Climbing is hard
Bob the Builder
I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite
fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so
I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin
thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 -
36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this
detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on
the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep
being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38
years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep
and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to
sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis
problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Any opinions guys or help? Thanks.
Bob
Simonb
> Any opinions guys or help? Thanks.
At 16.5 stone you'll never be a great climber no matter how strong you are.
It's physics, innit. How you'd lose weight I don't know, as you say you're
already fit. Is it possible to somehow lose muscle mass?
Call me Bob
wrote:
>I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite
>fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so
>I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin
>thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 -
>36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this
>detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on
>the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
>look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
They weigh several stones less than you. Me too in fact, I'm a similar
build to you. Actually, wondering about your performance as compared
to that of armstrong and ullrich is only going to lead to confusion
and disappointment all round, best not think about them. :)
Weight is a critical factor when it comes to climbing, heaving the
extra mass upwards adds a great deal of work to the equation, and the
extra bulk in the upper body doesn't really help very much in that
situation. Being small and lean gives a great headstart when you have
a mountain to get up. Sprinting as you have noticed is a very
different kettle of fish.
>What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep
>being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38
>years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that steep
>and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to
>sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with tis
>problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Losing weight will make you faster up hills for sure, and so will
climbing more hills. Practice makes perfect.
Incidently, you say you can "easily hit" your max heart rate on long
hills, that suggests to me than that your max HR is higher than you
believe. By definition reaching that max is a difficult and very
painful thing to do, particularly on a bike I understand.
--
Call me "Bob"
"More oneness, less categories,
Open hearts, no strategies"
Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.
Clive George
news:31p25vF...@individual.net...
> What am I doing wrong? I can sprint as well as almost anyone yet I keep
> being dropped on hills. My rest pulse is 39 and my max is 187 and I am 38
> years old. I can easily hit my HR max on long hills that are not that
steep
> and I am getting dropped. This is quite embarrasing for me and I need to
> sort the problem out. I feel I need to lose some weight. I reckon with
tis
> problem sorted I could be a really fast rider.
Is it a problem? If you want to be a great climbing cyclist, then yes,
you've probably got too much weight - probably several stone too much.
However you could look at something else, eg track, where your strength will
be more of an advantage (track riders have more upper body strength than
climbers), and just accept you're not going to be totally wonderful up
hills.
Depends how much you want to sacrifice to your cycling.
cheers,
clive
Tony Raven
> Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
> look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
>
If you read his book Armstrong was not a very good climber but the
medical treatment he underwent changed significantly his body shape and
with it his ability. So unless you are planning something radical, you
may just have to accept it.
Tony
Michael MacClancy
Why do you think the upper body muscle will help?
For reference, I think Lance is about 5ft 10 inches and weighs about 11st
4lbs when racing.
This looks like a helpful link:
http://www.insidetri.com/train/tips/articles/1639.0.html
--
Michael MacClancy
MSeries
I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds. Since
I lost four stones I can climb much better and faster than I used to be
able to and faster than some of the younger riders with whom I ride. My
waist is about 32". Upper body muscle is not useful for climbing, its
just weight to be carted around.
Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the
problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance
Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
MSeries
I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds. Since
Simon Brooke
('b...@bobson.com') wrote:
> Jeez,
> I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself
> quite
> fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36
> minutes so
> I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the
> javelin
> thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab
> (35 -
> 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is
> this
> detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the
> muscle on
> the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich
> do not look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
Lance has relatively little upper body development. Most of the really
good hillclimbers I know are built like whippets. Upper body weight
really does not help you on climbs.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.
Simon Brooke
MSeries ('skank...@hotmail.com') wrote:
>
> Bob the Builder wrote:
>> Jeez,
>> I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself
> quite
>> fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36
> minutes so
>> I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the
> javelin
>> thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab
> (35 -
>> 36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two).
>
> I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds.
Git.
Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose some).
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.
andrew carver
> For reference, I think Lance is about 5ft 10 inches and weighs about 11st
> 4lbs when racing.
The great (est?) hill climber Marco Pantani was around 59kg at his peak
which is about 9st 3lb!
And was doing loads drugs too.
Andrew
MSeries
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Git.
>
> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose
some).
>
I lost just under 4 stones in 2 years by healthy eating, very little
booze and plenty of miles. It wasn't really hard just takes lots of
time to put the miles in. My wife is on the healthy eating plan so its
easy for me to eat healthy too. She is also pretty cool about me being
out cycling so much. I realise not everyone is lucky enough to be able
to spend as much time as me indulging in cycling.
Michael MacClancy
>
> Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the
> problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance
> Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
Running almost certainly isn't the problem. Before he concentrated on
cycling Lance was an extremely good triathlete. If you want to lose weight
running is a better way to do it than cycling because the power output is
normally higher. It is also probably a better way of improving your
aerobic capacity. However, cycling is more specific in its muscle usage
than running so if you want to be a really good cyclist then you need to do
cycling specific exercises, including weight exercises for the legs.
I think you need to accept that you have some disadvantages when climbing
but you can almost certainly improve substantially.
--
Michael MacClancy
Zog The Undeniable
You will, as others have said, never be a GREAT climber. You should be
able, with training, to keep up with the rest of the pack.
Look up Eros Poli's stage win in the 1994 Tour de France if you want
true inspiration: he's 6'4" and was about 13.5 stone when he was racing,
yet he beat everyone over Mont Ventoux [1]. Magnus Backstedt is even
heavier IIRC, and he won Paris-Roubaix this year, although that's not
very hilly. You can often bump into Backstedt at Newport track because
he lives locally.
[1] actually, Poli *was* crap at climbing, but he'd put 25 minutes into
the peloton before the mountain - enough to keep him clear until the
finish at Carpentras. He said he only attacked because he had also been
out on his own for about 100 miles the previous day and was most annoyed
at being caught before the finish.
Bob the Builder
Many, many thanks for your thoughts and opinions. I feel the concensus is
that, sure losing weight will help no end but I should forget any Alpe
'd'Huez champion ambitions!!!
Thanks again,
Bob
"Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com> wrote in message
news:31p25vF...@individual.net...
Just zis Guy, you know?
<sben...@YOUAREALLNETDENIZENSwiderworld.co.uk> wrote in message
<41b75664$0$219$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>:
>At 16.5 stone you'll never be a great climber no matter how strong you are.
>It's physics, innit. How you'd lose weight I don't know, as you say you're
>already fit.
Keep climbing?
Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote in message <31p25vF...@individual.net>:
>Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
>look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
Well there you go. Ride your bike for a minimum of four hours a day,
every single day for six years, and you'll be well away :-)
Frankly those bastards piss me off no end. I am one of the fittest
people I know, and they go uphill faster than I ride on the flat. On
a recumbent! Bastards.
So, what to do. As everyone else says, keep the cadence high, the
gears low, keep your arse on the saddle as much as possible, and ride
that bike.
Now the important question: why should you care? Do they or do they
not wait for you at the top? Enjoy the ride, I say!
Dave Kahn
<si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>Lance has relatively little upper body development. Most of the really
>good hillclimbers I know are built like whippets. Upper body weight
>really does not help you on climbs.
Pictures can be deceptive because he has very good muscle definition.
His upper body muscles, though not bulky, are well toned and he has
very little fat when racing fit.
--
Dave...
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
Dave Kahn
<u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com>
>wrote in message <31p25vF...@individual.net>:
>
>>Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
>>look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
>
>Well there you go. Ride your bike for a minimum of four hours a day,
>every single day for six years, and you'll be well away :-)
>
>Frankly those bastards piss me off no end. I am one of the fittest
>people I know, and they go uphill faster than I ride on the flat. On
>a recumbent! Bastards.
There was a web site created by a Leftpondian that enabled you to
compare yourself directly with Armstrong or Pantani. You keyed in the
vital statistics of your best climb - distance, time, average
gradient, gradient and length of steepest section, total climb etc.
etc. etc. and it assessed what, for example, Lance's Alpe d'Huez
performance would translate to on your hill. The instructions were
quite involved but the last two were: read off Lance's or Marco's
virtual time for your hill; resolve not to give up the day job.
Richard Goodman
news:xqKtd.597$WE2...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> The great (est?) hill climber Marco Pantani was around 59kg at his peak
> which is about 9st 3lb!
>
Oh that's good to hear. There has to be some advantage to being skinny I
suppose. I should be able to go uphill like a rocket then, since I weigh
something less than 55kg.. Err.. wonder why I can't?
> And was doing loads drugs too.
Ah, that explains it - I can't afford them ;)
Rich
Jon Senior
> Running almost certainly isn't the problem. Before he concentrated on
> cycling Lance was an extremely good triathlete.
But not the cyclist he is today. If you look at the before / after
photos from the treatment, you'll see a serious change in physique.
Jon
Paul Rudin
> ... sixteen and a half stone ...
I fear that with that mass you're never going to be able to compete
with some smaller guys going up hills.
Console youself by challenging them to a rowing race or game of rugby
:)
> Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not look wimps on the upper body and
> they can climg brill !!
They're both a lot lighter than you than you. Also, they train
full-time...
Paul Rudin
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Git.
>>
>> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose
> some).
>>
>
> I lost just under 4 stones in 2 years by healthy eating, very little
> booze and plenty of miles. It wasn't really hard just takes lots of
> time to put the miles in. My wife is on the healthy eating plan so its
> easy for me to eat healthy too. She is also pretty cool about me being
> out cycling so much.
Yeah. My weight had slowly crept up to about 14 stone by the end of
last year, and I decided to lose a bit. I was kind of surprised how
easy it was once I decided to do it. I lost a stone and a half in the
first couple of months of the year, by making sure I did plenty of
excerize (running and cycling) and just being sensible about food. Cut
back on the booze, cake, chocolate, etc. and take relatively small
servings at meal-times (you can always have another snack later if you
get really hungry).
Now I'm stable at about 12.5 stone and eat what I feel like, although
I still do plenty of excersize. I might do another half a stone
sometime soon, but I don't really need to be any less than 12 (I'm 187
cm tall and 39 yrs old).
> I realise not everyone is lucky enough to be able to spend as much
> time as me indulging in cycling.
With work, wife and kids it can be hard to find time. Using cycling
as a form of transport helps - especially for the commute to work
since that happens every day. Also you can go riding recreationally
with the family. With smaller kids off-road is really better than on
the road I think. Of course small kids are going to be slow, but they
can improve fast. I often go out for a ride with my 6 year old
daughter, she can keep going for two or three hours without
problems. Kids don't seem to do hills well tho'...
Michael MacClancy
He was already an elite cyclist before the treatment, winning the 1993
World Championship at the age of 21, the 1995 San Sebastian and 1996 Fleche
Wallone. He had also won stages in the TdF.
The loss in upper body weight resulting from the treatment has undoubtedly
improved his cycling performance but it would have also improved his
running performance.
The problem that runners have when cycling is that cycling is more specific
in its muscle usage, demanding greater output from a smaller number of
muscles. My point to the OP was that if he wants to lose weight (and
doesn't have loads of time to cycle) he'll find running of assistance.
I have a suspicion that his cycling performance would improve fastest by
spending a lot of his cycling time on a turbo-trainer and doing weight
training for his legs with lots of repetitions with relatively light
weights.
--
Michael MacClancy
Jon Senior
> He was already an elite cyclist before the treatment, winning the 1993
> World Championship at the age of 21, the 1995 San Sebastian and 1996 Fleche
> Wallone. He had also won stages in the TdF.
True. I guess the loss of upper body strength (and mass) would have
impacted his swimming if he'd tried triathlons again.
> The loss in upper body weight resulting from the treatment has undoubtedly
> improved his cycling performance but it would have also improved his
> running performance.
>
> The problem that runners have when cycling is that cycling is more specific
> in its muscle usage, demanding greater output from a smaller number of
> muscles. My point to the OP was that if he wants to lose weight (and
> doesn't have loads of time to cycle) he'll find running of assistance.
Agreed.
> I have a suspicion that his cycling performance would improve fastest by
> spending a lot of his cycling time on a turbo-trainer and doing weight
> training for his legs with lots of repetitions with relatively light
> weights.
How depressing. I'd consider climbing more hills. Not as controlled, but
doesn't involved staring at the walls. ;-)
Jon
Doug
He is still a good runner and takes part in the occasional duathlon,
here's an old article about Dirty Du 02:
http://www.adventuresportsmagazine.com/features/armstrong.htm
"he's apparently never lost the itch for multi-sport racing Armstrong
set a new course record at the Dirty Duathlon on December 8, finishing
the technical course (3-mile trail run/12.3-mile mountain bike/3-mile
trail run) in 1 hour, 36 minute and 5 seconds. Surprisingly, he had to
come from behind to win after Jason Sager out-pedaled him by 2:24
on the biking leg."
Doug
dave
> Bob the Builder wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It's physics, innit. How you'd lose weight I don't know, as you say you're
>
>
Yep
Get cancer.. its how Lance did it
Dave
MSeries
> On 8 Dec 2004 11:51:55 -0800, MSeries wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lose some weight and practice rding the hills. Running might be the
>>problem, you need cycling muscles for cycling not running, I bet Lance
>>Armstrong doesn't run very far when he's in training.
>
>
> Running almost certainly isn't the problem.
I agree, it isn't what I said. Weight IMHO is the OPs "problem".
Shedding some will almost certainly not make him an "Eagle of Toledo" it
might not stop him being dropped by his friends but I will probably make
him a better climber than he is today. Regarding running and cycling,
since I stopped playing 5 a side football my cycling has been far easier.
Colin Blackburn
> Regarding running and cycling,
> since I stopped playing 5 a side football my cycling has been far easier.
How is this regarding running and cycling? 5-a-side football is
certainly not running. It might have frequent bursts of short runs but
the way you use your muscles is very different to running. Twisting,
turning, moving backwards, moving sideways, and dynamic stretching, for
instance, are not likely to form part of a normal run of mine.
Colin
Chris Malcolm
>On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:15:07 -0000, "Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com>
>wrote:
>>I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite
>>fit - though quite heavy with it. I can do five mile runs in 36 minutes so
>>I am no lard arse. I'd say I have the build of someone like the javelin
>>thrower Steve Backley with a lot of upper body muscle and some flab (35 -
>>36 inch waist and sixteen and a half stone and six feet two). Is this
>>detrimental to my climbing ability? What do you think? Surley the muscle on
>>the upper body must help to some extent. Certainly Lance and Ullrich do not
>>look wimps on the upper body and they can climg brill !!
>They weigh several stones less than you. Me too in fact, I'm a similar
>build to you. Actually, wondering about your performance as compared
>to that of armstrong and ullrich is only going to lead to confusion
>and disappointment all round, best not think about them. :)
>Weight is a critical factor when it comes to climbing, heaving the
>extra mass upwards adds a great deal of work to the equation, and the
>extra bulk in the upper body doesn't really help very much in that
>situation. Being small and lean gives a great headstart when you have
>a mountain to get up. Sprinting as you have noticed is a very
>different kettle of fish.
This has always puzzled me. Thinking in terms of simple physics, and
noting that lightweight cyclists race the same weight of bicycle as
heavier cyclists, and noting that as a person becomes more muscular,
the proprotion of muscle to the rest increases (e.g. your brain
doesn't get heavier), then the best hill climbers ought to be the
biggest guys with the most muscles, and the best of them will be those
with the largest bias towards leg musculature.
But it seems the skinny guys win.
This suggest to me that there is an optimally efficient human muscle
size, and that the larger muscles developed in gyms, while stronger,
must actually be significantly less efficient in terms of
power-to-weight ratio.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Dave Larrington
> I am 39, six feet two inches tall and weight 11 stones 3 pounds.
Simon Brooke:
> Simon (49, six foot two, thirteen stone and trying hard to lose some).
Gits the both of you. (40, 6'3", 94 kg and considering starting to smoke
again...)
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
Dave Larrington
> There was a web site created by a Leftpondian that enabled you to
> compare yourself directly with Armstrong or Pantani. You keyed in the
> vital statistics of your best climb - distance, time, average
> gradient, gradient and length of steepest section, total climb etc.
> etc. etc. and it assessed what, for example, Lance's Alpe d'Huez
> performance would translate to on your hill. The instructions were
> quite involved but the last two were: read off Lance's or Marco's
> virtual time for your hill; resolve not to give up the day job.
In the Centrum Ronde Van Vlaanderen in Oudenaarde, there's a bike on a
trainer hooked up to a computer simulation of one of the local "murs", on
which you can go up against a virtual Peter van Petegem. I beat him by
about three seconds, but of course it takes no account of Pie Consumption
and general lardiness. Put the pair of us on a /real/ hill and I suspect
things would be slightly different...
Michael MacClancy
>
> This has always puzzled me. Thinking in terms of simple physics, and
> noting that lightweight cyclists race the same weight of bicycle as
> heavier cyclists, and noting that as a person becomes more muscular,
> the proprotion of muscle to the rest increases (e.g. your brain
> doesn't get heavier), then the best hill climbers ought to be the
> biggest guys with the most muscles, and the best of them will be those
> with the largest bias towards leg musculature.
>
> But it seems the skinny guys win.
>
> This suggest to me that there is an optimally efficient human muscle
> size, and that the larger muscles developed in gyms, while stronger,
> must actually be significantly less efficient in terms of
> power-to-weight ratio.
But you also need to consider the weight of the skeleton, internal organs
(perhaps bigger people do have bigger brains), skin and body fat, all of
which will be greater for bigger people and add nothing (larger heart
apart) to climbing ability.
--
Michael MacClancy
MSeries
Its the closest I am ever likely to get to running. We never won any
games when we didn't run !!
James Annan
> This has always puzzled me. Thinking in terms of simple physics, and
> noting that lightweight cyclists race the same weight of bicycle as
> heavier cyclists, and noting that as a person becomes more muscular,
> the proprotion of muscle to the rest increases (e.g. your brain
> doesn't get heavier), then the best hill climbers ought to be the
> biggest guys with the most muscles, and the best of them will be those
> with the largest bias towards leg musculature.
>
> But it seems the skinny guys win.
>
> This suggest to me that there is an optimally efficient human muscle
> size, and that the larger muscles developed in gyms, while stronger,
> must actually be significantly less efficient in terms of
> power-to-weight ratio.
Lots of things only scale with area rather than volume, such as lung
surface area, arterial cross-section. These are the limiting factors
(well at least something similar probably is). It is well established
that lightweights generally have higher (aerobic, at least)
power-to-weight ratios than heavyweights and I'm not aware of any
significant limits to that within a reasonably normal range of sizes.
James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
Paul Rudin
>
> This has always puzzled me. Thinking in terms of simple physics, and
> noting that lightweight cyclists race the same weight of bicycle as
> heavier cyclists, and noting that as a person becomes more muscular,
> the proprotion of muscle to the rest increases (e.g. your brain
> doesn't get heavier), then the best hill climbers ought to be the
> biggest guys with the most muscles, and the best of them will be those
> with the largest bias towards leg musculature.
Yebut, presumably for cycling up hills it's got to be the right
muscles. Upper body strength has little part to play, so big muscles
in the arms, chest and back are more or less just extra baggage.
James Annan
> Oh that's good to hear. There has to be some advantage to being skinny I
> suppose. I should be able to go uphill like a rocket then, since I weigh
> something less than 55kg.. Err.. wonder why I can't?
You've had your legs amputated?
Arthur Clune
: Gits the both of you. (40, 6'3", 94 kg and considering starting to smoke
: again...)
You ride a recumbent though don't you? Being fit seems pretty optional :)
Arthur (retires to flame proof area)
--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness
Dave Larrington
> Dave Larrington <smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Gits the both of you. (40, 6'3", 94 kg and considering starting to
>> smoke again...)
>
> You ride a recumbent though don't you? Being fit seems pretty
> optional :)
You are a bad man and run a bad railway! In 1996 I weighed about 80 kg (and
still rode a recumbent). Since giving up the fags in 2001 I reached a high
of m>100 kg though as far as fitness goes, I'm faster (on level ground) than
I've ever been.
However, my Sinister Agents tell me that Mr. Fleming has a Velokraft NoCom
for next season so I shall have to find a plausible reason for not doing a
full season. Bah!
Richard Goodman
news:31qufiF...@individual.net...
> Richard Goodman wrote:
>
>
>> Oh that's good to hear. There has to be some advantage to being skinny I
>> suppose. I should be able to go uphill like a rocket then, since I weigh
>> something less than 55kg.. Err.. wonder why I can't?
>
> You've had your legs amputated?
>
> James
Oi! Ok I admit I'm short, but I'm not that short!
Rich
Jack Ouzzi
wrote:
ANDS get lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and €€€€€€€€€€€€ as an incentive to do
it !!
Alan Braggins
>Dave Larrington <smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>: Gits the both of you. (40, 6'3", 94 kg and considering starting to smoke
>: again...)
>
>You ride a recumbent though don't you? Being fit seems pretty optional :)
I'm about the same age and height, and a bit heavier than Dave. Clearly
someone ought to give me a recumbent....
(Though I'm more than 10kg lighter than I was last year, and I don't smoke.)
Peter B
"dave" <dav...@jeack.com.au> wrote in message
news:41b83...@news.iprimus.com.au...
He was originally a tri-athlete with the neccessary upper body strength for
swimming. After recovering he concentrated on cycling so didn't re-develop
his upper body.
Cancer doesn't play a part in this except for the involuntry weight loss.
Pete
Mike Causer
> I'm about the same age and height, and a bit heavier than Dave. Clearly
> someone ought to give me a recumbent....
Come on! D-Tek are visible across the fields on a clear day and you have
too many tin-cans in the yard already. Sell one and give the money to
Kevin ;-))
In Alan's defence (although I know very well that he can conduct his own)
he *does* have more bicycles than cars. Even if they are somewhat
difficult for a much shorter (and lighter) rider to handle while Alan
is off on my 'bent.
Mike
Tony W
"Bob the Builder" <b...@bobson.com> wrote in message
news:31p25vF...@individual.net...
> Jeez,
> I cannot belive how hard this climbing lark is!!! I consider myself quite
> fit - though quite heavy with it.
There is the problem -- you're having to lug all that weight up the hill and
expend massXheight of energy to do it.
Drop a cog, take it a bit slower and keep doing it. You will be surprised
how quickly you will improve.
Also, for small hills on a regular route you will quickly learn how to build
up speed before the hill, where to hit the pedals and where to just drift.
That makes a massive difference.
Have fun.
T
Alan Braggins
>On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:11:48 +0000, Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> I'm about the same age and height, and a bit heavier than Dave. Clearly
>> someone ought to give me a recumbent....
>
>Come on! D-Tek are visible across the fields on a clear day and you have
>too many tin-cans in the yard already. Sell one and give the money to
>Kevin ;-))
I have tried persuading my wife that we don't really need two cars. (Having
one out of action confirmed this, but also confirmed that it can be a pain in
the neck. Having a nasty cold recently hasn't being encouraging either, though
I probably could cycle to Newmarket station if I was well enough to go to
work but not up to cycling the whole way.)
Neither of the cars would sell for enough to pay for e.g. a new ICE
(especially if I can't work out why the Ka now whines in fifth), though the
savings on tax/insurance/servicing would within a few years, and I don't
think my mother-in-law would be happy if we sold her car (nor would the lodger
be if we sold his) (I think there were some guests' cars there as well when
you saw them, adding to the "too many tin-cans" impression).
I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of bike bits.
Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I haven't been to Kevin
for the "try out assorted recumbents" session yet though, that plan got rather
disrupted by the car dying.) I need to learn how to drive the GIMP too (and/or
a suitable CAD program). And probably to decide that I really do need to trust
my welding for at least some structural stuff rather than trying to avoid it.
>In Alan's defence (although I know very well that he can conduct his own)
>he *does* have more bicycles than cars. Even if they are somewhat
>difficult for a much shorter (and lighter) rider to handle while Alan
>is off on my 'bent.
The folder (which I didn't have at that time) would suit a much shorter and
lighter rider if I took the extra-long seatpost off. (Consists of the original
seatpost, plus half a seatpost and a length of seattube off another bike.)
Mike Causer
> I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of bike
> bits. Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I haven't been
> to Kevin for the "try out assorted recumbents" session yet though, that
> plan got rather disrupted by the car dying.) I need to learn how to drive
> the GIMP too (and/or a suitable CAD program). And probably to decide that
> I really do need to trust my welding for at least some structural stuff
> rather than trying to avoid it.
Get a copy of this: http://www.bhpc.org.uk/booklet.html
For free CAD you could try Qcad http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html which
is OK for 2D work. Or, if you can find a working Sun 3 I've got Medusa 6
on tape...
Rather than MIG welding for hand-made thin-section bike stuff it's normal
to braze. Bottisham Village College used to do welding & brazing
evening classes, but as their website is fubared atm I can't tell if they
still do.
Mike
Alan Braggins
>On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:20:02 +0000, Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>
>> I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of bike
>> bits. Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I haven't been
>> to Kevin for the "try out assorted recumbents" session yet though, that
>> plan got rather disrupted by the car dying.) I need to learn how to drive
>> the GIMP too (and/or a suitable CAD program). And probably to decide that
>> I really do need to trust my welding for at least some structural stuff
>> rather than trying to avoid it.
>
>Get a copy of this: http://www.bhpc.org.uk/booklet.html
I think it still said "new edition coming soon" last time I looked.
Definitely looks worthwhile.
>For free CAD you could try Qcad http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html which
>is OK for 2D work.
http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad_downloads.html says demo version times out
after 10 minutes, buy a licence for production use.
http://www.freebyte.com/cad/cad.htm#2D3DCADSystems has a selection of other
possibilities.
But "take side view photos, scale to match, cut and paste bits" will
probably do for rough 2D design.
> Or, if you can find a working Sun 3 I've got Medusa 6
>on tape...
I've got an Amiga, which is at least 680x0 based. There was a very basic
(simple command line stuff only) Amiga emulator that ran on the Sun, but
the other way around could be trickier though, and I'm not sure if it's
working anyway. I am certain I don't have a tape drive.
But I think JohnM might have the appropriate kit.
(And somewhere I have Imagine for the Amiga, I ought to try transferring
it onto UAE. Assuming I can read the Amiga floppies.)
>Rather than MIG welding for hand-made thin-section bike stuff it's normal
>to braze.
Yes, but I already have the MIG welder and a bit of experience with it,
and the pile of scrap frames are thick-section welded ones (thicker than,
say, the Alfetta body panels I got the MIG for).
There is an obvious downside to that, but it's not as if there are any
big hills locally anyway.
Mike Causer
>>Get a copy of this: http://www.bhpc.org.uk/booklet.html
>
> I think it still said "new edition coming soon" last time I looked.
> Definitely looks worthwhile.
Yup, new edition is out now (and I must get one too).
> http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad_downloads.html says demo version times out
> after 10 minutes, buy a licence for production use.
Ah yes, there's a slightly older version available as an rpm with no
restrictions, or if you have Qt build the current version from source.
> http://www.freebyte.com/cad/cad.htm#2D3DCADSystems has a selection of
> other possibilities.
Mainly for MS-Windows, there's very little for Linux.
> I've got an Amiga, which is at least 680x0 based. There was a very basic
> (simple command line stuff only) Amiga emulator that ran on the Sun, but
> the other way around could be trickier though, and I'm not sure if it's
> working anyway. I am certain I don't have a tape drive. But I think
> JohnM might have the appropriate kit.
Only Sun 4s the last time I was in his server (bed)room.
> Yes, but I already have the MIG welder and a bit of experience with it,
> and the pile of scrap frames are thick-section welded ones (thicker
> than, say, the Alfetta body panels I got the MIG for).
Well watch out for distortion then....
Mike
Simon Brooke
<pan.2004.12.13....@firstnamelastname.com.invalid>, Mike
Causer ('mi...@firstnamelastname.com.invalid') wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:20:02 +0000, Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>
>> I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of
>> bike bits. Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I
>> haven't been to Kevin for the "try out assorted recumbents" session
>> yet though, that plan got rather disrupted by the car dying.) I need
>> to learn how to drive the GIMP too (and/or a suitable CAD program).
>> And probably to decide that I really do need to trust my welding for
>> at least some structural stuff rather than trying to avoid it.
>
> Get a copy of this: http://www.bhpc.org.uk/booklet.html
>
> For free CAD you could try Qcad http://www.ribbonsoft.com/qcad.html
> which
> is OK for 2D work. Or, if you can find a working Sun 3 I've got
> Medusa 6 on tape...
I use AC3D, from here: <URL:http://www.ac3d.org/>. It's not true CAD,
since it doesn't really know about solids and doesn't have any real
dimensioning; but it is an excellent 3d modeller and visualiser. It's
shareware, but the license is inexpensive and in my opinion it's great
value for money. The author is also pretty good at responding to
questions and suggestions. It exports both to AutoCAD and to POVRay.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military
Jon Senior
>
> I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of bike bits.
> Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I haven't been to Kevin
> for the "try out assorted recumbents" session yet though, that plan got rather
> disrupted by the car dying.) I need to learn how to drive the GIMP too (and/or
> a suitable CAD program). And probably to decide that I really do need to trust
> my welding for at least some structural stuff rather than trying to avoid it.
Compare and contrast. You have already got some experience with welding,
are used to the welder you own and are using bike tubing.
I had no experience of welding, have access to an arc welder which is
easily twice my age and am now almost reaching a passable skill level
(Somewhere approaching almost competent!) as I reach the end of
producing my second frame.
I would strongly advise buying Atomic Zombies Bicycle Builders Bonanza
or at least looking at the site (www.atomiczombie.com). If for no other
reason than you'll realise that if he's still alive, it can't be that
difficult.
Jon
Alan Braggins
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>> I do however have an angle grinder, MIG welder, and a small pile of bike bits.
>> Watch this space, but without holding your breath. (I haven't been to Kevin
>> for the "try out assorted recumbents" session yet though, that plan got rather
>> disrupted by the car dying.) I need to learn how to drive the GIMP too (and/or
>> a suitable CAD program). And probably to decide that I really do need to trust
>> my welding for at least some structural stuff rather than trying to avoid it.
>
>Compare and contrast. You have already got some experience with welding,
>are used to the welder you own and are using bike tubing.
>
>I had no experience of welding, have access to an arc welder which is
>easily twice my age and am now almost reaching a passable skill level
>(Somewhere approaching almost competent!) as I reach the end of
>producing my second frame.
The assumption of a second frame is one reason for not worrying too much
about the weight of the thick tubed welded frames....
As it happens I do have an arc welder too, but I've never used it (it was
my father-in-law's), and when I did do arc welding it was on _much_ thicker
stuff.
>I would strongly advise buying Atomic Zombies Bicycle Builders Bonanza
That was my birthday present to myself. I'm thinking of something a bit
like the Kool Kat, but based on a 26" wheel frame (with a 20" fork).
I'm undecided between a 20" rear wheel, a 26" rear wheel with a very
steep head angle and hardly any trail, and cutting and bending the frame
to have a 26" rear wheel, 20" front wheel, and the headtube back at the
angle it first thought of.
(Or using a lighterweight fork that I could bend to change the trail, but
that's for a 451mm wheel I don't have, and would need either a lot of
threading or welding a different headtube in place (but does have a much
longer stem which might work for OSS without welding an extension onto it).)
>or at least looking at the site (www.atomiczombie.com). If for no other
>reason than you'll realise that if he's still alive, it can't be that
>difficult.
Hmm. You're not getting me on one of those tallbikes just because I've
seen photos of someone else doing it....
I'm not convinced by something as low as the Marauder for commuting or
town use either.
Jon Senior
> The assumption of a second frame is one reason for not worrying too much
> about the weight of the thick tubed welded frames....
You claim the first one was a prototype and treat the excess weight as a
good training exercise.
> As it happens I do have an arc welder too, but I've never used it (it was
> my father-in-law's), and when I did do arc welding it was on _much_ thicker
> stuff.
I've been playing with ours a lot recently and have finally managed to
get the hang (Sort of) of welding thinner tubes. I did however punch
neatly through the front derailleur mount tube by leaving the current at
70A and then attempting to weld a < 1mm walled tube to 1.2mm wall one. I
then got to spend about 4 hours this evening, laying up material around
the tube until I could successfully weld it. Grr.
> That was my birthday present to myself. I'm thinking of something a bit
> like the Kool Kat, but based on a 26" wheel frame (with a 20" fork).
> I'm undecided between a 20" rear wheel, a 26" rear wheel with a very
> steep head angle and hardly any trail, and cutting and bending the frame
> to have a 26" rear wheel, 20" front wheel, and the headtube back at the
> angle it first thought of.
> (Or using a lighterweight fork that I could bend to change the trail, but
> that's for a 451mm wheel I don't have, and would need either a lot of
> threading or welding a different headtube in place (but does have a much
> longer stem which might work for OSS without welding an extension onto it).)
My first plan for after Christmas is to make a Spincycle for the Bike
Station. I can see us getting grief from the management though, as the
station car park is probably not the best place for it, but is the only
large open area available.
> Hmm. You're not getting me on one of those tallbikes just because I've
> seen photos of someone else doing it....
Coward. I'd love to make one and then commute to work on it, but given
the hill I have to travel I can see a disaster in the making. Too high
for a Martlehat to be any use! ;-)
> I'm not convinced by something as low as the Marauder for commuting or
> town use either.
I'd stick a flag on it. TBH, the fact that you are so strikingly
different means you'd only have problems if you tried to jump places in
stationary traffic.
Jon
David Martin
Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
> My first plan for after Christmas is to make a Spincycle for the Bike
> Station. I can see us getting grief from the management though, as the
> station car park is probably not the best place for it, but is the only
> large open area available.
You and me both..
I have most of the necessary bits in the garage, just need to find some
time.
I'd like to find a smaller wheel than 26" though.
..d
Simon Brooke
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> ('') wrote:
>> Hmm. You're not getting me on one of those tallbikes just because
>> I've seen photos of someone else doing it....
>
> Coward. I'd love to make one and then commute to work on it, but given
> the hill I have to travel I can see a disaster in the making. Too high
> for a Martlehat to be any use! ;-)
You notice that the place where Atomic Zombie lives is extremely flat. I
suspect that this makes the skycycle rather easier to deal with; I've
certainly no plans to try riding one around here.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.
Dave Larrington
> ISTR Chalo Colina admitting in rec.bicycles.tech that he had carved a
> large groove in his scalp by riding his tallbike under an awning. A
> PFDB might have helped in that case.
One Bob Johnson competed in the BHPC race at Milton Keynes on a tallbike in
2001, and reported that the martlehat was very useful when carving through
overhanging trees...
Alan Braggins
>> town use either.
>
>I'd stick a flag on it. TBH, the fact that you are so strikingly
>different means you'd only have problems if you tried to jump places in
>stationary traffic.
I have a car for use when I'm happy to sit stationary in traffic as
normal bikes pass it....
dkahn400
> Alan Braggins wrote:
> > Hmm. You're not getting me on one of those tallbikes just because
> > I've seen photos of someone else doing it....
>
> Coward. I'd love to make one and then commute to work on it, but
> given the hill I have to travel I can see a disaster in the making.
> Too high for a Martlehat to be any use! ;-)
ISTR Chalo Colina admitting in rec.bicycles.tech that he had carved a
large groove in his scalp by riding his tallbike under an awning. A
PFDB might have helped in that case.
--
Dave...
dkahn400
Simon Brooke wrote:
> You notice that the place where Atomic Zombie lives is extremely
> flat. I suspect that this makes the skycycle rather easier to deal
> with; I've certainly no plans to try riding one around here.
I'm sure you could find a flat bit to practice on before tackling the
Dalbeattie Slab.
--
Dave...
Jon Senior
> You and me both..
>
> I have most of the necessary bits in the garage, just need to find some
> time.
>
> I'd like to find a smaller wheel than 26" though.
Next time you're in Edinburgh pop into the bike station. They have a
huge pile of 20" (And similar) wheels out the back. The bearings may
need a service, but it'll hardly need to be perfect!
Jon
David Martin
Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
Every time I go through Waverly (fairly infrequently) the Bike Station is
closed. I'll have to ask a colleague who commutes Edi-Dundee (for the next
week anyway).
..d