The best cycling videos, ever
Gino Zahnd
are fantastic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyz5d3entBw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGYngjxJP1I&feature=related
Gino, unfortunately in the pixel mines today, Zahnd
Ryan Watson
Thanks for posting that, Gino!
That 15 minutes of video was more entertaining that the last 4 years of
OLN race coverage put together.
Ryan
charlie
you notice is a lack of Styrofoam head adornment not to mention the
beer at rest stops and the normal clothing. I like the fact that these
folks ride (together). This type of cycling is what I remember as a
boy, all the way until about 1979 when the first helmets were sold.
From there, cycling started to take an odd turn with all of the racing
mentality. I remember bicycle touring to be the 'cats meow' and rarely
saw any bike that wasn't lugged steel. I remember slobbering over a
full Campagnolo DeRosa in Bicycling magazine about 1975-76. If only I
were 18 again and 158 pounds. Fast forward to
2008...............49years old and add 100 pounds. Guess I should have
kept riding all those years. It's amazing how things come full circle
sometimes. I look forward to continuing to ride for pleasure.
On Jan 29, 12:52 pm, "Gino Zahnd" <ginoza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This has been going around, so sorry if you've seen it. These videos
> are fantastic!
>
Steve Palincsar
> I have this film on my site and enjoy it very much........one thing
> you notice is a lack of Styrofoam head adornment not to mention the
> beer at rest stops and the normal clothing. I like the fact that these
> folks ride (together). This type of cycling is what I remember as a
> boy, all the way until about 1979 when the first helmets were sold.
A small point of order: the first specifically bicycle helmet, the MSR,
went on the market in 1974. The Bell Biker came the following year, in
1975. Prior to 1974, those of us who wished to wear helmets were mostly
using hockey helmets.
Gino Zahnd
Love!
-gino
charlie
orange hard shell MSR helmets (purchased about 1979) and use it still
in the winter. I suppose its not much good now but then most helmets
leave me with doubts. I also have a Bell biker and trust it more than
my new fangled Bell. I never used a helmet growing up and neither did
anyone I knew. I remember someone using their football helmet
(probably a better choice, even now) when I was around 8 or 9 years
old and I even tried my Dads old captured German army helmet but that
thing was heavy. Growing up in the Northwest I didn't know anyone who
played hockey which was more popular in the northeast. I even remember
my first lugged bicycle, a orange Volkscycle that I later sold when I
got married. My friend and I rode all over in the 70's before we
could drive. He had a root beer brown colored Astra. Both those bikes
had cottered steel cranks and ten gears. I think the tubing was seamed
as they weren't high priced bicycles. I remember reading bicycling
magazine when the photos were mostly black and white. Maybe thats why
I like the riv reader so much since it takes me back to what I know
and can identify with.
b hamon
Not so old, not a guy. And I'm STILL pining. Great
stuff.
Beth
http://bikelovejones.livejournal.com
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Gino Zahnd
Harry
George Schick
things were in the event of a crash (compared to today's helmets) it's
apparent that they provided little more than psychological
protection...
David Faller
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 10:20 PM
Will
line with what we read from Grant Peterson and Jan Heine (Bicycle
Quarterly) today? BIG frames, minimal standover clearance, about a
hand's width of visible seatpost and handlebars at saddle's height.
Gorgeous fenders too. In the video there are a fair number of touring
bikes with drop bars but no derailleurs. Internally-geared hubs?
Singlespeeds?
P.S. In case you missed it, see the related thread ("Rail Travel", Jan
16) where these videos were first referenced indirectly.
Mike
Merckx and Paris-Roubaix. The tone is definitely different but they're
from an era I'm sure many here can appreciate.
Merckx crashes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI2qSYb0xTk
A Sunday in Hell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWTj6H2KKr4
Steve Palincsar
> I still have the one I used in the early 70's (no, I don't use it!).
> Unfortunately, once the ugly "mushroom head" helmets (Bell Biker) came
> out, all of us pseudo racers wouldn't go near them and usually went
> without. It took way too long for the cycling industry to take head
> protection seriously because, again, racers didn't. When the industry
> finally did offer products that would actually protect the human
> skull, the helmets were so ugly that not enough people would wear
> them. I remember not wanting to wear a helmet because I couldn't
> stand to look so silly in public, even after I'd had a couple of
> serious spills!
>
> It's really a glaring example of what all us RBW owners already know:
> Unless something is considered cool be the majority of society, it
> will fall out of fashion regardless of its superiority.
I'm quite sure about the dates because in 1974 I was workshops chair for
GEAR 74, put on in Poughkeepsie NY by the Mid-Hudson Bicycle Club. One
of my workshops was put on by Dick Burns, an enginner from the Rochester
NY area who was instrumental in getting helmet companies to make the
first bicycle helmets. In Dick's workshop he put on an MSR helmet, then
took an indian club and whacked himself over the head with it. Clunk!
Then offered the indian club to everyone in the workshop and asked them
if they were willing to try that with their leather hairnet.
We had a star rider in the club, and IBM engineer named Jack. Jack was
a gifted athlete, and was splendid at everything he did: grace, poise,
speed, he had it all. Far and away the best rider in MHBC. After GEAR,
MSR put their bicycle helmet on the market and Jack bought one. He
commuted to work on a bicycle, and one evening he rode over what he
thought was a shadow on the road. It turned out to be a downed tree
limb, and it trapped his front wheel causing him to take a header.
He walked away from the accident. It smashed his helmet to pieces, but
only gave him a slight headache. Within a few weeks, everybody in the
MidHudson Bicycle Club had purchased a helmet.
Tim McNamara
On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:29 AM, David Faller wrote:
> I still have the one I used in the early 70's (no, I don't use
> it!). Unfortunately, once the ugly "mushroom head" helmets (Bell
> Biker) came out, all of us pseudo racers wouldn't go near them and
> usually went without. It took way too long for the cycling
> industry to take head protection seriously because, again, racers
> didn't. When the industry finally did offer products that would
> actually protect the human skull, the helmets were so ugly that not
> enough people would wear them. I remember not wanting to wear a
> helmet because I couldn't stand to look so silly in public, even
> after I'd had a couple of serious spills!
>
> It's really a glaring example of what all us RBW owners already
> know: Unless something is considered cool be the majority of
> society, it will fall out of fashion regardless of its superiority.
Oh, man, I hate helmet threads 'cuz they usually degenerate so
quickly. But I do want to point out that the issue is not protecting
your skull, it's protecting your brain. Unfortunately there is not
much evidence that wearing a styrofoam hat adds significantly to the
prevention of brain injuries among adult riders. I wish the news on
this was better. The most balanced discussion I know of is here:
Part of the problem of whether helmets prevent brain injuries lies in
how the brain gets injured in an crash, and from some things no
helmet can protect the rider's brain. The brain is a mechanically
weak structure, basically not a lot tougher than Jell-O. When you
look at the brain, what you see is a combination primarily of nerve
cells and fat. There is very little connective tissue to hold it
together- there is a sac around the brain called the dura mater
("tough mother") and the brain floats in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
There are a series of hollows in the brain called ventricles which
are filled with CSF and support it from the inside, basically through
hydraulic pressure.
There are closed head injuries and injuries that involve breaching
the skull. Among the former there are coup and contra-coup injuries-
basically bruising of the brain tissue at the site of impact (coup)
and/or on the other side of the brain away from the impact (contra-
coup). A force strikes the head which drives the skull into the
brain, bruising it; this is the coup injury. When the head reaches
the limit of its motion, such as when the neck has been flexed as far
as it can go, it abruptly stops moving and the brain then bounces off
the inside of the skull causing bruising about 180 degrees away from
the coup injury. Sometimes the contra-coup injury is worse than the
coup injury. Helmets theoretically provide some protection against
this by absorbing the energy of the impact, preventing it from being
transmitted to the head in the first place. The helmet's capacity
for energy absorption is quite low, unfortunately, and additionally
will only absorb energy from any particular direction once. If you
get multiple impacts in the same spot, you only get protection once.
Another type of closed head injury is from shearing force. In this
case the head is struck obliquely and rotated by the impact, which
accelerates brain and causes tearing (remember, the brain has about
the same structural integrity as Jell-O). Helmets can't protect
against this and, in the case of bicycle helmets, may increase the
risk because they make the effective diameter of your head bigger and
because they don't slide on surfaces very well. This can also
increase the risk of neck injuries.
Among open-head injuries there are basically two types. Don't read
further if you are eating, unless you have a strong stomach. The
first and probably most common type is a penetration injury in which
a foreign body is driven through the skull and into the brain. A
bicycle helmet will offer very little or no protection against this
type in injury because styrofoam is so easily penetrated. A "hard
shell" bicycle helmet has a paper thin plastic coating on the outside
which adds no significant protection from penetration. The other
type of open head injury is when your head is struck hard enough that
the skull suffers a compound fracture and splits open through the
skin, potentially exposing the brain itself. This takes quite a bit
of force- gunshots, baseball bats, etc. It's more common for the
skull to fracture and to be pushed into the brain.
Any of these injuries can be survivable, with varying neurological
outcomes, and any can be fatal. Motorcycle helmets have a hard,
slick shell and better energy absorption and provide more
protection. They would be unfeasible on a bicycle due to the weight
and the usual riding position of bicyclists. Even the half-pound
weight of most bicycle helmets can cause discomfort on a long ride or
for people with cervical disk or vertebrae problems. People would
find really effective helmets unacceptably heavy and hot.
Where bicycle helmets do have a reasonable role, I think (but have
not seen data about) is for kids. A standard bicycle helmet is of
diminishing helpfulness as speed increases. They are designed to
absorb the energy of falling a few feet onto a flat surface or a
curb. Kids, being shorter, lighter, slower, and more likely to
crash, will be more likely to have crashes that fall within the
effective range of bicycle helmets. Ironically, the people who are
required to wear helmets- racers- are the ones most likely to be
exceeding the useful range of helmets and the least likely to get
significant protection.
However, if anyone wants to wear a helmet I'm not about to tell 'em
otherwise. My wife and my mother are convinced that helmets have to
help and very much want me to wear one. So I usually do- a happy
wife and a happy Mom are more important to me than my personal
comfort. I don't expect the helmet to provide me with significant
protection and ride preventively and defensively to prevent crashes
in the first place. That seems to me to be the better way to prevent
brain injuries.
Tim McNamara
On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Will wrote:
> Isn't it stunning how the bicycle fit standard of the 1950s was so in
> line with what we read from Grant Peterson and Jan Heine (Bicycle
> Quarterly) today? BIG frames, minimal standover clearance, about a
> hand's width of visible seatpost and handlebars at saddle's height.
> Gorgeous fenders too. In the video there are a fair number of touring
> bikes with drop bars but no derailleurs. Internally-geared hubs?
> Singlespeeds?
Neither Grant nor Jan are talking about racing bikes, where low bars
are considered an advantage. Jan's wind tunnel tests a while back
showed striking gains in aerodynamics from lowering one's
handlebars. Unfortunately the racing bike notions of fit have become
the standard for road bikes sold in the US and Europe.
In the video, many of those bikes would have a Sturmey-Archer AW 3
speed or perhaps a five speed. They were the norm in England until
after WWII. The other norm was fixed gears, even for touring, and
some of those bikes could easily have been fixed. Derailleurs really
didn't catch on in England until the mid to late 50s (and another
decade or so after that for derailleurs to be common here in the US!).
Bill Connell
> Oh, man, I hate helmet threads 'cuz they usually degenerate so
> quickly. But I do want to point out that the issue is not protecting
> your skull, it's protecting your brain. Unfortunately there is not
> much evidence that wearing a styrofoam hat adds significantly to the
> prevention of brain injuries among adult riders. I wish the news on
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Good site, thanks for the link.
I don't want to perpetuate the helmet debate, but i have one small
point. For me, a helmet has mostly been protection against smaller
injuries. The research on preventing brain injury is interesting, but
beside the point. I still enjoy the benefit of not scraping my head on
trees when offroad or (occasionally) the ground when i do crash. I
know i've avoided enough scrapes and goose eggs to make wearing a
helmet worthwhile, even aside from being an example for my kids and
their riding.
--
Bill Connell
St. Paul, MN
Bruce
Citing no studies, I can only relate my single crash experience. I creamed a pit bull broadside at about 13 mph. The front wheel turned, and I fell to the left of the bike, smacking the asphalt roadway. My thigh and hip landed hard, my shoulder and arm harder, and I could feel my head whipping down hardest. I was wearing a new Trek helmet, and had no head injury at all. I did have a hip pointer injury and was off cycling for 6 weeks, with bone and flesh bruises and stretched ligaments and muscles around the perimeter of that leg. (Only needed crutches for about 1 week, but did need them.) The shoulder scraped and healed. Nada head wise. I happily went out and bought a new helmet.
bruce
From: Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net>
However, if anyone wants to wear a helmet I'm not about to tell 'em
otherwise. My wife and my mother are convinced that helmets have to
help and very much want me to wear one. So I usually do- a happy
wife and a happy Mom are more important to me than my personal
comfort. I don't expect the helmet to provide me with significant
protection and ride preventively and defensively to prevent crashes
in the first place. That seems to me to be the better way to prevent
brain injuries.
James Dinneen
PATRICK MOORE
>
> Isn't it stunning how the bicycle fit standard of the 1950s was so in
> line with what we read from Grant Peterson and Jan Heine (Bicycle
> Quarterly) today? BIG frames, minimal standover clearance, about a
> hand's width of visible seatpost and handlebars at saddle's
There are plenty of photos of old bikes from the early part of the
20th century with bars considerably lower than saddle, and not only on
racing bikes. And, IIIRC, Jan likes his bars lower than saddle. I
think the "bar height = saddle height" is a Grant thing, not an old
thing, or even a "reasonable man's bicycle setup" thing.
Patrick "likem lower myself" Moore
BPu...@aol.com
I
think the "bar height = saddle height" is a Grant thing, not an old
thing, or even a "reasonable man's bicycle setup" thing.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
charlie
long your arms and torso are. For me to be comfortable at my age,
weight and arm length I need my bars 1.5 inches higher than the saddle
for anything more than a 10 mile ride. This setup results in the 45-50
degree back angle which I think is correct for non-racing use.I make a
living with my hands and don't like the numbing effect I get riding
low (to me) bars. Guys with what I call 'ape arms' can ride lower
bars. Tall lanky types often fit this category. Regardless, higher
bars are a Grant thing and fit into his comfort is king point of view.
I credit Grant with helping me discover comfort once again on a
upright bicycle design. I was so uncomfortable before that I would
only ride my recumbent. These days I can ride either style of bike in
reasonable comfort. Yaay! Grant! Yaay! higher bars!
On Jan 30, 5:28 pm, "PATRICK MOORE" <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
David Estes
Or I could be making it all up.
Cheers,
DE
Cheers,
David
Redlands, CA
Angus
associated back issues and a desire to actually be comfortable on the
bike now have me running my bars an inch above the saddle rather than
an inch or more below.
My first Rivendell was a 1995 59.5cm Road Standard, the cyclocross
bike was a 57cm; when I ordered a Rambouillet in 2003 I took a risk
and got a 64cm and raised the bars. Wonderful! Thanks Grant!
>
> - Show quoted text -
PATRICK MOORE
Juuust kidding. My Rivs are supremely comfortable with narrow bars 2"
below saddle, and I have a long torso and short arms. I don't have
hand issues, either, even though I never wear padded gloves (except
for cold weather). Hell, I don't wear padded shorts, either.
I've tried (though, I admit, not very conscientiously) high bars and
found myself feeling "tippy" and awkward, and less powerful. I expect
there are other ways than my formula to get the low-ish back angle I
want -- higher but wider and further forward bars, for example. My
Monocg 29er has bars about 1" higher, but thanks to the (compared to
my road bikes) immensely long effective top tube and the (again,
compared to the 42s on my roads) 46 Bell Laps, I can get pretty
comfortable on it. But it's not as comfortable as my Rivs.
Patrick "bah, humbug to high bars, Brooks saddles, laquered tape and
no retention pedals, but I've come to like seersucker shirts in summer
and I looooove wool in winter" Moore
PATRICK MOORE
probably windier than many other places, which makes me put a premium
on having available a low hooks position. (But I find the hooks
comfortable anyway.)
Steve Palincsar
Well, when you get older and develop osteoarthritis in the cervical
spine so that a 5 cm handlebar drop after five hours in the saddle makes
you feel as though a railroad spike had been driven right into the back
of your neck, perhaps you will remember this conversation, raise your
handlebars level with the saddle and rejoice in the pain relief thus
obtained.
Gino Zahnd
videos intended to make people happy, and forget about their
work-a-day life for a few minutes, and yet the conversation always
has the potential to devolve into someone talking about railroad
spikes being driven into their necks. HA.
XO,
gino
George Schick
later Maw Nature catches up to us all and, in this bunch anyway, that
leads to wider saddles and bars, higher stems, and platform pedals. I
used to scoff at people who wanted their bars at the same height as
their saddles; now I'm one of 'em.
On Jan 31, 11:37 am, "Gino Zahnd" <ginoza...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love how, on these lists, a guy can send out a couple of old cheeky
> videos intended to make people happy, and forget about their
> work-a-day life for a few minutes, and yet the conversation always
> has the potential to devolve into someone talking about railroad
> spikes being driven into their necks. HA.
>
> XO,
> gino
>
charlie
for a bicycle and anyone who put the stem high or had something other
than real toe clips and real cycling shoes wasn't a serious rider.
Most of that was swallowing the propoganda of the magaznes and
youthfull excitement with going fast. It reminds me of the old bull
and the young bull story..........! ;)
Steve Palincsar
Something might be gaining on you." And when your time comes, just
remember what Grant sez: "Raise dem Bars"
Steve "pain in the neck" Palincsar
James Dinneen
charlie <charle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I did the same thing years ago. I just knew there was a proper 'look'
for a bicycle and anyone who put the stem high or had something other
than real toe clips and real cycling shoes wasn't a serious rider.
Most of that was swallowing the propoganda of the magaznes and
youthfull excitement with going fast. It reminds me of the old bull
and the young bull story..........! ;)
On Jan 31, 9:56 am, George Schick wrote:
> It's because many of us are (or are becoming) old farts. Sooner or
> later Maw Nature catches up to us all and, in this bunch anyway, that
> leads to wider saddles and bars, higher stems, and platform pedals. I
> used to scoff at people who wanted their bars at the same height as
> their saddles; now I'm one of 'em.
>
> On Jan 31, 11:37 am, "Gino Zahnd" wrote:
>
>
>
> > I love how, on these lists, a guy can send out a couple of old cheeky
> > videos intended to make people happy, and forget about their
> > work-a-day life for a few minutes, and yet the conversation always
> > has the potential to devolve into someone talking about railroad
> > spikes being driven into their necks. HA.
>
> > XO,
> > gino
>
> > On Jan 31, 2008 9:05 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> > > Well, when you get older and develop osteoarthritis in the cervical
> > > spine so that a 5 cm handlebar drop after five hours in the saddle makes
> > > you feel as though a railroad spike had been driven right into the back
> > > of your neck, perhaps you will remember this conversation, raise your
> > > handlebars level with the saddle and rejoice in the pain relief thus
> > > obtained.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom Lettington
- >
- >
- >
- >
- >
- > > XO,
- > > gino
- >
- >
- >
RonaTD
On Jan 30, 10:57 am, Mike <mjawn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Those videos are great. I was looking at these ones the other day--
> Merckx and Paris-Roubaix. The tone is definitely different but they're
> from an era I'm sure many here can appreciate.
>
though probably not as much as the helmet war. Notice how long it
takes to separate cyclists from bikes because of toe clips & straps? I
bet racers are glad those days are long gone.
td
James Dinneen
Tom Lettington <tlett...@san.rr.com> wrote:
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.