'm a ninny and I know it. :-D
Pete
"Bill Baka" <bb...@syix.com> wrote
> >
> Now that someone mentioned rockets, I just have to add some totally
> non relevant trivia. Back in the 1960s there was a company out
> of Florida called Turbonique, that made miniature rockets and
> turbines for the quarter mile crowd. The turbines put
> out an insane 1,000HP for about 5 seconds with a gallon or
> so of fuel. The rockets, which only weighed about 50 pounds
> each put out hundreds of pounds of thrust. Some crazy guy put
> 2 of them on a go cart and took it to the drag races. That thing
> did over 200 MPH in the quarter mile, with a man on it.
> HE was nuts, enough to make any of us, me included, look very sane.
> The thrust to weight ratio was enough that if he ever hit a bump
> he would have accelerated 'straight up'.
> I will be perfectly happy to coast a bike downhill at 'only' 50 MPH.
> Bill Baka
And further off-topic in the miniature turbine realm, check out this B-52
scale model w/ 8 turbine engines
[scroll down about 1/2way]
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1420986
There are vids available of it flying
http://www.mcgirt.net/RC/VIDEOS/Giant_B52/
Pete
Frank Krygowski
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:18:25 GMT, Peter Cole
> <peter_cole_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote
>>
>>>
>>> Churning away in a 53-11 on a steep downhill may get you a few extra
>>> miles per hour. But the guy you're riding with can just get low, tuck
>>> in, and stay right with you, using no energy to speak of. Replay this
>>> enough times on a rolling ride and he'll finish ahead of you every time,
>>> assuming equal physical attributes.
>>>
>>
>> 53x11 gives a cadence of 60 at 23 mph. For those of us who favor a
>> cadence
>> that low it's a very useful ratio for flats and/or slight downhills.
>>
> I really don't understand this argument. I use large gears all the time
> (well, that's an overstatement), and I use them because my ride is
> mainly uphill, then I turn around (it's not 100% like that, as there are
> two very hard hills on the way back). When I get to areas where I get
> get on the drops, into an aerodynamic position, and push big gears, I
> do. I do this because I never get to do it at any other time and it
> increases my speed.
I wonder, do the people who prefer low cadences in large gears also
prefer to start their golf swing from just a foot behind the ball? Do
they prefer to throw baseballs with their chest facing straight at the
batter? Do they prefer to hit every tennis shot backhand?
My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom, which
came from generations of trial and error. And people have known for at
least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80 to 100 rpm works
better in the long run. That is, you'll be able to ride faster and
further on any given ride, and you're knees will probably last longer.
It's not necessary to do this on every ride, of course. When pottering
along with a slow rider, I'm making very little power, so I use a slow
cadence. But if actually trying for either a fairly brisk speed, or a
fairly long distance, a little less pedal force and a little more pedal
speed (i.e. a little lower gear) works better. If your muscles apply
less force, they can repeat the motion more times.
Now, there's no law that says anyone _must_ do this. You can swing a
club or throw a ball as you like, too. But when you read about older
guys who enjoy riding distances and hills that burn you out, you might
wonder if they actually know something you don't.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom,
> which came from generations of trial and error. And people have
> known for at least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80
> to 100 rpm works better in the long run. That is, you'll be able to
> ride faster and further on any given ride, and you're knees will
> probably last longer.
The riders with whom I started bicycling do not follow your maxim and
rode well without the dread knee failure from not spinning. The spin
advocates ignore that it is not low pedal RPM that hurts their knees
but rather high torque which is not directly speed related. Those of
us who started bicycling in early youth generally don't have knee
problems. At least those with whom I rode, most of whom retired
before age 50, were not suffering from bad knees.
> It's not necessary to do this on every ride, of course. When
> pottering along with a slow rider, I'm making very little power, so
> I use a slow cadence. But if actually trying for either a fairly
> brisk speed, or a fairly long distance, a little less pedal force
> and a little more pedal speed (i.e. a little lower gear) works
> better. If your muscles apply less force, they can repeat the
> motion more times.
I just got back from 3350km in the Alps in what you might call low
cadence, and never felt better. I've been doing this for many years
and we ride mainly mountain passes to the tune of 54000 meters
climbing in 21 days. I have not seen any of the many riding
companions with whom I have toured spin on these climbs. 40 to 60rpm
are common on long >10% grades. In particular, Sonora Pass CA is
usually climbed with even slower rates on its more than 20% grades.
> Now, there's no law that says anyone _must_ do this. You can swing
> a club or throw a ball as you like, too. But when you read about
> older guys who enjoy riding distances and hills that burn you out,
> you might wonder if they actually know something you don't.
It's as good as an intimidated law. The derision riders get for
admitting lower than "acceptable" cadences insure that these riders
remain in the closet, and that isn't an insignificant number from what
I observe in the hills around here.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Bill Davidson
> I assume you did not crouch down into a minimal position when
> coasting, nor put your arms in your gut with hands on the stem.
I crouch down while coasting down hill (enough that I worry about hitting
my stem/bars with my face). I pull my knees in towards the frame too.
I keep my crank arms parallel to the ground.
> How long can you do this, 200yards or so? On descents on 6% highways,
> coasting has always been faster than pedaling because speeds are over
> 30mph just from the gradient when the rider makes himself small on the
> bicycle.
Since my top gear is now so low (48-13), I don't do it very long.
I have to coast now. I cannot get up to the speeds I used to with
the bigger gear on the same hills. YMMV but the bigger gear makes
me go faster down hill than if I don't have the big gear. I even
weigh about 30-40 pounds more now than I did then and I still can't
hit those down hill speeds when I have to stop pedaling and coast a
little past 30mph.
Tom Keats
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org writes:
> Bob who? writes:
>
>>> I think if you ask this question of newer riders or ask it again in
>>> maybe five years, they won't know. With 30 combinations, the
>>> question is irrelevant. Just the same, folks are always amazed
>>> people think they are going to do with 52-11 or even 52-13 that
>
>> I ride those gears simply because most of my ride is uphill, where
>> I'm going slow, and I try to make up the time when I hit a "flat"
>> (i.e., downhill but not too steep) section. Plus, after getting
>> hammered on/by the hills, I like to do some hammering myself!
>
> I haven't seen anyone make any headway with such a gear even downhill
> where I often coast by people pushing such gears. Just because a
> racer who IS coasting down a hill can make a sprint to the line in
> such a gear does not make it a useful one. The ratio is so high that
> the sustained additional power one can deliver over a higher gear is
> useless and counter productive except for a downwind or downhill
> short sprint.
Sometimes when cresting a hump, I like to put 'er in too tall
a gear for a moment, right at the apex, and give 'er a good
stomp or two, just to get a good (coasting) run on the downhill
side and then work my way up the next up 'hill'.
Over roller-coaster-y terrain it works out quite ell.
But it also helps to not get stuck in to tall a gear for the
next up-grade. Especially when the rider (i.e: me) might
peter-out halfway up.
So on roller-coaster-y terrain on which the rider is familiar,
the big-ring/little sprocket thing can be put to good use.
> Jobst Brandt
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
>
>>My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom,
>>which came from generations of trial and error. And people have
>>known for at least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80
>>to 100 rpm works better in the long run. That is, you'll be able to
>>ride faster and further on any given ride, and you're knees will
>>probably last longer.
>
>
> The riders with whom I started bicycling do not follow your maxim and
> rode well without the dread knee failure from not spinning. The spin
> advocates ignore that it is not low pedal RPM that hurts their knees
> but rather high torque which is not directly speed related.
As I stated, I don't always use the higher cadences. When putting out
less power, I might use a lower cadence. In other words, I tend to
avoid high torque, at least for long periods of riding.
But saying "high torque ... is not directly speed related" may confuse
some readers. For a given power output, torque and cadence (pedaling
speed) _are_ related. A rider on a given road at a given road speed has
a certain power output. He can produce that power by choosing a higher
gear, applying more torque, or a lower gear, applying less torque and
higher cadence.
I think many novices tend to choose a higher gear than optimum. As a
consequence, they apply more force than optimum with each pedal stroke.
And because muscles can exert higher force much less often than lower
force, these riders tire out sooner.
> Those of
> us who started bicycling in early youth generally don't have knee
> problems. At least those with whom I rode, most of whom retired
> before age 50, were not suffering from bad knees.
Perhaps not. As with all things medical, there are individual
differences. And some of the posters here may, indeed, do well with low
cadences.
However, that's not to say that they wouldn't do better with a slightly
higher cadence. The fact is, without reading or hearing about this
matter, many (or most) new riders would never know to even experiment
with a slightly lower gear. They wouldn't know if it helped them or not.
I recall my earliest experiences with a 10 speed. I'd borrowed one to
try out, and I was very skeptical of the need for so many gears. To
"prove" they were useless, I rode it "all the way home" (seven miles) in
its highest gear (probably 52-14) including some fairly steep climbs. I
later bragged to my engineering buddies that indeed, there was no need
for all those (lower) gears.
It literally never dawned on me that people were actually riding these
things further than seven miles! Clearly, I could not have done even 25
miles in that gear; but by using all the gears appropriately, I could
have. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the principle.
BTW, my understanding is that one of the things Chris Carmichael did for
Lance Armstrong was to convince him to use lower gears. Supposedly it
helped.
>>Now, there's no law that says anyone _must_ do this. You can swing
>>a club or throw a ball as you like, too. But when you read about
>>older guys who enjoy riding distances and hills that burn you out,
>>you might wonder if they actually know something you don't.
>
>
> It's as good as an intimidated law. The derision riders get for
> admitting lower than "acceptable" cadences insure that these riders
> remain in the closet, and that isn't an insignificant number from what
> I observe in the hills around here.
:-) You're saying you don't see many low cadence riders doing mountain
grades, and you think it's because of intimidation?
The explanation favored by Occam would be that, if they use low cadence,
most people can't do mountain grades!
Rick Onanian
<frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>I wonder, do the people who prefer low cadences in large gears also
>prefer to start their golf swing from just a foot behind the ball? Do
>they prefer to throw baseballs with their chest facing straight at the
>batter? Do they prefer to hit every tennis shot backhand?
I don't golf, I don't throw baseballs, and I don't play tennis.
>My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom, which
>came from generations of trial and error. And people have known for at
>least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80 to 100 rpm works
>better in the long run. That is, you'll be able to ride faster and
>further on any given ride, and you're knees will probably last longer.
One size does not fit all. The proof is in the pudding: My rides are
longer and faster if I use a lower cadence, and I feel better
afterwards.
Once I'm very tired, then I do tend to spin up to 80 or even a
little faster. I'm not sure why it changes like that; if I'm fresh
and I spin at 80 or more, I get tired in a hurry, and I don't
produce as much power.
So, while true that accumulated generations of wisdom can apply,
it's not true that such wisdom _must_ apply. One size does not fit
all, dammit! ;)
--
Rick Onanian
Peter Cole
>
> My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom, which
> came from generations of trial and error. And people have known for at
> least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80 to 100 rpm works
> better in the long run. That is, you'll be able to ride faster and
> further on any given ride, and you're knees will probably last longer.
Where do you get this stuff?
Michael Warner
> When I was "young and beautiful" I wondered why riders coasted down
> hills slowly pedaling "in neutral". Now that I've ridden a few more
> miles, I tend to do that when descending... but I don't need a big
> gear to do that. It even works pedaling backwards. Try it.
I've tried forwards and backwards without resistance, but I don't like it.
It tends to throw me off balance a bit.
--
bpo gallery at http://www4.tpgi.com.au/users/mvw1/bpo
Peter Cole
>
> > OK, let's take that case then, although I might use it down to 23
> > mph or so, which I can maintain on flats. I just prefer a 60 rpm
> > cadence to 80.
>
> So what. The point is that pedaling down hills over 30 in a 52-11 is
> slower than casting and more work.
Sure, but I'm talking about 23 mph on the flats. If I wish to maintain a 60
rpm cadence I need a 53x11. Somebody who wants an 80 rpm cadence can get by
with a 50x13. What's the big deal?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> So, while true that accumulated generations of wisdom can apply,
> it's not true that such wisdom _must_ apply. One size does not fit
> all, dammit!
Now don't get excited and not so pissed-off. These are only opinions.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> When I was "young and beautiful" I wondered why riders coasted down
>> hills slowly pedaling "in neutral". Now that I've ridden a few
>> more miles, I tend to do that when descending... but I don't need a
>> big gear to do that. It even works pedaling backwards. Try it.
> I've tried forwards and backwards without resistance, but I don't
> like it. It tends to throw me off balance a bit.
Is this with or without training wheels?
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Peter Cole" <peter_cole_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:G9rTc.122087$8_6.17658@attbi_s04...
> <>
> Sure, but I'm talking about 23 mph on the flats. If I wish to maintain a 60
> rpm cadence I need a 53x11.
Never pedal that slow on the flats, you need to be in the mid 90 rpms.
60 rpm is only when climbing.
53x11 on the flats is for pro road sprinters like Alessandro Petacchi and me.
When we get on top of the eleven in the final 300 meters of a road race
we will be doing 60-70 kph.
Now you stick with the 13 cog.
Frank Krygowski
??
_Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book_, by Richard Ballantine.
_Effective Cycling_ by John Forester
_Cycling for Fitness_ by John Schubert
_The Woman Cyclist_ by Elaine Mariolle
etc, etc, etc. It would take me all evening to give you all the sources
on my bookshelf that agree with what I've said.
So, where do you find sources that disagree?
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@mousepotato.com> wrote in message news:411e...@news.ysu.edu...
>
> _Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book_, by Richard Ballantine.
>
> _Effective Cycling_ by John Forester
>
> _Cycling for Fitness_ by John Schubert
>
> _The Woman Cyclist_ by Elaine Mariolle
>
I don't know if I would want to admit reading that stuff.
Ever study any of Dr. Konopka articles on sports medicine from his time
at Erlangen and Tubingen?
Now that stuff is going to make you fast, especially his findings
when he was the sport's doctor for the BDR ( German National
Cycling Federation ).
Leo Lichtman
jobst.brandt wrote: (clip) The point is that pedaling down hills over 30 in
a 52-11 is slower than coasting and more work. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jobst. I think what may be escaping notice in this discussion is the
extremely steep power/speed curve at high speeds. I think power is
proportional to the cube of the speed (possibly higher, but my recall is
getting old.) So when you are coasting down a hill at thirty or forty miles
per hour, and you try to increase speed by adding pedal power, the effect is
very small. On the other hand, the power absorbed by wind resistance is the
main thing limiting speed, and if you can reduce it by your position on the
bike, the gain can be appreciable.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> My point is: every sport has accumulated generations of wisdom,
>>> which came from generations of trial and error. And people have
>>> known for at least 100 years that spinning bike cranks at, say, 80
>>> to 100 rpm works better in the long run. That is, you'll be able
>>> to ride faster and further on any given ride, and you're knees
>>> will probably last longer.
>> Where do you get this stuff?
> ??
> _Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book_, by Richard Ballantine.
> _Effective Cycling_ by John Forester
> _Cycling for Fitness_ by John Schubert
> _The Woman Cyclist_ by Elaine Mariolle
> etc, etc, etc. It would take me all evening to give you all the sources
> on my bookshelf that agree with what I've said.
> So, where do you find sources that disagree?
As I stated, from aerodynamic calculations inspired by observations in
years of riding with believers in the power of huge gears. Typically
John Howard's gear on his land speed record that was so high he could
not propel the bicycle at all with it unless he was in the vortex of
the race car on the salt flats. He had to be pulled up to speed to
even turn the pedals.
At least two of the works you cite are written by rave charlatans. I
have testified against them as expert witness in court cases in which
plaintiffs made irrational claims and to which they gave support with
pseudo science.
"Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
"facts". John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well
brining us "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them
somewhat useful.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
>
>
>>_Richard's 21st Century Bicycle Book_, by Richard Ballantine.
>
>
>>_Effective Cycling_ by John Forester
>
>
>>_Cycling for Fitness_ by John Schubert
>
>
>>_The Woman Cyclist_ by Elaine Mariolle
>
>
>>etc, etc, etc. It would take me all evening to give you all the sources
>>on my bookshelf that agree with what I've said.
>
>
>>So, where do you find sources that disagree?
>
>
> As I stated, from aerodynamic calculations inspired by observations in
> years of riding with believers in the power of huge gears.
This thread has subdivided into two topics.
One regards the uselessness of super-high gears on steep descents. On
that you and I agree.
The other regards optimum cadence for putting out power for long periods
of time. The sources listed above talk about that issue, not the first one.
>
> At least two of the works you cite are written by rave charlatans.
The world would be simpler if "rave charlatans" (or those disparaged as
such) were _never_ correct, and if people who weren't called
"charlatans" were never wrong. But the world is simply not that way!
> I
> have testified against them as expert witness in court cases in which
> plaintiffs made irrational claims and to which they gave support with
> pseudo science.
... and the world would be simpler if people didn't demonize those who
have been their opponents. But, sadly, the world isn't that way either.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ would make good reading
before we return to actually discussing facts.
>
> "Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
> "facts".
I do not agree with every word in that book. However, most of it is
definitely correct, in my experience.
John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well
> brining us "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them
> somewhat useful.
My guess is you're confusing John Howard (who is not mentioned above)
with John Schubert (who is). They are not the same person.
Bill Baka
> Frank Krygowski writes:
>
> As I stated, from aerodynamic calculations inspired by observations in
> years of riding with believers in the power of huge gears. Typically
> John Howard's gear on his land speed record that was so high he could
> not propel the bicycle at all with it unless he was in the vortex of
> the race car on the salt flats. He had to be pulled up to speed to
> even turn the pedals.
>
> Jobst Brandt
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
I don't know that it was John Howard, but I read years ago about a
fellow doing 105 MPH behind a train that had been rigged with a
special aero shield/tunnel on the trailing car. The tracks were also
paved between the rails so a bike could ride on it. The article
mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground. This
was, as far as I can remember something that I read about when I was
very young, so it was probably back in the 50s or early 60s. The
magazine may have been Popular Science or Popular Mechanics since I
read those from about second grade on up. If Howard did over 105
then I have to give him credit for pushing the salt, if not, then
he does not have the real record. Just don't ask me to quote the
exact issue since it was over 40 years ago.
R15757
<< I don't know that it was John Howard, but I read years ago about a
fellow doing 105 MPH behind a train that had been rigged with a
special aero shield/tunnel on the trailing car. The tracks were also
paved between the rails so a bike could ride on it. The article
mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground. This
was, as far as I can remember something that I read about when I was
very young, so it was probably back in the 50s or early 60s. The
magazine may have been Popular Science or Popular Mechanics since I
read those from about second grade on up. If Howard did over 105
then I have to give him credit for pushing the salt, if not, then
he does not have the real record. Just don't ask me to quote the
exact issue since it was over 40 years ago.>>
Charlie Murphy rode a mile in under 58 seconds
in 1899, behind a train on Long Island. He probably
reached 70 mph at some point. He reported
being burned by cinders and said the planks
laid down between the tracks were undulating
wildly as the train passed over them. At the end
of the run, he crashed heavily into the back
of the train.
Robert
Blair P. Houghton
>But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and me in my
>53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
essentially all day.
And if you're not 25% stronger in the first place, you're
going to have to stand up to maintain that cadence.
So, the significant difference would be that your thighs
would be about 6 inches bigger from all the mashing you'd
have to do to keep up on your daily ride.
>By saying people have no need
>for such a ratio, you're just saying your cadence is the "right" one for
>everybody.
Is 67 rpm right for anyone who isn't scanning the shoulder
for aluminum cans?
>I think you'd have to admit that there is a variation as to what
>cadence (range) is preferred, and the difference between a 50x13 and 53x11
>might simply reflect that preference.
I think the difference is bigger than that, and appears on the
descents, where such gears as 53/11 actually make some sense and
a 50/13 get useless in a hurry.
--Blair
"Wait. What kind of chain lube are
you using?"
Bernie
I read this mind blowing story a couple of years ago about "MILE A
MINUTE MURPHY". He had an exciting adventure, and proved himself right
in the process:
http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/vault/lirrsky.htm
Best regards, Bernie
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> "Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
>> "facts".
> I do not agree with every word in that book. However, most of it is
> definitely correct, in my experience.
>> John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well brining us
>> "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them somewhat
>> useful.
> My guess is you're confusing John Howard (who is not mentioned above)
> with John Schubert (who is). They are not the same person.
Not at all. John Howard testified in a case where a rider claimed he
had properly closed a QR and that the wheel came out after he had
ridden some insignificant distance. John Howard testified that as a
professional racer he was aware the QR's work loose and the the claim
of the plaintiff was valid. The result at that time were lawyer lips
on dropouts of less expensive bicycles. Only later when wheel
separations occurred on MTB's with disk brakes did these devices
become common and meaningful. Road racers still want to drop a wheel
out fast and install a replacement one without these retention ridges
and they do so.
Besides, when I see an expert witness outright lie in a law suit, it
destroys his credibility altogether for me. "I was lying then, but
now I'm telling the truth." What can you believe? I get involved in
these cases only when I see grave harm being done to the bicycle
business, be that a retail shop or a major manufacturer. The retail
shop is the cruelest one where there is no deep pockets and insurance,
if it must pay, will often pull the plug or raise the premium beyond
what the shop can afford.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> As I stated, from aerodynamic calculations inspired by observations
>> in years of riding with believers in the power of huge gears.
>> Typically John Howard's gear on his land speed record that was so
>> high he could not propel the bicycle at all with it unless he was
>> in the vortex of the race car on the salt flats. He had to be
>> pulled up to speed to even turn the pedals.
http://www.newuniquevideos.com/DISTRIBUTION/john_howard.html
In fact his contribution to propulsion was so small that throttle
control was given to Howard on the bicycle so he could remain in the
vortex, the car driver not having enough control to maintain contact.
> I don't know that it was John Howard, but I read years ago about a
> fellow doing 105 MPH behind a train that had been rigged with a
> special aero shield/tunnel on the trailing car. The tracks were also
> paved between the rails so a bike could ride on it. The article
> mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
> the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground. This
> was, as far as I can remember something that I read about when I was
> very young, so it was probably back in the 50s or early 60s. The
> magazine may have been Popular Science or Popular Mechanics since I
> read those from about second grade on up. If Howard did over 105
> then I have to give him credit for pushing the salt, if not, then he
> does not have the real record. Just don't ask me to quote the exact
> issue since it was over 40 years ago.
You are thinking of "Mile a minute Murphy" who was famous for his
feat. It was repeated by others, the area between the rails having a
board track installed. These guys were mainly entertainment and knew
how to please an unwitting crowd. That riding at those speeds without
special streamlining was not possible, did not occur to folks.
http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/vault/lirrsky.htm
The shape of the wind screen had the effect that is common in
convertible cars where hair is blown forward into the passenger's face
by wind curling around the wind screen. I suspect it was just such an
observation that led to these "record" runs.
To me, the interesting records are those achieved with human power
only in the HPVA (Human Powered Vehicle Assn.)
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/resultsSaturday.htm
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Bill Baka
That was not the incident. It was a diesel and he hit 105, not just 70
Bill Baka
wrote:
Again, 105 MPH wan not Murphy.
Bill Baka
Quite simply I will now have to find the article that says a fellow
did 105 MPH behind a train, and not on the salt flats.
Peter Cole
news:T7XTc.21857504$Of.36...@news.easynews.com...
> Peter Cole <peter_cole_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and me in
my
> >53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
>
> He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
> both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
> of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
> time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
> weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
> while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
> essentially all day.
Yes, and if I'm riding all day, I'd likely use a higher cadence. The faster
cadence will generally delay muscle fatigue to an extent, but for short, fast
rides (1-2 hr), the lower cadence will support higher speeds because of
aerobic efficiency, it's a tradeoff. I don't usually switch cassettes for
rides, so I use a wide (11-28) to be able to use high gears on short rides and
still have very low gears for all day climbing in ultra events.
It's obvious from physics that there's a diminishing return from pedaling at
high speeds, and that more can be obtained from a good tuck than pedaling on a
reasonably steep descent. I'd say the highest gear you need is the one your
most comfortable with under your highest speed pedaling scenarios, for me,
that's a 53x11.
Curtis L. Russell
>I don't know that it was John Howard, but I read years ago about a
>fellow doing 105 MPH behind a train that had been rigged with a
>special aero shield/tunnel on the trailing car. The tracks were also
>paved between the rails so a bike could ride on it. The article
>mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
>the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground.
I think you are confusing two different events. Alfred Letourner was
the one that jumped the paced land speed record to the 105 mph range
(actually, over 108) behind a car. His first attempt ended in a
horrible crash and he either literally or figuratively lived like a
monk (can't remember the exact story) in the process of rebuilding his
body. His paced record was behind a car in the 1940s.
His was also a huge gear and is probably the one that would have a
problem with tilting the bike, although 'a few degrees' seems
unlikely, more like hyperbole.
The rest sounds like what the others have said, Mile-a-Minute Murphy.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Frank Krygowski
I understand. And, FWIW, I wouldn't trust John Howard on anything but,
perhaps, advice on building a world-record motor pacing bike - even
though it's not impossible for such a person to give valid advice on
other matters.
What I meant, though, was that the list of sources I cited did not
include John Howard.
Bill Baka
Remember I am trying to go on 40+ year old memories. I do remember
the mark at 105 (+/-) though, train or car.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to BS
that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story was
untrue. These were up to million dollar damage claims.
OK, so you need to hear the typical story:
I came across Forester more than once, the most recent time was about
a sponsored MTB racer who made up a cock and bull story how a flat
front tire caused his fall, claiming the flat was caused by a faulty
rim strip that cut the tube. In fact he rode with too low inflation
pressure on a knobby large cross section tire after muddy trails,
descending a paved road where he rolled the tire that did not separate
from the rim.
When such a tire rolls to one side it gets snake bite cuts, not on the
side as though you were to pinch your cheek, but on the underside as
if you were to pinch your adam's apple. Visualize pinching under the
chin and leaning the head to one side as the tire did. This causes
the underside of the tube to get pinched.
The tube was about half the size of the tire volume, so when inflated
it was far larger than deflated. The pinch slits caused by rolling
forward while lying to one side were spaced about as far apart as the
rim strip was wide. Hence a plausible cause to an uninitiated viewer.
What doesn't work is that the tube would have cuts half as far apart
as the width of the tape (if it had been the cause) when inspected
because it shrank to its un-inflated size and would have marks half a
wide as the rim tape width. Beyond that, pinch flats always have an
impression of the bias ply casing embossed into the rubber leaving
characteristic cloth markings.
Above and beyond that, the rider lied about the circumstances,
something that was brought out by the service log of the rescue crew
that picked him up... at home instead of painfully lying on the road
at the scene as he claimed. Meanwhile he cooked up the story so he
could explain his crash to his peers as being someone else's fault.
In court, grazing incident photos clearly showed the cloth marks,
cited the circumstances under which they were made along with the
reconnaissance of the crash scene where there was a pot hole in the
apex of the turn that had to be avoided by cutting inside of it. This
rolled the tire.
All this didn't seem to bother Forester who, if he is as astute as he
puts forth, should have recognized the whole scenario as I did. His
claims did not hold up under scrutiny. The bicycle shop was spared
disaster.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Blair P. Houghton
>"Blair P. Houghton" <b@p.h> wrote in message
>news:T7XTc.21857504$Of.36...@news.easynews.com...
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >But, if you & I were riding at the same speed, you in your 50x13 and me in
>my
>> >53x11, the only difference would be our cadence.
>>
>> He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
>> both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
>> of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
>> time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
>> weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
>> while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
>> essentially all day.
>
>Yes, and if I'm riding all day, I'd likely use a higher cadence. The faster
>cadence will generally delay muscle fatigue to an extent, but for short, fast
>rides (1-2 hr), the lower cadence will support higher speeds because of
>aerobic efficiency, it's a tradeoff. I don't usually switch cassettes for
>rides, so I use a wide (11-28) to be able to use high gears on short rides and
>still have very low gears for all day climbing in ultra events.
>
>It's obvious from physics that there's a diminishing return from pedaling at
>high speeds,
It's *suggested* by physics that etc.
It's obvious from experience that pedalling at higher
speeds will allow you to go farther at the same ground
speed and therefore will be more efficient.
I.e., the return isn't diminishing because it still exists,
whereas the other one doesn't.
>and that more can be obtained from a good tuck than pedaling on a
>reasonably steep descent.
Pedalling is more critical on rises between steeps in
a descent. Maintaining that free speed will improve your
overall time the most.
>I'd say the highest gear you need is the one your
>most comfortable with under your highest speed pedaling scenarios, for me,
>that's a 53x11.
If you got room on your cassette for it, have fun.
--Blair
"I'm installing a JATO tomorrow."
Rick Onanian
wrote:
>Now don't get excited and not so pissed-off. These are only opinions.
I'll damn well do what I please!
;)
--
Rick Onanian
Rick Onanian
>mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
>the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground. This
Er....umm....was his chainring also mounted six inches out to the
side of the BB? Chainrings are generally very close to the center of
the bike; the chainring in question would have to be so large that a
flat tire would also cause the ring to touch the ground -- say, 1/2"
or so.
At that size, the chain must have had an idler right near the back
of the ring, causing intentional huge chain suck to keep the chain
from scraping the ground...
--
Rick Onanian
Rick Onanian
>He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
>both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
>of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
>time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
>weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
>while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
>essentially all day.
So what you're saying is that faster is definitely always better,
meaning 84 rpm is nowhere near the best. 150 rpm would be better by
that formula. 250 should be even better. Where does it all end?
Nope, I've observed that my average speed is higher, my distance
longer, and I feel better if I do 60 to 70 rpm. I spent a few years
trying to train my cadence up, and it was only when I realized that
I can pedal a slower cadence that my output finally became useful
for riding with others.
Human bodies are not all the same. One size does not fit all. (Is
anybody tired of reading that yet?)
--
Rick Onanian
Bill Baka
Remember that we are talking about pedaling at 105 MPH so the chainring
would have to be about 100 teeth or he would have had to pedal 200 RPM.
The angle of the chain would have been from the bottom of the chainring
up to the rear gears which would have been 11-12 teeth.
I don't know if the article is google-able or not.
foldedpath
news:k3l2i09g97a8lfarc...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:34:54 -0700, Bill Baka <bb...@syix.com>
> wrote:
>>fellow doing 105 MPH behind a train that had been rigged with a
> ...
>>mentioned that his front chainring was so large that if he angled
>>the bicycle over just a few degrees it would hit the ground. This
>
> Er....umm....was his chainring also mounted six inches out to the
> side of the BB? Chainrings are generally very close to the center of
> the bike; the chainring in question would have to be so large that a
> flat tire would also cause the ring to touch the ground -- say, 1/2"
> or so.
It looks like that's what these early drafting record guys were using.
Scroll down to the third photo:
http://www.bicyclemuseum.com/Html/bike8.html
--
Mike Barrs
Frank Krygowski
>
> Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to BS
> that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story was
> untrue. These were up to million dollar damage claims.
>
> OK, so you need to hear the typical story:...
Well, not really.
Jobst, what you've described is a case where you disagreed with
Forester. You may have been correct, and he may have been wrong. But
even though the courts apparently agreed with you, I'd hesitate to make
my own judgement without hearing the explanation from the other side of
the case.
Nonetheless, even if Forester were proven absolutely wrong in the case
in question, that doesn't mean his advice is generally worthless. Odd
as it seems, intelligent and knowledgeable people are sometimes wrong.
Hell, even _I_ have been wrong at times. ;-) (Perhaps you have too?)
I know little about Sloan, except that his books seem to me to be filled
with misinformation, and his publisher must have paid him by the word.
(Misinformation: his "700 centimeter tires" was a classic.)
I know less about Green, but what I've read doesn't bode well.
I've met Forester and corresponded with him fairly extensively. I've
also debated him in these sorts of forums. Obviously, I don't think
he's always right. But I do think he's got a lot on the ball.
And I think we've beaten this sub-thread sufficiently into the ground.
Although you may think I'm wrong.
Bernie
That Letourner replica looks like the Schwinn bike that is hanging in
Cap's bike shop in Sapperton, BC. I know speed records were broken on
it by a French daredevil. It used to be in a display case, but the
newer store has it on the wall. It has wooden rims. Must get back
there for another look.
Bernie
Bill Davidson
Hmm. Based upon some rough calculations and that picture, I'd guess
that front chainring is somewhere in the neighborhood of 120T.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to
>> BS that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story
>> was untrue. These were up to million dollar damage claims.
>> OK, so you need to hear the typical story:...
> Well, not really.
> Jobst, what you've described is a case where you disagreed with
> Forester. You may have been correct, and he may have been wrong.
> But even though the courts apparently agreed with you, I'd hesitate
> to make my own judgement without hearing the explanation from the
> other side of the case.
I beg your pardon. This is not contention, the evidence was blatantly
apparent and his scenario for the plaintiff was so flawed that it
jumps out at anyone who understands flat tires and elasticity of
tubes. I gave you the criteria and evidence, I think you can see that
although it may not have been obvious to the average bicycle wrench,
it should be obvious to a person with Forester's supposed credentials.
I took the trouble to recreate the rolled tire with an identical new
wheel with the same components.
> Nonetheless, even if Forester were proven absolutely wrong in the
> case in question, that doesn't mean his advice is generally
> worthless. Odd as it seems, intelligent and knowledgeable people
> are sometimes wrong. Hell, even _I_ have been wrong at times. ;-)
> (Perhaps you have too?)
I don't see why you intercede as an apologist for these witnesses that
lie on the stand. Their dodge is that the subject is so arcane that
they just made a mistake. That is not probable if you see what an
intricate fabric they weave to nail the defense of the bicycle
industry.
It means he lied or is incompetent. It took some skill to present a
believable story that fit plaintiff's scenario. He did that admirably
although it was all made of hot air that fell apart in light of the
evidence. It's not that he was wrong, he fabricated an explanation
that fit the scenario his client wanted. That is prostitution. As I
said, I have testified against these guys and in the presence of
someone who understands the material, they stumble all over themselves
in their double talk. I suppose you know that the truth is recounted
easily but to make fabrications line up under examination is tricky.
Just the demeanor of the witness makes that apparent.
> I know little about Sloan, except that his books seem to me to be
> filled with misinformation, and his publisher must have paid him by
> the word. (Misinformation: his "700 centimeter tires" was a
> classic.)
> I know less about Green, but what I've read doesn't bode well.
He is a real ambulance chaser. I had his testimony disqualified in
two cases at once because he told conflicting stories in a case
against Trek and Huffy using the same "evidence" to achieve opposite
results. I was involved in only one of the cases and advised the
attorney to go see what green was saying at the other court.
> I've met Forester and corresponded with him fairly extensively.
> I've also debated him in these sorts of forums. Obviously, I don't
> think he's always right. But I do think he's got a lot on the ball.
We in the local bikie community did not coin the name "Defective
Cycling" for nothing.
And I think we've beaten this sub-thread sufficiently into the ground.
Although you may think I'm wrong. I don't think I said that but
experts who make money from testifying against the bicycle industry
are lowlifes. "Why everyone knows that bicycling is dangerous" is
their point of departure.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Peter Cole
> >
at
> >high speeds,
>
> It's *suggested* by physics that etc.
Well, to be picky, it's *proven* by physics. Aerodynamic drag dominates at
high speed and follows the cube law, so it takes a lot more power to go just a
little faster. All things being equal, at some point you're better off saving
your energy for a place where it will do more good.
>
> It's obvious from experience that pedalling at higher
> speeds will allow you to go farther at the same ground
> speed and therefore will be more efficient.
No, that's not obvious at all, you must not race.
>
> >and that more can be obtained from a good tuck than pedaling on a
> >reasonably steep descent.
>
> Pedalling is more critical on rises between steeps in
> a descent. Maintaining that free speed will improve your
> overall time the most.
I have no idea what this means.
>
> >I'd say the highest gear you need is the one your
> >most comfortable with under your highest speed pedaling scenarios, for me,
> >that's a 53x11.
>
> If you got room on your cassette for it, have fun.
I had room for it on a 7-speed.
Curtis L. Russell
<mba...@NOSPAM.nightviewer.com> wrote:
>It looks like that's what these early drafting record guys were using.
>Scroll down to the third photo:
>
>http://www.bicyclemuseum.com/Html/bike8.html
>
>--
>Mike Barrs
Well, that was the bike and the rider I was referring to. He jumped
the record from under 100 mph to the 108 p;lus, so I'm not sure where
there would be a place for a 105 mph record behind a train. This
record attempt was behind a car, on a newly built roadway IIRC.
This bike will have to tilt quite a bit before actually touching the
chainring to the ground, not just a few degrees. I doubt you can get a
single speed with a gear ratio of this to move without going off line
by more than a few degrees.
Frank Krygowski
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:56:19 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>
>>He's spinning at 84 rpm and you're mashing at 67. You're
>>both doing 26 mph. You're both putting out the same amount
>>of power. But you're holding a higher force over a longer
>>time in each stroke. If you're lifting weight, the heavier
>>weight can make you train to exhaustion within a few reps,
>>while you might push a much lighter one at a higher rate
>>essentially all day.
>
>
> So what you're saying is that faster is definitely always better,
> meaning 84 rpm is nowhere near the best. 150 rpm would be better by
> that formula. 250 should be even better. Where does it all end?
I'd say it ends at a point determined by the skill level and (to a
lesser extent) physical capacity of the rider.
You can see, by sitting on an exercise bike with zero resistance, that
there is a maximum speed at which you can move your legs. At that
cadence, your power output is zero, because you produce velocity but no
force.
You can see, by use of a weight machine, that there's a maximum force
you can move with your legs. At anything beyond that force, your power
output is zero because you produce force but no velocity.
For riders new to this game, the best balance seems to be about 60 rpm.
The main reason is that 60 rpm mimics a typical walking cadence,
something for which we are evolved (or created, if you prefer).
But most cyclists learn by experience that once they train themselves to
do so, they ride longer and faster with less fatigue if they use
cadences closer to 90 rpm.
Some people never do this, of course. Whether it's because they are
biologically different, or because they never give it a fair chance, is
difficult to tell.
--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
Peter Cole
>
> For riders new to this game, the best balance seems to be about 60 rpm.
> The main reason is that 60 rpm mimics a typical walking cadence,
> something for which we are evolved (or created, if you prefer).
>
> But most cyclists learn by experience that once they train themselves to
> do so, they ride longer and faster with less fatigue if they use
> cadences closer to 90 rpm.
It's a tradeoff between fatigue and C-V capacity. When you're going for max
sustained power (like climbing) you're C-V limited, and higher rpm is less
efficient. When you're going for long distances (or any time you're not C-V
limited), higer rpm translated into lower peak muscular contraction/force, so
you'll lower fatigue.