Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and adaptive suspension
Andre Jute
My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
a photo essay by André Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%20Smover.html
Woot
Jeeeesh!
I own a Nav 400 and love it.
Andre Jute
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:
> > Techieporn for you.
>
> > My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
> > Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
> > delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>
> > a photo essay by André Jute
>
>
> Jeeeesh!
>
> I own a Nav 400 and love it.
There's nothing on the Trek archive about the Navigator L700 "Smover"
though here and there on the net one can find traces of Trek
announcing it, sometimes as the L800. Trek still does catalogue an
L700 but it a Nexus manual bike, nothing electronic. It doesn't even
share the frame of the L700 "Smover", which is common with the L300
(marginally longer top tube).
Nice to hear from another cyclist, Woot.
Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey
Peter Wieck
My point about arrogance while amusing is fully made. Thank you, Mr.
Jute. Mr. Krueger take note... this is how it is done. Not by tiresome
blathering as is your process.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338
Don Pearce
wrote:
My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
that, but without the chain guard. Doesn't have all that dodgy brake
stuff, either. A reasonably heavy stop (say from 20mph in 5 seconds)
only needs to dissipate 3kJ at 600W, which is no problem at all to
dissipate in a pair of wheel rims.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Patrick Turner
There is a hill here about a km long, and about 7% slope,
and when descending it one must use the brakes all the way down for
safety reasons.
But at the bottom the rims of my road bike have not heated, not even on
a hot day.
I have 3 bikes, all with reliable old steel frames and they all weigh
about 11kg, but I'm 78Kg now, and I have no trouble riding 90k across
town and back....
And during this winter I only rode the bike which has ONE gear, a 44t
front cog, 18t rear cog,
giving a 68inch gear. I was using 72" for awhile, but that proved too
hard into headwinds when riding
up some hills. I am rebuilding one bike with new fangled index gearing
which will allow me the luxury of riding up some very steep hills here
again.
Patrick Turner.
Andre Jute
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Techieporn for you.
>
> >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
> >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
> >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>
> >a photo essay by André Jute
>
>
> My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
> that, but without the chain guard. Doesn't have all that dodgy brake
> stuff, either. A reasonably heavy stop (say from 20mph in 5 seconds)
> only needs to dissipate 3kJ at 600W, which is no problem at all to
> dissipate in a pair of wheel rims.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
those roller brakes are overkill.
However, you missed the point of the chain guard and the roller
brakes: it isn't just that the brakes are better, and the chain guard
civilized; what matters is that the totally enclosed brakes and the
totally enclosed chain guard make it an allweather bike -- or that
they are put on there because the specification is for an all-weather
bike. Unlike rim brakes, roller brakes are immune to rain.
Of course, a bike like that, in its primary market, The Netherlands,
is intended and taken into one's family as a permanent fixture: it is
not supposed to wear out. Rim brakes in the sort of daily commuter use
a Dutch city bike gets will wear out a pair of rims every second
year, a dangerous business because it isn't always possible to tell
when the rim is worn so thin by the brake blocks that it collapses the
next time you hit a bump in the road.
Finally, rim blocks are dirty and throw off black stuff, not much chop
on a daily commuter bike (which is what my Trek "Smover" pretends to
be whenever the designers glance at the marketing brief).
So, you see, my Smover's specification is quite consistent with the
bike's supposed purpose, and even more so after I patched up overly
sporting ergonomics. I bet your 3400 was sold to you as a "leisure"
bike. I don't suppose either of us uses a bike as heavily as your
median Dutch officeworker.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Techieporn for you.
>>
>> >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
>> >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
>> >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>>
>> >a photo essay by André Jute
>>
>> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%...
>>
>> My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
>> that, but without the chain guard. Doesn't have all that dodgy brake
>> stuff, either. A reasonably heavy stop (say from 20mph in 5 seconds)
>> only needs to dissipate 3kJ at 600W, which is no problem at all to
>> dissipate in a pair of wheel rims.
>>
>> d
>>
>> --
>> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
>
>Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
>to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
>eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
>kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
>practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
>those roller brakes are overkill.
>
I'm a great fan of "keep it simple" for things like bikes. All those
features add weight and complication; and of course if they decide to
bust when you are out on the road, you are pushing.
>However, you missed the point of the chain guard and the roller
>brakes: it isn't just that the brakes are better, and the chain guard
>civilized; what matters is that the totally enclosed brakes and the
>totally enclosed chain guard make it an allweather bike -- or that
>they are put on there because the specification is for an all-weather
>bike. Unlike rim brakes, roller brakes are immune to rain.
>
There ain't no such thing as an all-weather bike. As far as I am
concerned my bike is a single-weather convenience. As soon as the wet
stuff starts, I'm back in my car.
But then I'm not a cyclist - I ride a bike.
>Of course, a bike like that, in its primary market, The Netherlands,
>is intended and taken into one's family as a permanent fixture: it is
>not supposed to wear out. Rim brakes in the sort of daily commuter use
>a Dutch city bike gets will wear out a pair of rims every second
>year, a dangerous business because it isn't always possible to tell
>when the rim is worn so thin by the brake blocks that it collapses the
>next time you hit a bump in the road.
>
I'm well acquainted with bikes in the Netherlands, having ridden them
for many, many miles there. The average dutch bike appears to be
identical to those I remember from my childhood in the fifties. Hefty
frame and generally Victorian engineering.
>Finally, rim blocks are dirty and throw off black stuff, not much chop
>on a daily commuter bike (which is what my Trek "Smover" pretends to
>be whenever the designers glance at the marketing brief).
>
>So, you see, my Smover's specification is quite consistent with the
>bike's supposed purpose, and even more so after I patched up overly
>sporting ergonomics. I bet your 3400 was sold to you as a "leisure"
>bike. I don't suppose either of us uses a bike as heavily as your
>median Dutch officeworker.
>
I got my bike one January morning when I was feeling decidedly
post-chrismas and was on my way to the local gym to enrol. I walked
past the bike shop where a sale was on, and thought "hang on, this is
a much better idea than a stupid gym". So I walked in and had a chat
with the chap about what kind of uses I would be putting the bike to
around London - ending up with this one, and it has been perfect.
I rode it straight home up the hill to Hampstead, and arrive seeing
spots, and with tunnel vision. I've ridden it pretty much daily since
- always because I need to get somewhere, and I can now negotiate all
of Hampstead's hills without even raising a sweat.
Don Pearce
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute <fiu...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Techieporn for you.
>> >
>> >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
>> >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
>> >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>> >
>> >a photo essay by André Jute
>> >
>> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%20Smover.html
>>
>> My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
>> that, but without the chain guard. Doesn't have all that dodgy brake
>> stuff, either. A reasonably heavy stop (say from 20mph in 5 seconds)
>> only needs to dissipate 3kJ at 600W, which is no problem at all to
>> dissipate in a pair of wheel rims.
>>
>> d
>
>There is a hill here about a km long, and about 7% slope,
>and when descending it one must use the brakes all the way down for
>safety reasons.
>But at the bottom the rims of my road bike have not heated, not even on
>a hot day.
>
I live up a hill exactly like that. I have never stopped at the bottom
to check the temperature of the rims, but the brakes are always still
stopping me without problems.
>I have 3 bikes, all with reliable old steel frames and they all weigh
>about 11kg, but I'm 78Kg now, and I have no trouble riding 90k across
>town and back....
>And during this winter I only rode the bike which has ONE gear, a 44t
>front cog, 18t rear cog,
>giving a 68inch gear. I was using 72" for awhile, but that proved too
>hard into headwinds when riding
>up some hills. I am rebuilding one bike with new fangled index gearing
>which will allow me the luxury of riding up some very steep hills here
>again.
>
>Patrick Turner.
>
I know about bikes like that. When I was at school I was a rower.
Every time we arrived at the boathouse, we would have to build a bike
for our coach to ride along the towpath. There was a huge pile of
scrap wheels and frames round the back, and in ten minutes we could
mix and match something rideable out of it all.
d
Patrick Turner
Mine isn't as bad as that. I am moving to 32 spokes per wheel with
D-rims,
the old 36 spokers with flat section Mavics had done around 50,000km and
began to crack
with fatigue....
I have worn out so much bicycle gear after pedling an estimated
110,000km...
I cycled much further than i drove last year.
The steepest and worst arsole of a hill here is 3km long, averaging 8%,
and I don't ride it much,Fitz's Hill,
its 60km away just to get to it. But there's another bastard of a hill
seen at
This is about 2km, and 7%, and a bit of traffic uses the narrow winding
road to the top.
There is a nice view over my town though.
I used to do this on 48 x 18, but 15 years have passed, and maybe I need
a 48 x 23.
As you loose teeth as you age, you must put them onto the rear
cluster....
I hope to be fit enough to do Fitz'z Challenge in November,
http://www.pedalpower.org.au/events/details.asp?IntContId=1207
this time its the 20th ride, and I was in the first couple a long time
ago.
Last time I did it pretty fast at 40, and rode the whole lot alone, and
not many were in it, but if I can finish it at all at 60
I will be pleased. Many people ride this now, so I should have
company.
Patrick Turner.
Don Pearce
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
No thanks! That isn't for me. As I say, I'm not a cyclist, I ride a
bike. That means I get on it when I have somewhere I need to be. This
stuff is just road clutter and purpose-free greenhouse gas generation.
Keith G
"Don Pearce" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46e6c183....@news.plus.net...
Me too - thumb the starter, hook a gear, give it a *big handful* and
realise, moments later, the flickering in the corner of your left eye is
the *traffic* on the inside lane...
:-P
Here's No. 2 son on my bike - all ginger and cautious; it was his first
time back on one in a couple of years and was doubtless fearful of a
'low speed drop' !!
Don Pearce
wrote:
I can take my bike places you can't take yours ;-)
>
>Here's No. 2 son on my bike - all ginger and cautious; it was his first
>time back on one in a couple of years and was doubtless fearful of a
>'low speed drop' !!
>
>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AndrewGSX1400-01.wmv
>
>
That sort of riding looked like a guaranteed way to have a low speed
drop. I imagine he's a bit more fluent now?
Keith G
Sure, of course - here's him back 2 minutes later:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/AndrewGSX1400-02.wmv
Those bikes are pretty heavy at 230 kg (dry weight - add 15 quid's worth
of petrol to that)...
http://www.motorbikestoday.com/reviews/Articles/gsx-1400.htm
..and after a break of at least a couple of years, puddling one
backwards down a fairly sharp conctrete ramp isn't something you want to
try too quickly until you get familiar with it!
Arny Krueger
"Peter Wieck" <pf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1189130160.5...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
"Tiresome blather" is a phrase we often hear from people who somehow oblige
themselves to listen to talks about something that is way over their head.
John Byrns
Patrick Turner <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
> The steepest and worst arsole of a hill here is 3km long, averaging 8%,
> and I don't ride it much,Fitz's Hill,
> its 60km away just to get to it. But there's another bastard of a hill
> seen at
>
> http://www.images.act.gov.au/duslibrary/imagesact.nsf/view/3300800B698256C94A2
> 56D8D001C1077/$File/005119.JPG
>
> This is about 2km, and 7%, and a bit of traffic uses the narrow winding
> road to the top.
> There is a nice view over my town though.
What's that town shown in the background? Is that your town or is it in
a different direction not shown in the photo?
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Patrick Turner
The photo was taken from a plane or chopper, and the buildings "behind"
the mountain
with a tower on it is the main civic centre of Canberra. There are
several centres well
spread out.
Black mountain is only a few km from the centre of the "town" in the
backround.
http://www.totaltravel.com.au/travel/nsw/canberraact/canberracity/photos
I found a posted pdf with a brief map of the Canbera suburbs showing
blue lines for
cycle paths.
http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/12564/report_summary_and_content.pdf
I live in Watson, about 7km north from where it says CITY just north of
the lake.
The length of blue line bike paths totals hundreds of km, so you can
always do a big different loop
each time you go for a ride.
Once you get away from city areas the traffic on weekdays is negligible
because most people
are at work, unemployement is at record lows...
The map doesn't show several other newer lakes besides the the main old
central lake.
So you can cycle around for ages and get lost...
If I ride that map from Watson to maximum north, then maximum south and
back home
along whatever is the shortest route its well over 100km, and takes me
about 5 hours,
non stop, and maybe I use about 3,000 calories....
Patrick Turner.
Don Pearce
<in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote:
>I live in Watson, about 7km north from where it says CITY just north of
>the lake.
>
>The length of blue line bike paths totals hundreds of km, so you can
>always do a big different loop
>each time you go for a ride.
>
>Once you get away from city areas the traffic on weekdays is negligible
>because most people
>are at work, unemployement is at record lows...
>
>The map doesn't show several other newer lakes besides the the main old
>central lake.
>So you can cycle around for ages and get lost...
>
>If I ride that map from Watson to maximum north, then maximum south and
>back home
>along whatever is the shortest route its well over 100km, and takes me
>about 5 hours,
>non stop, and maybe I use about 3,000 calories....
>
>Patrick Turner.
>
>
I think I would use my bike more there. Here in London we are getting
a day of relative freedom - although it is necessary to register for
it.
http://www.londonfreewheel.com/
Andre Jute
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:09:24 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Techieporn for you.
>
> >> >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
> >> >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
> >> >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>
> >> >a photo essay by André Jute
>
> >> >http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Trek%20Navigator%20L700%...
>
> >> My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
> >> that, but without the chain guard.
> I got my bike one January morning when I was feeling decidedly
> post-chrismas and was on my way to the local gym to enrol. I walked
> past the bike shop where a sale was on, and thought "hang on, this is
> a much better idea than a stupid gym". So I walked in and had a chat
> with the chap about what kind of uses I would be putting the bike to
> around London - ending up with this one, and it has been perfect.
I was in a bike shop the other day, listening to the owner tell
another customer about the gyms, plural, he attends. I walked out
without buying anything and told my driver to take me to a real bike
shop, where the accents are less poncey but at least the management
rides the bikes they sell.
> I rode it straight home up the hill to Hampstead, and arrive seeing
> spots, and with tunnel vision. I've ridden it pretty much daily since
> - always because I need to get somewhere, and I can now negotiate all
> of Hampstead's hills without even raising a sweat.
No man, the idea is to raise a sweat (despite what I shall shortly
write in another post to twit Patrick for bragging intolerably about
his 100 mile rides). Though I must say I despise those fellows who
make their sweat smell worse than it already does by straining it
through Lycra. Cultured cyclists wear seersucker shirts...
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
I thought your description of buying your bike and riding it home the
most humane thing you ever said, Don. In future I might even cut you
some slack on electronics now I have discovered a heart beats in there
somewhere.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Peter Wieck
> "Tiresome blather" is a phrase we often hear from people who somehow oblige
> themselves to listen to talks about something that is way over their head.
Far more likely to be beneath their dignity. Putting on airs without
sufficient cleverness is your speciality. Lots of data passes through,
very little content is included other than tree-tops posturing. Oh,
since when have you adopted the Royal We?
You do understand that your symbiosis with the commander is based on
this behavior?
Andre Jute
John Byrns:
> I found a posted pdf with a brief map of the Canbera suburbs showing
> blue lines for
> cycle paths.
> http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/12564/report_s...
> If I ride that map from Watson to maximum north, then maximum south and
> back home
> along whatever is the shortest route its well over 100km, and takes me
> about 5 hours,
> non stop, and maybe I use about 3,000 calories....
>
> Patrick Turner.
I take it those are "nutrition calories" or in fact 3,000,000
calories.
If your respiration rate shoots up like that on hand of a little
exercise, Patrick, you really want to get fit. I mean, after all,
you're just sixty, these days a relatively young man.
I ride here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Kilmacsimon%201.html
and back via here
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Kilmacsimon%202.html
and burn just 118 nutritionist's calories in 22Km (1).
Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. --
CE Statement of Conformity
(1) My Ciclosport HAC4 measures power expenditure in watts, so the
reading has to be converted. A convenient way is to take the reported
average power at the end of the ride, multiply the reading by the
hours of actual pedalling reported, and subtract one seventh of the
result; the remainder is in real kilocals or nutrion calories. Just
for the sake of absolute honesty among the paranoids here, the HAC4
assumes that on the level or downhill the cyclist expends no energy
whatsoever (!!!), so it calculates power expenditure only while
pedalling uphill.
Arny Krueger
> On Sep 7, 8:02 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Tiresome blather" is a phrase we often hear from people who somehow
>> oblige
>> themselves to listen to talks about something that is way over their
>> head.
> Far more likely to be beneath their dignity.
Interesting Peter that you can equate ignorance with dignity and keep a
straight facer. Now that takes serious levels of pomposity!
> Putting on airs without sufficient cleverness is your speciality.
What airs Peter? Apparently you decided to play Johnny-come-lately white
knight on a horse, and get revenge against me for who I don't really quite
know. Now those are some heady airs you are putting on, there.
Unfortunately, it backfired - big time!
> Lots of data passes through,
> very little content is included other than tree-tops posturing.
Just the relevant facts, ma-am.
> Oh, since when have you adopted the Royal We?
Its not about royalty, its about the problem with dealing with noisy
know-it-alls, who much to their embarassment, don't know it all.
> You do understand that your symbiosis with the commander is based on
> this behavior?
I understand rage that some people experience after humiliating themselves
in public, and what it drives them to. Makes people say the darnedest
things!
As far as the Middiot goes, his animator did manage to humiliate himself in
public a great many times, which resulted in him developing the Middiot
persona for revenge. I think I know who the Middiot's animator is, and
frankly the more time and experience I get, he reminds me of a certain Peter
unhh W-something...
Ian Iveson
> ..and after a break of at least a couple of years, puddling one
> backwards down a fairly sharp conctrete ramp isn't something you
> want to try too quickly until you get familiar with it!
Even after years of practice, I find riding a motorcycle backwards
almost impossible. I still pootle gingerly, and just hope it doesn't
look as ungainly as it feels.
Lots of positive feedback in the steering, and unsettling reaction
from the brakes.
In theory the most elegant option is to freewheel feet-up backwards in
an arc without touching the brakes until you are pointing downhill,
and then zoom off in one seamless manoevre. Never summoned up the
courage.
Ian
Keith G
"Ian Iveson" <IanIves...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KvdEi.49845$xp6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Keith G said
>
>> ..and after a break of at least a couple of years, puddling one
>> backwards down a fairly sharp conctrete ramp isn't something you want
>> to try too quickly until you get familiar with it!
>
> Even after years of practice, I find riding a motorcycle backwards
> almost impossible. I still pootle gingerly, and just hope it doesn't
> look as ungainly as it feels.
Yes, it always does - especially when you are at full stretch!!
>
> Lots of positive feedback in the steering, and unsettling reaction
> from the brakes.
>
> In theory the most elegant option is to freewheel feet-up backwards in
> an arc without touching the brakes until you are pointing downhill,
> and then zoom off in one seamless manoevre. Never summoned up the
> courage.
I can scoot down that ramp backwards and turn the bike with only a
couple of dabs with my right foot, but that was the first time my son
had been on a bike in a couple of years!
Peter Wieck
> The usual pretentious tripe.
Hey there, Mr. Jute.
Let's try a new concept given your past poses and demonstrated
Munchausen Syndrome.
Let's see some identifiable pictures of *you* on the bicycle, perhaps
holding a local paper showing date and headline. Otherwise, it is far
more credible that you have found some pictures and simply posted them
to your website without other than your word (*chuckle*) as
provenance.
I seem to remember pictures offered with your book posed carefully as
if to represent the present you... It is all of-a-piece. What are you
hiding?
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
M...@disney.com
wrote:
Probably could buy a car for what that costs...
Ian Iveson
> couple of dabs with my right foot, but that was the first time my
> son had been on a bike in a couple of years!
Then you shall be my inspiration. Can't be outdone by a uk.rec.audio
stripling. Hang on a mo....
Hmm...bugger. Nearly cost me two indicators and a mirror. I blame the
Metzlers. All the same I have discovered the perfect manoevre that
works even in confined spaces. You start off like you are going to
freewheel in an arc feet up, but as soon as you gather a bit of speed
and start to turn you grab the front brake, as if in panic, whereupon
the anti-dive (GPZ900) flings the front end up so the bike pivots
about the footrests and applies the rear brake to sustain the skewed
reverse stoppie. Now you can use the momentum in the desired direction
of travel to pirouette a half turn, putting you in the perfect
position to wheelie off down the street to the envious amazement of
your puny neighbours. It all looks very Lone Ranger.
Didn't quite make the half-twist this time. The several dozen
Slovakians that live next door are still jeering.
I remember a film...Buster Keeton or Keystone Cops I guess, where a
policeman reverses a motorcycle...an Indian maybe...so naturally like
you might not notice anything peculiar. I believe reverse gears were
quite common for sidecar duty.
If you've never tried a combo, BTW, you should. Not with linked
sidecar brake, which ruins all the fun. Turns those wet autumn leaves
into total entertainment.
Ian
Eiron
> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> those roller brakes are overkill.
A fat man on a granny bike braking at over 1g!
Don't the laws of physics apply in Eire these days?
--
Eiron.
Don Pearce
Quite so. That comes out at 1.05g. Centre of mass combined with
wheelbase tell us that he performed the last 8 feet of that stop flat
on his face in the road. But that is a perfectly legitimate way of
stopping your bike.
Anyone who wants to do the sum the easy way just pop this
(30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g
into Google. I rarely use an other calculator these days.
Keith G
>> I can scoot down that ramp backwards and turn the bike with only a
>> couple of dabs with my right foot, but that was the first time my
>> son had been on a bike in a couple of years!
>
> Then you shall be my inspiration. Can't be outdone by a uk.rec.audio
> stripling. Hang on a mo....
>
> Hmm...bugger. Nearly cost me two indicators and a mirror. I blame the
> Metzlers. All the same I have discovered the perfect manoevre that
> works even in confined spaces. You start off like you are going to
> freewheel in an arc feet up, but as soon as you gather a bit of speed
> and start to turn you grab the front brake, as if in panic, whereupon
> the anti-dive (GPZ900) flings the front end up so the bike pivots
> about the footrests and applies the rear brake to sustain the skewed
> reverse stoppie. Now you can use the momentum in the desired direction
> of travel to pirouette a half turn, putting you in the perfect
> position to wheelie off down the street to the envious amazement of
> your puny neighbours. It all looks very Lone Ranger.
Sounds a bit more like 'Tonto' to me...
If you need to get a bike to face the other way in a *cool* fashion and
it has a centre stand, pull the bike over toward you 'til it's balanced
and spin it round with the right amounts of push on the back end and
pull on the handlebars - only works on the flat and only if the bike
*lends itself* to such a manoeuvre. Do it in a controlled manner and
*rehearse* it before you go public...
>
> Didn't quite make the half-twist this time. The several dozen
> Slovakians that live next door are still jeering.
You'll be in the UK then....
>
> I remember a film...Buster Keeton or Keystone Cops I guess, where a
> policeman reverses a motorcycle...an Indian maybe...so naturally like
> you might not notice anything peculiar. I believe reverse gears were
> quite common for sidecar duty.
Yep. Still available on the Russian combos, I gather...
>
> If you've never tried a combo, BTW, you should. Not with linked
> sidecar brake, which ruins all the fun. Turns those wet autumn leaves
> into total entertainment.
All the bikes I had (that I can remember) over the years are here:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/mybikes/mybikes.htm
The Matchless (4th from the bottom) was a combo when I got it - great
fun!
Actually, I was considering a combo earlier this year but the *not
inconsiderable* prices added to the total impracticability (and space
constraints) pushed that one onto the back burner for the forseeable...
Eiron
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:42:58 +0100, Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>
>>> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
>>> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
>>> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
>>> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
>>> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
>>> those roller brakes are overkill.
>> A fat man on a granny bike braking at over 1g!
>> Don't the laws of physics apply in Eire these days?
>
> Quite so. That comes out at 1.05g. Centre of mass combined with
> wheelbase tell us that he performed the last 8 feet of that stop flat
> on his face in the road. But that is a perfectly legitimate way of
> stopping your bike.
I just tried a normal stop from 20mph on decent tarmac. It took 12 yards
which averages 0.37g, and the back wheel was hopping about. I expect 0.5g
would be a reasonable maximum if I moved down and back, or a bit more if
I wasn't so fat. Perhaps André meant 11 yards, or perhaps he's just won
another thousand euros after betting that someone would point out the
deliberate error. :-)
--
Eiron.
Don Pearce
I'd be very surprised if you could ever reach 0.5g on a pushbike,
unless it is a recumbent. You just sit too tall with respect to the
front wheel position. If your back wheel was hopping, you had reached
the limit, and it is really difficult to do anything but move your
body forwards under braking - there is nothing to brace against.
So maybe he did mean 11 yards, but that would be a shame because it
would mean those fancy brakes couldn't actually match a normal set.
Andre Jute
> On Sep 6, 7:27 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Techieporn for you.
>
> > >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
> > >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
> > >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>
> > >a photo essay by André Jute
>
>
> > My Trek is the 3400 - nice sensible road bike. Looks very similar to
> > stuff, either. A reasonably heavy stop (say from 20mph in 5 seconds)
> > only needs to dissipate 3kJ at 600W, which is no problem at all to
> > dissipate in a pair of wheel rims.
>
> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> those roller brakes are overkill.
Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
message...
Anyhow, 24 feet from thirty klicks is still very impressive, about a
third better than any rim braked bike would manage, and about a fifth
better than a bike with disc brakes would manage under the same
circumstances . It is all down to the modulator in the roller brake,
which works like ABS on cars, relaxing the brake just before the wheel
starts skidding.
For those of you who want to know the science, here is a reliable
authority on the subject:
"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(p98, Designing and Building Special Cars, by Andre Jute, Batsford,
London 1985)
For those without the math, the formula transforms as follows to
permit us to calculate average retardation in fractions of one gravity
when we know the entry speed and the stopping distance:
V^2/(29.9*D)
where V is speed in mph and D is stopping distance in feet. Taking my
example of 24ft from 30kph, we need first to convert 30kph to mph,
which is 18.64mph. So (18.64*18.64)/(29.9*24) gives us an average
retardation for the roller brakes, aided by the anti-skid modulation,
of 0.484g. This may be compared, as above, to around 0.4g achievable
with disc brakes and around 3.5g with the sort of rim brakes usually
fitted to racing bikes.
Going upmarket clearly doesn't mean less efficiency -- quite the
contrary: it means extraordinary efficiency. Those of greater
discrimination, who furthermore spend more money, believe they have a
right to a more pleasing product, In this case I have received
excellent value for my money!
Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
> However, you missed the point of the chain guard and the roller
> brakes: it isn't just that the brakes are better, and the chain guard
> civilized; what matters is that the totally enclosed brakes and the
> totally enclosed chain guard make it an allweather bike -- or that
> they are put on there because the specification is for an all-weather
> bike. Unlike rim brakes, roller brakes are immune to rain.
>
> Of course, a bike like that, in its primary market, The Netherlands,
> is intended and taken into one's family as a permanent fixture: it is
> not supposed to wear out. Rim brakes in the sort of daily commuter use
> a Dutch city bike gets will wear out a pair of rims every second
> year, a dangerous business because it isn't always possible to tell
> when the rim is worn so thin by the brake blocks that it collapses the
> next time you hit a bump in the road.
>
> Finally, rim blocks are dirty and throw off black stuff, not much chop
> on a daily commuter bike (which is what my Trek "Smover" pretends to
> be whenever the designers glance at the marketing brief).
>
> So, you see, my Smover's specification is quite consistent with the
> bike's supposed purpose, and even more so after I patched up overly
> sporting ergonomics. I bet your 3400 was sold to you as a "leisure"
> bike. I don't suppose either of us uses a bike as heavily as your
> median Dutch officeworker.
>
> Andre Jute
> Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
> Borg. -- Robert Casey
Andre Jute
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:27:41 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Techieporn for you.
>
> >My Trek Navigator L700 "Smover"
> >Bicycle with Automatic Gearchange and Electronic Adaptive Suspension
> >delivered by Shimano Di2 Cyber Nexus Groupset
>
> >a photo essay by André Jute
>
>
> Probably could buy a car for what that costs...
Not a new car, MMM.
The quality of the bike will please long after the price is forgotten.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
> > to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> > eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> > kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> > practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> > those roller brakes are overkill.
>
> A fat man on a granny bike braking at over 1g!
Find the fat on my pic overlooking Dunworly Bay, several places on my
bike pages, and I won't put you in hospital when I run into you. You
mean an opa bike, not an oma bike (or granny bike as you ignorantly
have it). You wouldn't know either if you saw them, sonny.
> Don't the laws of physics apply in Eire these days?
Same as everywhere else. Here is a reliable authority on the subject:
"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(p98, Designing and Building Special Cars, by Andre Jute, Batsford,
London 1985)
The math is developed elsewhere, where you can go find it.
> --
> Eiron.
Do come again, Eiron. It is always a giggle when you take yourself
seriously.
Andre Jute
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:42:58 +0100, Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
> >> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> >> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> >> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> >> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> >> those roller brakes are overkill.
>
> >A fat man on a granny bike braking at over 1g!
> >Don't the laws of physics apply in Eire these days?
>
> Quite so. That comes out at 1.05g. Centre of mass combined with
> wheelbase tell us that he performed the last 8 feet of that stop flat
> on his face in the road. But that is a perfectly legitimate way of
> stopping your bike.
>
> Anyone who wants to do the sum the easy way just pop this
>
> (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g
What's this nonsense, Don, a wiki written by you and the equally
useless Eiron? Didn't they teach you in tech school to use compatible
units? You're mixing Imperial and Metric measures hand over orange.
Here is a reliable authority on the subject:
"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(p98, Designing and Building Special Cars, by Andre Jute, Batsford,
London 1985)
That math is properly and correctly developed elsewhere in this
thread, where you can go find it.
> into Google. I rarely use an other calculator these days.
You should learn how and you won't perpetrae further fuckups like in
this post.
Andre Jute
Our legislators managed to criminalize fox-hunting and smoking; when
they will get off their collective fat backside and criminalize
negative feedback? It is clearly consumed only by thickoes.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 1:22 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
Google handles mixed units perfectly happily. That is one of its
biggest joys. The calculation works BECAUSE I included the units;
without them it would have assumed they were dimensionless numbers,
and failed. Try it before you condemn through ignorance.
While what you quote about the maximum braking force above is all fine
and dandy as far as it goes, it ignores the fact that a bike is tall
with respect to its wheelbase, and any attempt to approach that
maximum will result in it toppling. As I said, at 1g, you will be face
down in the road. Eiron actually tried the experiment and found an
empirical limit at about 0.35g, and my back-of-an-envelope
calculations show him to be pretty much spot on.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 12:42 am, Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Go and ask your driver. He will put you straight about braking.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
>> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
>> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
>> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
>> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
>> those roller brakes are overkill.
>
>Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
>for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
>message...
So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
someone to do it for you), and had gravity explained to you, and you
realise that you posted a heap of shit. Are you going to withdraw your
intemperate comments to Eiron and me now?
That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
"24 (11) feet".
Rob
You're obviously quite a big chap - not far off twice my weight - so
that, with the extra bulk of the bike, justifies a degree of overkill in
the brakes department IMO. Just adding 10kg of touring clobber makes a
hell of a difference to me. I'm not sure about all the gear gubbins, but
if it floats your boat ...
I've 'regressed' to a mid-90s mountain bike for commuting (low-mid;
Deore LX) with road tyres and cantilever brakes - stops me on a
sixpence, and the best bike I've had in a long time. There was a long
thread on uk.rec.cycling a few days ago going through the
fade/feel/maintenance aspects of brakes. Hydraulic disc brakes the way
to go, apparently (cost/weight notwithstanding).
So long as you don't 'go tandem' to put your underused chauffeur to use,
all should be well. :-)
Rob
Eiron
> While what you quote about the maximum braking force above is all fine
> and dandy as far as it goes, it ignores the fact that a bike is tall
> with respect to its wheelbase, and any attempt to approach that
> maximum will result in it toppling. As I said, at 1g, you will be face
> down in the road. Eiron actually tried the experiment and found an
> empirical limit at about 0.35g, and my back-of-an-envelope
> calculations show him to be pretty much spot on.
I tried it again this morning, and managed to brake in 18 feet from 30kph,
to mix my units in the approved Jute manner, which works out at 0.65g.
This was sitting further back and lower, with hands on the drops.
Still, 0.65g seems a bit high for a pushbike so I'll have to repeat the
test on my next excursion until I get consistent results.
I expect that Jute never did any braking tests at all on his granny bike;
rather he picked 1g as a figure to be proud of and fudged some numbers
to fit.
When challenged, he picked another, believable number . . .
--
Eiron.
Don Pearce
I'm guessing he found it in the same place he found his driver.
Andre Jute
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:26:29 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
> >> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> >> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> >> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> >> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> >> those roller brakes are overkill.
>
> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
> >message...
>
> So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
> someone to do it for you),
Oh, I don't need to ask anyone, Donnie-boy. I wrote the book, and you
know it, which is why you cut out the quote from my book I gave:
>and had gravity explained to you,
And no, Donnie-boy, I don't need gravity explained to me either. It is
in my book already: that lower-case g in the results is the symbol for
gravity.
>and you
> realise that you posted a heap of shit.
No, Donnie-boy, you're the one who posted a heap of shit, who claimed
that brakes are "dodgy" when clearly they are not (when with only a
little practice they give a 0.484g retardation!), you're the one who
claimed, without any proof or knowledge, merely from your unshakeable
stupidity and lack of curiosity (which ill becomes an "engineer") that
something is impossible -- and now your loyal sidekick in these
abuses, Eiron, has written that he performed an experiment which
proves that what you say isn't impossible. (I have no opinion about
whether an 0.65g retardation as claimed by Eiron is possible on a
bike; unlike you I don't spout off until I investigate.)
>Are you going to withdraw your
> intemperate comments to Eiron and me now?
I didn't make any intemperate remarks. You're the one running around
accusing everyone who doesn't instantly bow down to your superior lack
of knowledge as a liar:
> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
> "24 (11) feet".
You don't know shit about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
I feel sorry for your clients.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre Jute at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 11:00 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:26:29 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
>> >> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
>> >> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
>> >> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
>> >> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
>> >> those roller brakes are overkill.
>>
>> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
>> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
>> >message...
>>
>> So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
>> someone to do it for you),
>
>Oh, I don't need to ask anyone, Donnie-boy. I wrote the book, and you
>know it, which is why you cut out the quote from my book I gave:
>
Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.
Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.
Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
end to your ability?
>>and you
>> realise that you posted a heap of shit.
>
>No, Donnie-boy, you're the one who posted a heap of shit, who claimed
>that brakes are "dodgy" when clearly they are not (when with only a
>little practice they give a 0.484g retardation!), you're the one who
>claimed, without any proof or knowledge, merely from your unshakeable
>stupidity and lack of curiosity (which ill becomes an "engineer") that
>something is impossible -- and now your loyal sidekick in these
>abuses, Eiron, has written that he performed an experiment which
>proves that what you say isn't impossible. (I have no opinion about
>whether an 0.65g retardation as claimed by Eiron is possible on a
>bike; unlike you I don't spout off until I investigate.)
>
Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
bike that could manage 1.05g.
>>Are you going to withdraw your
>> intemperate comments to Eiron and me now?
>
>I didn't make any intemperate remarks. You're the one running around
>accusing everyone who doesn't instantly bow down to your superior lack
>of knowledge as a liar:
>
You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
were in boasting mode. I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about, but
the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
realise your bluff was going to get called. Deal with it.
>> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
>> "24 (11) feet".
>
>You don't know shit about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
>one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
>better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
>bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> >> Those brakes aren't dodgy, Don, they're hyper-competent; what I forgot
> >> to add is that they have a built-in modulator. They stop the one-
> >> eighth of a ton of me and the bike and light touring gear from thirty
> >> kph in 11 feet. I know, because I chewed up a pair of tyres while I
> >> practiced that one to perfection. But I agree with you, for casual use
> >> those roller brakes are overkill.
Ah, that eleven feet is a typo. It should be 24 feet, impressive
enough, I think.
> You're obviously quite a big chap - not far off twice my weight
I congratulate you on weighing 46.5Kg! No, I was talking about the
bike loaded for light touring, at least an overnight stay.
>- so
> that, with the extra bulk of the bike, justifies a degree of overkill in
> the brakes department IMO. Just adding 10kg of touring clobber makes a
> hell of a difference to me. I'm not sure about all the gear gubbins, but
> if it floats your boat ...
Well, I bought it because I'm a techno-freak. But there is something
about the Cyber Nexus gubbins I didn't consider before. I thought I
used my other bike, which has manual Nexus hub gears (exactly the same
thing but without the electronics) reasonably well. But once I started
riding the automatic gears it was pretty obvously they were changing
so much more optimally that my rides were not only concluded a little
faster but that my heart rate was controlled much more optimally. I
think it is just human nature to hang on the gear too long...
> I've 'regressed' to a mid-90s mountain bike for commuting (low-mid;
> Deore LX) with road tyres and cantilever brakes - stops me on a
> sixpence, and the best bike I've had in a long time. There was a long
> thread on uk.rec.cycling a few days ago going through the
> fade/feel/maintenance aspects of brakes. Hydraulic disc brakes the way
> to go, apparently (cost/weight notwithstanding).
I have a Nexus equipped bike with a front disc brake as well. Like the
roller brakes, it is overkill, even in the hilly country in which I
live, though it saved my ass in a situation where I was speeding down
a hill and a car with a trailer pulled across the road in front of me
and stopped there -- I stopped with my boot on the driver's face
through his door window, so clearly with less capable brakes it would
have been a nastier crash (for me -- it was no holiday for the dumb
motorist, who was spitting out teeth); the nicest thing about discs or
rollers in everyday use is that they don't start stlipping in the wet,
like rim brakes.
> So long as you don't 'go tandem' to put your underused chauffeur to use,
> all should be well. :-)
Now that's an idea!
> Rob
D'you know what I regret, Rob? A few years ago when I ordered a Royal
Dutch Gazelle delivered from the Continent, I gave my old bike to the
LBS just to retain his goodwill; I didn't want him to change his habit
of doing whatever I want done on my bike instantly, while I wait. That
bike was an 80s-90s Peugeot manganese alloy concoction in a reasonable
mountainbike geometry, beautifully fillet-brazed. I should have kept
it, thrown off the worn-out fifteen year-old Sachs-Huret mechanics,
had the frame sandblasted and painted, and built it up again with best-
quality parts. You just can't buy a frame of that quality now without
going to some custom maker and paying out a lot of money, and then
you're never certain of what you're getting.
Ride tall, brother!
Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo
Andre Jute
> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
> >> >message...
Blustering Don Pearce
> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
> >> "24 (11) feet".
Jute:
> >You don't know shit about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
Predictable Pearce:
> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
you spout off, Donnie-boy?
This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
but you claim to know more.
Get real, man. You don't know shit, and you never will until you
change your attitude.
If you had any brains, or any curiosity, you would use the opportunity
to learn something. I guess you're too old and foolish and smug to
change your ways.
Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER%20Andre%20Jute.html
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER%20Andre%20GDitCA.html
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Andre Jute:
>> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
>> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
>> >> >message...
>
>Blustering Don Pearce
>> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
>> >> "24 (11) feet".
>
>Jute:
>> >You don't know shit about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
>> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
>> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
>> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
>Predictable Pearce:
>> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
>> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
>> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
>
>Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
>typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
>same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
>numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
>you spout off, Donnie-boy?
>
What have 11 and exclamation marks to do with this, idiot? Your error
was between 11 and 24.
And no, Usenet is not typeset. You write your stuff, and it goes where
it goes. When you set type you can insert white metal shims to adjust
the type - that is typesetting.
>This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
>are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
>reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
>written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
>everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
>written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
>but you claim to know more.
>
You have already shown that you don't understand the content of your
books by your mistaken reference to friction as being the controlling
factor in slowing a bike. I assume the same holds true for every
subject you care to cut and paste into something thick and tedious.
>Get real, man. You don't know shit, and you never will until you
>change your attitude.
>
I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?
Andre Jute
inaccurate obiter dicta, and suddenly it's the rack and the water
torture for me, with ever wilder accusations of witchcraft flying for
my impertinence of pointing out to Pope Don-Don that the earth isn't
flat and sun doesn't revolve around the Earth:
On Sep 9, 5:17 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
> >> someone to do it for you),
and
> Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
> quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.
and
> Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
> have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.
and
> >>and had gravity explained to you,
and
> Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
> end to your ability?
and
> >> realise that you posted a heap of shit.
and
> Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
> bike that could manage 1.05g.
and
> You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
> were in boasting mode.
and
>I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
> Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about,
and
> the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
> realise your bluff was going to get called.
and
> Or are we now supposed to believe that
> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
proudly signed:
> d
complete with commercial advertising:
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
Tell us, Donnie-boy, does your wee willie stand up straight and twitch
northwards when you abuse your betters?
Andre Jute
_ george @comcast.net George M. Middius
Don Pearce said:
> I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
> scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?
Speaking of mindless cross-posting, Don ....
Those of us new to this important discussion about typography have no idea
what either "24 (!!)" or "24 (11)" signifies. Don't let that stop you folks
from cluttering up a bunch of newsgroups with your arcane discussions of
obscure trivia, though.
P.S. Don't you hate Poopie B'ar?
Don Pearce
wrote:
>I love it!, I make a typing error, I pull Pearce up on some wildly
So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
please!
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 06:06:13 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Andre Jute:
> >> >> >Oops, clearly a typo. My file copy says "24 (!!) feet". Can't account
> >> >> >for what happened to turn the two exclamations into the main
> >> >> >message...
>
> >Blustering Don Pearce
> >> >> That change is NOT what happens in a typo; a typo would have produced
> >> >> "24 (11) feet".
>
> >Jute:
> >> >You don't know shit about typography either, do you Donnie-boy?.Buy
> >> >one of my books on typography, listed at my netsite, and you will be
> >> >better informed in future. If you pay attention, of course, and don't
> >> >bluster about how much more you know just because you're Don Pearce.
>
> >Predictable Pearce:
> >> Clearly more than you if you think that typing 11 instead of 24 has
> >> anything to do with typography. Or are we now supposed to believe that
> >> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
>
> >Of course it is a typeset service, you moron. it is self-service
> >typeset service. You use the keyboard to type in the text. It is the
> >same keyboard used in typesetting. The exclamation mark and arabic
> >numeral one are on the same key. Why don't you inform yourself before
> >you spout off, Donnie-boy?
>
> What have 11 and exclamation marks to do with this, idiot? Your error
> was between 11 and 24.
See, Pearcey, in a moment of literary weakness, because I was writing
to you, a known sluggard and smug and aggressive with it, I put two
exclamations in parenthesis behind the number 24 to draw attention to
the fact that I knew it was exceptionally good. Now -- only a brief
digression which the short attention spans like you may skip --
normally I would come down with a sarcastic remark on anyone who uses
two exclamation points when one will do, but in your case I thought
I'd better permit myself the superfluity. Okay, back to the
exclamation points and the number 11. If you type two exclamation
points on your keyboard, you do it by holding down the shift key and
typing the number 1, yes? Try it now so you don't lose the step and
start making a fool of yourself again with empty abuse. Right, now put
a piece of text with two exclamations in it in your word processor,
select the text, and then go find the availble fonts you can change
that text into. Keep trying them one by one. Eventually you will find
several that put what to an typographical ignoramus like you might
appear to be garbage symbols (only the empty square is, and then only
sometimes) in the place of the exclamations, or arabic numeral 1. If
you can't work it out from there, just ask and I'll patronize you some
more.
> And no, Usenet is not typeset. You write your stuff, and it goes where
> it goes. When you set type you can insert white metal shims to adjust
> the type - that is typesetting.
You must have learned your little minimum bit of exceedingly
misleading "knowledge" when you were a very small boy, and now be very
old. Or perhaps your parents were too poor to afford an up-to-date
encyclopedia. Modern typesetting has been done on computer keyboards,
and by computer instruction, where fonts are interchangeble for the
same text, for nearly half a century.
> >This is an excellent example of your blustering arrogance, Pearce. You
> >are talking to someone who knows the subject, who has an international
> >reputation in it and who has earned a rich living from it, who has
> >written several standard texts on the subject, who knows just about
> >everyone who knows more about it than he does (and they too have
> >written texts in a seies of books of which I was general editor) --
> >but you claim to know more.
>
> You have already shown that you don't understand the content of your
> books by your mistaken reference to friction as being the controlling
> factor in slowing a bike.
You keep making the same arrogant mistakes, Don. First, you clearly
don't understand the difference between "controlling factor" and
"limiting factor". Where were you educated, if you were? You should
ask for your tuition back. I quoted a piece from my book that speaks
of the upper limit of retardation of any wheeled vehicle, you
immediately, quite contrary to the quoted text, presume I'm speaking
of "controlling factor", which further leads us to wonder if you have
a comprehension difficulty with the English language. Secondly, you
presume that the small piece I quoted from my book to put you down
like an impertinent puppy, is the entire entry on brakes. It isn't,
there are pages more, including a big section on weight transfer,
which may be what you're trying to accuse me of not knowing about
(that's a good example of how one puts the boot in without opening
oneself to accusions of crude brutality, hmm?).
>I assume the same holds true for every
> subject you care to cut and paste into something thick and tedious.
You don't assume, Donnie-boy, you presume upon my patience. My book on
automobiles was approved of and given to junior engineers as their
bible by a major motor manufacturer. Please explain to me why I should
believe some blustering internet-"engineer" like you knows any better
than professional engineers?
The same applies to my books on reprographics (of which typography is
a part); they are the officially sanctioned texts of people who know
their business. But Don Pearce, who postures on the net as an
"engineer", knows better! Holy shit, who do you expect to believe you,
Pearcey?
> >Get real, man. You don't know shit, and you never will until you
> >change your attitude.
>
> I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
> scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?
Come on Pearcey, it isn't my fault that you're a one-tune dullard. If
you weren't so frightened of the natural curiosity of your monkey
genes, so much more set on dignity above knowledge, you too could be
clever and widely knowledgeable. As for Hogan, you're lying again, I
didn't say I was a scriptwriter for him, I said I threw out a few one-
liners for him when we used to eat in the same caff on King's Cross,
an entirely different matter, as you would know if you knew anything
at all about show business. But I'll let you make a fool of yourself
again by claiming that's an entirely different career before I shoot
you down.
> d
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
Andre Jute
Riding tall
Don Pearce
wrote:
>Andre Jute
>Riding tall
Bored now. You've postured once too often.
Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please. If we
can be bothered to deal with the ensuing verbal diarrhoea, that is.
Jon Yaeger
>>> Andre Jute:
>
> You keep making the same arrogant mistakes . . .
Give me a break / brake.
YOU keep posting the same arrogant, off-topic drivel . . . the Beatles. Now
your bicycle. Leave that crap on R.A.O. with Middiot and Arnie and the other
losers, if you must. This is a tube group. Stay on topic, or stay away.
> don't understand the difference between "controlling factor" and
> "limiting factor".
You clearly display no behavioral controls or limits.
> You don't assume, Donnie-boy, you presume upon my patience. My book on
> automobiles was approved of and given to junior engineers as their
> bible by a major motor manufacturer. Please explain to me why I should
> believe some blustering internet-"engineer" like you knows any better
> than professional engineers?
No doubt It's a great hit at the Matchbook factory . . . .
>
>> I'd like to know what you believe you are today - weren't you a
>> scriptwriter for Paul Hogan or somebody just the other day?
Different day, different personality. Hard to keep them all straight.
>
Your buddy,
Garage trader
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:08:43 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Andre Jute
> >Riding tall
>
> Bored now. You've postured once too often.
Oh, is that what you call it when someone pulls you up when you
postulate and demonstrates that he speaks with far greater authority
than you do on the the subject under discussion.
> Get something else wrong so we can pull that to pieces, please.
Exactly my point, Pearce, that you're malicious scum entirely
uninterested in sharing knowledge or glee, that you are here merely in
an attempt to make yourself look like a big man by continually
"proving" that someone else is wrong.
Here are the samples of your dumb malice from a single exchange:
On Sep 9, 5:17 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> So you have finally done the maths for you (or more likely asked
> >> someone to do it for you),
and
> Do you really need to quote an "authority" (and by the way you can't
> quote yourself as an authority) for such a trivial piece of maths.
and
> Unfortunately you have no idea of the physics of cycles or you would
> have realised that this is not what sets the braking limit of a bike.
and
> >>and had gravity explained to you,
and
> Welll, well, so now you claim to have heard of gravity. Is there no
> end to your ability?
and
> >> realise that you posted a heap of shit.
and
> Andre you lying little toad, I was responding to your claim to have a
> bike that could manage 1.05g.
and
> You fouled up your claim of how well your bike stopped because you
> were in boasting mode.
and
>I know that by tomorrow you will be a leading
> Tour de France competitor so you know what you are talking about,
and
> the simple fact is that your mouth ran away with you and you didn't
> realise your bluff was going to get called.
and
> Or are we now supposed to believe that
> in the imaginary kingdom of Andre, Usenet is a typeset service?
proudly signed:
> d
complete with commercial advertising:
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
You're scum, Pearce.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Vice Squad) also sent a letter.
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 12:13 PM:
> The crooked internet trader Jon Yaeger (aka John and Jono to Atlanta
> Vice Squad) also sent a letter.
>
I sure did.
Now, if the distinguished, educated, honorable, ever-wise, brilliant,
original, clever, articulate, saintly, ingenious, cogent, ever-humble Andre
Jute would read it, get a clue and a life, that would be awesome!
Jon Yaeger,
B.A. / C.G.T.
Andre Jute
> So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
> actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
> please!
In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:
"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".
So let's do the sum and see what we get: (30*30)/(2*11) = 40.9. Nope,
Pearcey, that isn't 1.05. Let's try using compatible units, hmm? 30kph
is 18.64mph, so now let's try (18.64*18.64)/(11*2) = 15.8. Oh dear,
not 1.05 either. Looks like you got a simple formula wrong, Pearcey.
So now, let a reliable authority straighten you out:
"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(Andre Jute: Designing and Building Special Cars, Batsford,
London 1985, p98)
This correct formula, transformed just slightly, permits us to
calculate average retardation in fractions of one gravity when we know
the entry speed and the stopping distance (which is what poor Pearcey
is trying to do):
V^2/(29.9*D)
where V is speed in mph and D is stopping distance in feet. Taking
Pearcey's of 24ft from 30kph, we need first to convert 30kph to mph
(which Pearce overlooked). So (18.64*18.64)/(29.9*11) gives us an
average retardation for Pearce's numbers of 1.05g
At last, the right answer, after applying expert knowledge to
Pearcey's errors. So how does Pearce get the formula wrong, forget to
regularize the measurements, and still get the right answer? Simple.
He tells us himself that he "just pop this into Google. I rarely use
an other calculator these days."
In short, Pearce doesn't know how to do a simple engineering
calculation, he gets formula wrong, he doesn't know to use compatible
measures, he doesn't understand what he is working with, he depends on
Google's idiot service to somehow give him the right answer. Then he
gets abusive when it is pointed out to him that he doesn't fully
(that's putting it very politely indeed!) understand the principles,
that he confuses the theoretical limit of deceleration of a wheeled
vehicle with the controlling factor under a particular set of
circumstance.
Arthur C Clarke said that any advanced technology will appear to a
savage as magic. Don Pearce's magic for technology he doesn't
understand is the Google calculator. He has faith in it. He gets very
angry when its use is questioned.
All this, especially Pearce's vicious attempts to prove everyone else
wrong, and his anger when his errors are pointed out, do make one
wonder how Pearce can ponce around calling himself an engineer.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>On Sep 9, 6:35 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>> So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
>> actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
>> please!
>
>In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
>adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:
>
>"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
>wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".
>
Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
formula into Google. Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?
You really are a pointless sack of shit.
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 12:13 PM:
> The crooked internet trader Jon Yaeger (aka John and Jono to Atlanta
> Vice Squad) also sent a letter.
Yo 'Dre,
I don't understand why a man of your superior intelligence fails to grasp
that rec.audio.tubes is supposed to be about TUBECRAFT and it is not your
personal venue for off-topic obiter dicta. I'm left to conclude that your
spurious ejaculations are the product of ego needs and personality deficits.
I don't find your attempts to be scientific to be compelling or cogent (or
even accurate); your high-fallutin' offerings of "prose" are invariably
pretentious, stilted, self-serving and boring.
Why not learn some website craft and put a blog on your anemic website? On
occasion you can make a note to R.A.T. and let the others know that you have
just posted something of profound importance there? That way, folks who are
dying to hear about your pasta consumption or your daily bowel movements can
get their fill.
What say you, friend?
Jon Yaeger
B.A. / C.G.T.
John Byrns
nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
Don, Andre's observations on your use of Google formulas may finally
explain the mystery of your apparent lack of understanding of much of
the material you post to usenet. The simple Parroting of information
found on Google would go a long way towards a possible explanation.
Regards,
John Byrns
--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
Peter Wieck
> In article <46e42a7d.842247...@news.plus.net>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yikes, John.
Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.
Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.
Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:
Oops... same result.
Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
= 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.
Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.
That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.
So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.
As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
John Byrns
Peter Wieck <pf...@aol.com> wrote:
> Yikes, John.
>
> Just change 11 feet to 3.353 meters.
> 30kph = 30,000 mph/60/60 = 8.33 mps.
>
> Comes to a bit over 1.05G whomever calculates it.
>
> Now, let's use Mr. Jute's Formula:
>
> Oops... same result.
>
> Now the bottom line is that an individual by his own admission at 1/8
> ton (for gentleness, we will call it a "short" ton of 2000 lbs. avdp.
> = 250 pounds/2.2 = 113.6 kg.) goes from 8.3 mps to 0 mps in 3.353
> meters... whatever smoke and mirrors are applied and surrounding it.
> And we will allow the bicycle as being part of that short ton. A long
> ton (2200 pounds, 1000kg) only makes the impact a bit more painful.
>
> Now just use your basic intuitive knowledge, no math required. Grade-
> school science. G = 32/s/s. One second, fallen 16 feet, speed = 32fps.
> 2 seconds, fallen 48 feet, speed = 64fps. And so forth.
>
> That is very nearly the functioning equivalent of running into a brick
> wall. If you want an equivalent for it, imagine you have fallen ~ 14
> feet onto whatever... that is about what you would be doing at the 14-
> foot mark. Oh, sorry, you have fallen about 4.26 meters.
>
> So, gravity gives you ~8.3mps in 4.26 meters (9.8M in 1S). Jute's
> fantasy machine does it in less (3.36M). Therefore in more than 1G.
> How much more is not the point. But 0.05g is certainly close enough.
>
> As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.
Peter, your problem is that you have not yet correctly identified the
"battle". This bicycle stopping distance business has nothing to do
with it, I haven't even been following the math and computations which
are of minimal interest to me in this instance, what I was playing off
of and generalizing on was Andre's mention of Don's use of Google, which
I suddenly realized explained a lot of things.
If Don choses to take exception to my general comments on his modis
operandi with respect to Google, then I may have to get more specific,
in the mean time it will be interesting to see if you can identify the
specific "battle" that prompted my comment, hint it is totally unrelated
to Andre or any of his threads.
Andre Jute
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:48:11 -0700, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 9, 6:35 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> >> So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
> >> actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
> >> please!
>
> >In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
> >adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:
>
> >"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
> >wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".
>
> Jute, you are a foul, lying weasel. Despite your lying editing-out of
> the relevant words (from within a line even!) I told you to put that
> formula into Google.
Indeed you did, Pearcey, and I so reported, not just once but several
times. But you snipped the part of my letter where I did so, perhaps
to justify calling a liar. But you're the liar, because I didn't snip
your words, as you snipped mine, I reported them in full, and sneered
at them in full, perhaps too fulsomely for you to bear. I give my
entire post again below, so that everyone can see what foul lying shit
you are.
>Although it suits you to pretend you don't know,
> Google handles all the different units quite happily, and provides
> exactly the right answer, which is 1.05g. If you want to do it
> manually, you must convert kph to metres per second and feet into
> metres then divide the result by 9.81. Want to do all that the long
> way when Google will handle the unit conversions for you?
But that's the point, Pearcey, that doing it the long way teaches and
reinforces understanding of the interrelationship of the factors,
something you are direly in need of, as has been amply demonstrated in
the Smover thread, where you repeatedly showed us you are ignorant of
quite simple matters regarding acceleration and deceleration.
> You really are a pointless sack of shit.
Oh, not pointless, surely. I serve to correct the lucanae in your
knowledge and to whisper in your ear that you don't know everything.
And here is my entire previous post again, so that everyone can see
that you are, in your own words, a lying sack of shit:
On Sep 9, 6:35 am, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
> So you finally admit you have fouled up and have no actual answers to
> actual points of fact. That makes it game set and match. Next subject
> please!
In the thread "Smooth Mover: bicycle with electronic gearchange and
adaptive suspension" Don Pearce told us:
"that comes out at 1.05g" complete with his formula for "Anyone who
wants to do the sum the easy way.... (30 kph)^2 / (2 * 11 ft) in g".
So let's do the sum and see what we get: (30*30)/(2*11) = 40.9. Nope,
Pearcey, that isn't 1.05. Let's try using compatible units, hmm? 30kph
is 18.64mph, so now let's try (18.64*18.64)/(11*2) = 15.8. Oh dear,
not 1.05 either. Looks like you got a simple formula wrong, Pearcey.
So now, let a reliable authority straighten you out:
"The maximum braking force that can be applied to a vehicle through
its wheels -- the mass of air having its own retarding force -- is
limited by the friction between the tire and the road, and is equal to
the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the coefficient of friction.
On a dry pavement, this coefficient could be as high as 1; with a
coefficient of unity, retardation would be 1g or 32.2ft/s^2 and the
stopping distance in feet would be V^2/29.9 where V is the speed in
mph. I must stress though that this is on an ideal surface such as
does not exist outside a test facility..."
(Andre Jute: Designing and Building Special Cars, Batsford,
London 1985, p98)
This correct formula, transformed just slightly, permits us to
calculate average retardation in fractions of one gravity when we know
the entry speed and the stopping distance (which is what poor Pearcey
is trying to do):
V^2/(29.9*D)
where V is speed in mph and D is stopping distance in feet. Taking
Pearcey's of 24ft
[[[typo, Pearce, trying to make me look foolish -- LOL! -- is actually
working with 11ft]]]
from 30kph, we need first to convert 30kph to mph
(which Pearce overlooked). So (18.64*18.64)/(29.9*11) gives us an
average retardation for Pearce's numbers of 1.05g
At last, the right answer, after applying expert knowledge to
Pearcey's errors. So how does Pearce get the formula wrong, forget to
regularize the measurements, and still get the right answer? Simple.
He tells us himself that he "just pop this into Google. I rarely use
an other calculator these days."
[[[Yoohoo, Pearcey! See, I didn't leave out your Google Idiot Service
habit.]]]
Peter Wieck
> In article <1189366780.295588.311...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
John:
Mpffffff.... and with respect even if choked out of me..... Mr. Jute
is incapable of honesty or straightforward behavior. His response to
criticism, his errors and his bald lies is universally bullying and
meretricious.
So, whatever the failings and failures of his detractors and
supporters, they are lesser than those of the target and/or master.
You need to understand that by not supporting one individual, I am
quite capable of not supporting his/her enemies or detractors as well.
I have spent time in the Middle East, but the common "enemy of my
enemies is my friend" philosophy of that region is not mine. And vice-
versa, of course. I am also even capable of being supportive of
individuals on both sides of an otherwise poisonous division.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Andre Jute
> In article <1189366780.295588.311...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Oley Polony, this poor dumb cluck Worthless Wiecky is another Parrot.
He has taken poor old Pearcey's 11ft over without realizing that a
retardation in excess of 1G is impossible.
In fact, all these little scumballs, like Pearce, trying by
misrepresenting a typo to make out I made a gross error, would be
better employed by the more reasonable argument that even 0.484g (24ft
from 30kph or 18.64mph) is exceptional, in fact so good that even the
hostile Eiron at first agreed with Pearce's statement, in his
ignorance, that anything near 0.5g is impossible; since then Eiron has
surprised himself by making an even better stop than my best one.
> > As Jute's amanuensis, you need to pick your battles more aptly.
>
> Peter, your problem is that you have not yet correctly identified the
> "battle". This bicycle stopping distance business has nothing to do
> with it, I haven't even been following the math and computations which
> are of minimal interest to me in this instance, what I was playing off
> of and generalizing on was Andre's mention of Don's use of Google, which
> I suddenly realized explained a lot of things.
It struck me too a blinding blow; I had been wondering for years if
Don was just very poorly educated, or if some leftbrain-rightbrain
slippage accounted for the stupidities he comes out with every so
often, then defends beyond all reason, indeed with a great deal of
anger and abuse. Then he told me to use Google's Black Box for Known
Idiots and all became clear in an instant.
> If Don choses to take exception
Pearce is too thick to grasp a warning. He's a jerk-up: he will come
out swinging.
>to my general comments on his modis
> operandi with respect to Google, then I may have to get more specific,
> in the mean time it will be interesting to see if you can identify the
> specific "battle" that prompted my comment, hint it is totally unrelated
> to Andre or any of his threads.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Byrns
>
> --
> Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/
I doubt that Blustering Don Pearce is worth a battle at all, purely on
the grounds that nothing will be learned in return for the effort, no
truth confirmed. He isn't even as intelligent as Pasternack; in fact,
after recent experiences (Pinkerton, Poopie, Krueger, Pearce) I'm
starting to view even that moral cripple Pasternack with nostalgia:
after all, he merely lied about electronics and was quickly caught
out; he wasn't actively ignorant.
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
a stoolie for the Topic Police.
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 5:33 PM:
> It is reported from the Atlanta Docks that the garage vermin Jon (aka
> Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
> a stoolie for the Topic Police.
I love your irony, Jute. Calling me a "stoolie", when it was YOU who posted
an off-topic thread on "smooth mover." ;-) Clever!
On second thought, 'Dre, why not check out MySpace.com?
You don't need any special website building skills to join, and you can post
pretty pictures of your pasta, your bicycle, your ill-gotten transformers,
your primitive projects, etc. You can even list your buddies like John
Burns and L.V. and link to their sites, etc.
You can even talk about tubes on rare occasions there!
Pretty cool, huh?
Jon
B.A. / C.G.T.
Andre Jute
> in article 1189373628.320181.317...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Andre Jute
> at fiul...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 5:33 PM:
>
> > It is reported from the Atlanta Docks that the garage vermin Jon (aka
> > Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
> > a stoolie for the Topic Police.
>
> I love your irony, Jute. Calling me a "stoolie", when it was YOU who posted
> an off-topic thread on "smooth mover." ;-) Clever!
Only a cad would blare out the punchline of someone else's joke.
Still, I'm glad you caught it; I always worry when I include a
scatalogical pun to curry favour with the lower intellectual levels,
that I will make it too subtle. That even you got it, Yaeger, proves I
haven't lost my common touch.
Off-topic? How? You have as usual not been paying attention, Yeager.
My Smover it is an electronically operated and controlled bike. These
are electronics conferences.
Andre Jute
Creator of Worthless Wieckless <TM>. All Rights Reserved by McCoy-Jute
Exploitation. Patent Pending. Licences still available for North Korea
and Lesotho. Our Attorneys are Bigger than Your Shysters.
Jon Yaeger
at fiu...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 6:18 PM:
> On Sep 9, 2:48 pm, Jon Yaeger <jon...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> in article 1189373628.320181.317...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, Andre Jute
>> at fiul...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/9/07 5:33 PM:
>>
>>> It is reported from the Atlanta Docks that the garage vermin Jon (aka
>>> Jono and John to the Atlanta Vice Squad) Yaeger has offered to become
>>> a stoolie for the Topic Police.
>>
>> I love your irony, Jute. Calling me a "stoolie", when it was YOU who posted
>> an off-topic thread on "smooth mover." ;-) Clever!
>
> Only a cad would blare out the punchline of someone else's joke.
> Still, I'm glad you caught it; I always worry when I include a
> scatalogical pun to curry favour with the lower intellectual levels,
> that I will make it too subtle. That even you got it, Yaeger, proves I
> haven't lost my common touch.
>
> Off-topic? How? You have as usual not been paying attention, Yeager.
> My Smover it is an electronically operated and controlled bike. These
> are electronics conferences.
*** Then do it justice with a vacuum tube version.
Patrick Turner
Jon, just wondrin where ya got your university degree.
Does BA / CGT mean Billious Artisan of Completely Ghastly Terminology,
or what?
Anyway, it appears it has become extremely fashionable to post lotsa
stuff at r.a.t which is 99% utterly useless information
for building anything using a vacuum tube.
A few old stalwarts of tubecraft remain, but have run out of anything
they want to say about tubes
because its all been said before, and there doesn't seem to be a great
number of stary eyed newbies
who want to learn anything.
So while there is precious little interest in tube craft right now, ppl
will
naturally drift right off topic, and I'm guilty as anyone in this
regard,
but I draw the line at just throwing shite at the other bored monkeys in
the cage.
I glance at the list of headers that appear each day, and often there
isn't anything
I will read, or want to reply to.
So I get more time to spend in the workshop being useful.
How's your Blogatii Webatus Situm coming along?
The site should have some means of "flatus projecta limitum" built in
if you expect a large number of folks to be attracted to it repeatedly
:-)
Best Regards,
Patrick Turner.
Jon Yaeger
in...@turneraudio.com.au wrote on 9/9/07 10:33 PM:
Hi Patrick,
Greetings, mate! Is the winter thaw upon you yet? Are the sheilas back in
bloom?
FYI, I got my B.A. from Emory University (a provincial institute) and my
honorary "Crooked Garage Trader" from none other than R.A.T.s own ass, Andre
Jute. It's my second degree; I try to return the third as a favor.
Alas, my own tube / hobby website hasn't received any attention in a few
years, I'm afraid. I'm too busy with a new data recovery business. I
haven't had much time to tinker, but at least a dozen tube projects await
me.
Hope all is well with you and yours.
Jon
Patrick Turner
Spring has finally arrived, although its always springtime in my mind,
and when I got a real bad case of the flu this last month, I was forced
out of my frigid shed
to working indoors on the revised transformer and chokes pages.
Good things must come from idle times of sickness, afaiac.
Shielas over 50 who I should be able to relate to all seem
quite missing from cafes I frequent, and must be well into menopause,
ie, they have paused from men, which suits me, because nearly all the
women I see over 50
are quite unattractive, and remind me only of bleak winter's chill.
The young ones serving my coffee and meals at the cafes are a pleasure
though, all year round.
> FYI, I got my B.A. from Emory University (a provincial institute) and my
> honorary "Crooked Garage Trader" from none other than R.A.T.s own ass, Andre
> Jute. It's my second degree; I try to return the third as a favor.
I also once went to Emory University, but I found it a very abbrazive
place,
and I dropped out after a month, leaving me free to learn by myself.
I have to admit, sometimes have had an unwanted third degree conferred
as an honourary type,
and I have always graciously returned such tird degrees with dignatty.
>
> Alas, my own tube / hobby website hasn't received any attention in a few
> years, I'm afraid. I'm too busy with a new data recovery business. I
> haven't had much time to tinker, but at least a dozen tube projects await
> me.
Data recovery probably pays better than creating yet more tubecraft
verbage for folks to read and argue about.
>
> Hope all is well with you and yours.
Indeedy,
Patrick Turner.
>
> Jon