Myths of Cycling
jack rose
Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
dispel this myth. My wife and I ride a tandem. The tandem decresases
my average speed and greatly increases hers. There is a slight premium
over the average of our averages but we don't ride 30 mph, like many
people think we should.
3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
favorite of non exercisers and some runners. Well, tell that to my
heart rate monitor. My hard days are about 95% of maximum heart rate.
That's pretty hard.
4. Clippless pedals increase speed when compared to toe clips. This
has not been my experience, although they are more comfortable.
5. Buying a more expensive bike increases speed. Most people don't
experience much difference.
Any comments or any additions to the list?
Jack
please remove "no spam" for reply
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <33DE39...@dmv.com>, jack rose <jgr...@nospam.dmv.com> wrote:
>Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>
>1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
>variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
>miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
The more miles you have the more powerful rider you are. No doubt
about it. Can you rely only on miles? No, but without the base mileage
you don't have the endurance to keep any pace.
>2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
>dispel this myth. My wife and I ride a tandem. The tandem decresases
>my average speed and greatly increases hers. There is a slight premium
>over the average of our averages but we don't ride 30 mph, like many
>people think we should.
Tandems are faster if you are both pedalling easy. The more closely
matched your cadence and pedalling style, the faster you can go
before you start fighting each other.
My wife can ride at 22 or so, I can ride at 24-25 for a considerable
distance. On the tandem we can ride at about 20. Her power stroke
starts at the absolutel top and mine starts at about 30%. She jerks
my legs down and then holds me back during the rest of the stroke.
Same with my sister-in-law though we are a better match the speed
is about the same. With a male friend we match a lot better and
can ride above 22 pretty easily. A couple I know road 65 miles and
averaged 23 mph.
>3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
>favorite of non exercisers and some runners. Well, tell that to my
>heart rate monitor. My hard days are about 95% of maximum heart rate.
>That's pretty hard.
Cycling can be an easy exercise or a hard exercise. Running is
always a hard exercise or a harder exercise. Heart rate monitors
show it.
>4. Clippless pedals increase speed when compared to toe clips. This
>has not been my experience, although they are more comfortable.
If you had good fitting toe clips and knew how to use them you
were secure and the speed difference will be minimal. Clipless
systems are MUCH safer.
>5. Buying a more expensive bike increases speed. Most people don't
>experience much difference.
Buying a good bike after you've had a _bad_ bike (read Huffy) will
increase your speed substantially. Going from a Diamondback Expert
to a Colnago Master Light will do almost nothing to your speed.
6. Training harder will give you more speed and power. In fact if
you don't train on a proper schedule you can slow yourself up. Many
Master's class riders don't rest enough and harder training slows
them substantially.
bob masse
jack rose (jgr...@dmv.com) wrote:
: Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
: many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
: 1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
: variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
: miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
I'm 44 and weigh in about 250 pounds and
my experience was that I started out at 12-13 mph hour in speed and
after 5000 miles of riding all year long 17-18 mph was more comfortable a
speed to stay at (winds permitting).
The stronger my legs got the easier it was to go faster... So I conclude
that milage is important in becoming a faster more efficient cyclist.
--
Bob Masse
kh6...@pe.net
Tom Lawrence
1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
Your implicit statement here is that speed is the only thing that
makes one cyclist better than another. This is only valid if you are a
racer, i.e. it is only valid for a very small minority of cyclists.
If I told you I did a ride last year at an average speed of 12.7 mph
including stops, you probably wouldn't think I was a very good
cyclist. If I told you it was a triple century, does that make me a
good cyclist or not? By your definition it does not.
2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
dispel this myth.
Any survey of tandems at a mostly flat double century will convince
you that tandems are very fast. Perhaps double century riders are more
experienced and skilled on average than century riders. I suspect that
skill is very important in getting the most out of the machine, be it
a single or a tandem.
3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
favorite of non exercisers and some runners. Well, tell that to my
heart rate monitor. My hard days are about 95% of maximum heart rate.
That's pretty hard.
Tell that to my work clothes on my morning commute when I don't even
bother to put on cycling clothes because I don't ride fast enough to
break a sweat. Cycling is what you make of it. A 90 year old can find
a pace that is comfortable on a bike. The same cannot be said of
running.
Jessica Mosher
> >2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
> >my average speed and greatly increases hers. There is a slight premium
> >over the average of our averages but we don't ride 30 mph, like many
> >people think we should.
>
> Tandems are faster if you are both pedalling easy. The more closely
> matched your cadence and pedalling style, the faster you can go
> before you start fighting each other.
>
> My wife can ride at 22 or so, I can ride at 24-25 for a considerable
> distance. On the tandem we can ride at about 20. Her power stroke
> starts at the absolutel top and mine starts at about 30%. She jerks
> my legs down and then holds me back during the rest of the stroke.
> Same with my sister-in-law though we are a better match the speed
> is about the same. With a male friend we match a lot better and
> can ride above 22 pretty easily. A couple I know road 65 miles and
> averaged 23 mph.
Recently I started riding a tandem--it would seem that its captain and I
are about the same level on the flats and have the same endurance
level. I may be a slightly better climber (when my knees are good!).
Our average has been perhaps 2-3 mph faster on the tandem. I only feel
like we're "fighting" climbing, but that may be due to the fact that
climbing's a lot different when your upper body isn't involved as much,
and I haven't figured out how to "push" the bike up yet. I notice that
on some of the other tandems, the stoker sits up and/or socializes a lot
more.
I would think the involvement of the stoker would play a crucial role.
I try to ride the tandem as hard and at the same heart rate as my own
bike. It's proven to be a much more leg-centered activity. Does size
difference also play a role? What about crankarm positions?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jessica L. Mosher UniKix Technologies
j.mo...@unikix.com Phoenix, AZ USA
Barry A. Scott
Showing a little will power and not eating the tenth devil dog is healthier
and cheaper that buying titanium presta valves or some such nonsense.
Instead of trying to save a few grams, focus on losing a few pounds.
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote in article <33DE39...@dmv.com>...
Garry Lee
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>
> Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
> many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>
> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
The above is only slightly true.
The great pros like Sean Kelly always trained easy. They got speed from
racing. He told me that himself.
To illustrate the effect, I and pals do long 2 week tours in the
summer, during which my pulse would NEVER be allowed go over 160
and would show an AVERAGE cycling rate of about 103.
After these tours I can time trial much faster than I ever could
when I was speed training.
After one I time trialled a reasonably hilly route of 44m at 20.75mph,
on which I would be hard pushed to average 18+ at the best of times and
which I would usually average 15mph, training comfortably.
I am not a good athlete, I just enjoy myself.
Chris W. Johnson
In article <33DE39...@dmv.com>, jgr...@nospam.dmv.com wrote:
>Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
>favorite of non exercisers and some runners. Well, tell that to my
>heart rate monitor. My hard days are about 95% of maximum heart rate.
>That's pretty hard.
As others have already pointed-out cycling can be easy or hard depending
on how you do it. I suspect, BTW, that when most people talk about cycling
being easy they're referring to the amount of forward motion the cyclist
generates for the amount of work put in. From what I've read over the
years, cycling does hold a unique position in this respect - it's the most
efficient way of coupling a human powerplant to a machine. And when that
human coupled to a bicycle works at the limit of their capabilities in,
for example, the 1984 Tour de France, you get what biologists Jared
Diamond and Kimberly Hammond of the University of California described in
the journal Nature as "the highest measured daily energy budgets
maintained by any humans over long periods". (Reuter, 2-Apr-97.) So
cycling can be easy, or it can be the hardest thing humans can do,
depending on how you do it. (And whether or not you equate energy
consumption with "hardness," which seems generally reasonable to me.)
BTW, Diamond & Hammond reached an interesting conclusion as a result of
their study of the '84 TDF cyclists and various lab animals - that, as the
Reuter article summarized, "athletes are limited in how far and long they
can run, cycle or swim not by the restrictions of bone or muscle but
because major organs take up too much energy." I assume this is an issue
for top athletes more than the rest of us, but it seemed worth mentioning.
Also, it could give new meaning to the famous sentence "we want your
liver." :-)
----Chris
Chris W. Johnson
Email: chr...@mail.utexas.edu
Web Page: http://gargravarr.cc.utexas.edu/
"The car allows Americans to persist in the delusion that civic life
is unnecessary. As a practical matter, this regime is putting us out
of business as a civilization." --J.H. Kunstler, _Home from Nowhere_
Gene&Pat Cottrell
> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
>
> makes one cyclist better than another. This is only valid if you are a
> racer, i.e. it is only valid for a very small minority of cyclists.
> If I told you I did a ride last year at an average speed of 12.7 mph
> including stops, you probably wouldn't think I was a very good
> cyclist. If I told you it was a triple century, does that make me a
> good cyclist or not? By your definition it does not.
Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
measure who is the best?
,__o
_-\_<,
(*)/'(*) Gene
Sheldon Brown
Jack Rose wrote:
>Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>
>1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
>variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
>miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
I would have to say that this exhibits an overly narrow view of
cycling. For most cyclists, speed is not a priority. If they're in a
hurry, they'll drive, or take a bus, train or 'plane. Racers are a
teeny-weeny minority among the world's cyclists.
For some cyclists, the ideal is to be able to ride all day and be fresh
at the end.
For others, the ideal is to get to where they are going with the least
financial/ecological expenditure.
For others, the ideal is to get big air.
For others, the ideal is to be at one with their bicycle in a beautiful
dance.
For others, the ideal is to ride over obstacles that appear
insurmountable.
For others, the ideal is to experience the beauty of nature and the
diversity of humanity.
For others, the ideal is to travel self-sufficiently, under their own
power, on a machine that they can maintain and repair themselves.
All of these cyclists are right.
Sheldon "The Big Picture" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
(617) 244-1040 FAX 244-1041
Garry Lee
> Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
> not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
> best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
> between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
> measure who is the best?
>
Why not get a motorbike?
The best cyclist is the one who enjoys it the most.
Stella Hackell
> Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
> many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>
> 1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
Speed is only one measure of ability. Endurance is another. Skill
is another. Someone who can't ride in a straight line and can't
finish an 85-mile ride with 8000 feet of climbing and 10 miles of
dirt roads is not a better cyclist IMO, even if they can blow my doors
off over 10 miles.
> 2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
> dispel this myth.
I started riding a tandem recently and what surprised me most
is how fast we do go, and not just on the flats. We've dropped many
strong cyclists on singles going along rolling hills. We're slower
climbing hills. An awful lot depends on skill. One of my tandem
partners, who is very keen on speed, shifts frequently to
maintain momentum and high cadence, and we fly. My other
partner has a more casual attitude toward speed, but we can
still go as fast as singles except uphill. So tandems certainly *can*
be fast.
> 3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
> favorite of non exercisers and some runners.
Oh, definitely! Runners don't know they've gotten a good workout
unless their knees and tendons are trashed. :) And most people
who ride only occasionally go so slowly (and such short distances)
that they don't get much of a workout. Tell them you rode ALL
the WAY to work, though, and they goggle at you as if you
were a super-athlete (and a kook).
> Any comments or any additions to the list?
--Cycling is much too dangerous for anyone except a total kook
(see above). It must only be done on bike paths.
--If you ride a road bike with skinny tires off-road, it
will collapse. Only a kook would do that.
--Cyclists are geeks with no social lives and are incapable
of relating to normal people; they have nothing better
to do than spend all their free time riding around in traffic.
Plus they only eat raw food and never bathe.
--Hanging your shorts to dry in the sun kills germs. (This is my
favorite.)
--
Stella Hackell ste...@apple.com
"..people who spend most of their natural lives riding bicycles..get their
personalities mixed up with the personalities of their bicycle as a result of
the interchanging of the atoms of each of them, and you would be
surprised at the number of people who are nearly half people and half
bicycles."
Flann O'Brien, The Third Policeman.
John Everett
In article <33E00C...@worldnet.att.net>, cott...@worldnet.att.net
says...
>
>Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
>not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
>best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
>between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
>measure who is the best?
How else? Well, some people put a bunch of ramps and half pipes in a parking
lot and ride over and around them while other people judge their performance.
The person with the most points is judged to be the best cyclist. It all
depends upon your criteria.
--
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/~jeverett
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Things have gotten so bad I feel the need to disguise my email address.
And I don't like this explanation because I just hate long signatures.
Sara Easler
Jack Rose writes:
|> Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
|> many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
|>
|> 1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
|> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
|> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
Hmmm...Faster=Better. That's a pretty narrow view. How 'bout
endurance or knowing how to pace oneself? Also, I don't care how fast
someone is, if they blatently ignore traffic laws, they're a lousy
cyclist. Riding a bicycle doesn't have to be competitive either.
How 'bout someone who just enjoys the hell out of it at 10mph ?
Or who knows how to equip themselves for just about any breakdown?
Or someone who has encouraged numerous other cyclists by riding
with new cyclists?
|> 2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
|> dispel this myth. My wife and I ride a tandem. The tandem decresases
|> my average speed and greatly increases hers. There is a slight premium
|> over the average of our averages but we don't ride 30 mph, like many
|> people think we should.
Over normal varied terrain I agree. But on flats tandems can really
move, with alot of extra effort. And as you've illustrated, a bike by
itself is not fast. It's the engine(s) that make a difference.
|> 3. Cycling isn't really exercise because its so easy. This is a
|> favorite of non exercisers and some runners. Well, tell that to my
|> heart rate monitor. My hard days are about 95% of maximum heart rate.
|> That's pretty hard.
I certainly agree that cycling is good exercise, but I've not had
many non-cyclist friends claim that it's easy. In fact, just the
opposite. They act as if riding a bicycle to work is some kind of
athletic feat.
|> 4. Clippless pedals increase speed when compared to toe clips. This
|> has not been my experience, although they are more comfortable.
Isn't the claim that toeclips/clipless are a more efficient use of
energy? They just attach differently. Seems like this is a matter of
personal preference. Also, for in-town errands, ie: frequent stops, I
don't like either.
|> 5. Buying a more expensive bike increases speed. Most people
|> don't experience much difference.
No argument here. There's all kinds of opportunities to spend money
in the quest for "better cycling" bicycle socks, bicycle glasses,
bicycle shirts, the list goes on and on.
|> Any comments or any additions to the list?
6. Riding a bicycle is a dangerous sport. There's many, many
different styles of cycling, racing, mountain biking, touring,
commuting etc. If done with some common sense, riding a bicycle is
quite safe. Bicycles can be an excellent mode of transportation too,
as well as an enjoyable recreation.
Sara
Mark A. Stone
Garry Lee (gl...@iol.ie) wrote:
> > Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
> > not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
> > best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
> > between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
> > measure who is the best?
Does that mean that the cyclist that takes his car (and therefore arrives
first) is the best? And about being strong -- remember, smell isn't
everything!
--
--------------------------------
bh...@rgfn.epcc.edu
The ".edu" meens i are smart.
Tom Lawrence
Tom Lawrence wrote:
>
> In article <33DE39...@dmv.com> jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> writes:
>
> 1. The more miles you ride the better cyclist you are. Speed, the
> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
>
> Your implicit statement here is that speed is the only thing that
> makes one cyclist better than another. This is only valid if you are a
> racer, i.e. it is only valid for a very small minority of cyclists.
> If I told you I did a ride last year at an average speed of 12.7 mph
> including stops, you probably wouldn't think I was a very good
> cyclist. If I told you it was a triple century, does that make me a
> good cyclist or not? By your definition it does not.
Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
measure who is the best?
Again, you are taking the very narrow viewpoint that speed is the only
worthy goal. Are you so unimaginative that you can't think of anything
else that one might achieve with a bicycle? If speed is your only goal
then that is certainly your right. But don't go claiming that so and
so is a better cyclist than I am because he rides faster. That is just
your opinion, not fact.
Joshua_Putnam
>Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours.
Not really -- many people couldn't finish a triple century at any
speed, even people who do fairly well on short races. Your legs
might be OK after 30 hours in the saddle, but unless you're used
to long rides your butt won't let you spend 30 hours in the
saddle, your arms will be collapsing, your body will be crying
for rest and food, etc.
>We're
>not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
>best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
>between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
>measure who is the best?
First, I doubt the need to measure who is best in the first
place. Does it really matter what other cyclists do if you enjoy
your own riding? Not unless you're racing, and even then you may
be competing mainly against yourself, trying for a personal best
even if you have no chance of placing, or no prospect of being
anywhere but first in the field.
Second, there are many other ways of defining a good cyclist:
tactical skills, accident rates, cardiovascular fitness,
observed trials riding, etc.
Even in racing, there are races where the distance is not
predetermined, like miss-and-out races or time rather than
distance records, which at the long end test mental endurance
and total body conditioning far more than raw speed.
Even in races where the distance is set and the first across the
line wins, speed alone is not enough -- do you really think the
strongest individual rider always wins the Tour de France, or
the rider with the best team tactics and team members?
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <5rq6j5$1...@news.epcc.edu>,
Mark A. Stone <bh...@rgfn.epcc.edu> wrote:
>Garry Lee (gl...@iol.ie) wrote:
>
>> > Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
>> > not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
>> > best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
>> > between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
>> > measure who is the best?
>
>first) is the best? And about being strong -- remember, smell isn't
>everything!
For thise whoi actually read the posting, it was NOT Garry Lee who
posted that. Mark, please watch your attribution. Gary actually
said something completely different (and, as usual, intelligent).
bacon
Gene&Pat Cottrell wrote:
>Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours.
Actually there are a whole lot of people who would find "poking along at
10-12 mph" for one hour to be impossible. Very few would have the
ability to do it for 300 miles. I spent many years busting my ass on a
mountain bike, riding hard and fast as possible, with little
improvement. I got a road bike and started busting my ass on it as
well, with little improvement (my goal is to go faster on a mountain
bike). Finally I reluctantly heeded the advice of a trainer friend who
has been telling me to spend a month or so logging lots of easy miles on
the road bike. Stay off the mountain bike and resist the urge to push
yourself, stay in the aerobic area (about 145 for me), ride every day
for at least an hour. I did it for six weeks then returned to harder
training interspersed with long easy road rides and I discovered two
things, 1- It's really quite pleasant riding without all the pain and
sweat. and 2- My performance has improved dramatically for the first
time in many years. I am riding, at 41, better than ever before!
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
Ingore Mike Vandeman and he will melt like the wicked witch of the west.
Support the anti-Spam amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Randy Coverstone
Garry Lee <gl...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> Faster IS better! Anyone can poke along at 10-12 mph for hours. We're
>> not talking most enjoyable/fun here (that's up to each individual). The
>> best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
>> between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
>> measure who is the best?
>>
>Why not get a motorbike?
>The best cyclist is the one who enjoys it the most.
I'll buy that.
In addition, I tend to most respect the cyclist who is most competent
and rides safely.
Maybe the best cyclist is the one who can ride the longest without an
accident.
Maybe the best cyclist is the one who can have a bike breakdown in the
middle of a desert, and still emerge healthy.
-Randy
Henry Troup
In article <33DFA442...@sheldonbrown.com>,
Sheldon Brown <Capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote:
>For some cyclists, ...
[excellent list deleted]
For some cyclists, the goal is to get to work for 9:00 am. Speed is
only one component in this.
--
Henry Troup - h...@nortel.ca (Canada) - I don't speak for Northern Telecom
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be forwarded to the originator's ISP.
You may also be billed an unreasonable amount for proofreading services.
aw...@m-w.com
In article <stella-ya0231800...@news.apple.com>,
ste...@apple.com (Stella Hackell) wrote:
>
> --Hanging your shorts to dry in the sun kills germs. (This is my
> favorite.)
>
Hmmmm....I'll assert that this is *not* a myth. Sunlight has
UV light. UV light kills some microorganisms (bacteria & fungi)
and some non-vascular plants (molds & mildews). We hang out
our son's cloth diapers on a clothesline for this reason
(also because we're cheapskates).
From "Fundamentals of Microbiology":
p.57 "...ultraviolet light damages DNA and thus can be used to control
bacteria on an environmental surface."
p. 725 "Ultraviolet light is valuable for reducing the microbial
population where direct exposure takes place. it it used to reduce
airborne or surface contamination in a hospital room, morgue, pharmacy,
toilet facility, or food service operation. It is noteworthy that
ultraviolet light from the sun may be an important factor in controlling
microorganisms in the air and upper layers of the soil. One drawback to
practiacl use is its failure to penetrate liquids or solids."
I only had 1 class in microbiolgy, so anyone who's more knowledgable
should correct me if this info is in error.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Earl Wuchter
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 11:43:07 -0700, jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>
>
>2. Tandems are fast. Any survey of tandem riders on a century should
>dispel this myth. My wife and I ride a tandem. The tandem decresases
>my average speed and greatly increases hers. There is a slight premium
>over the average of our averages but we don't ride 30 mph, like many
>people think we should.
>
"The average of our averages"?
You can average averages and get a meaningful result?
I'd like to know how you do that.
Earl Wuchter
Peter Saint James
Gene&Pat Cottrell <cott...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The
>best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
>between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
>measure who is the best?
The best cyclist is the one who gains enlightenment first.
Peter
Peter Saint James
author of Letter from a Busy Street: Traffic vs People
Eric Edwards
On 31 Jul 1997 13:40:44 GMT, Sara Easler <sea...@bla.ca> wrote:
>
>Jack Rose writes:
>
>|> Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>|> many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>|>
>|> variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
>|> miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
>
>|> has not been my experience, although they are more comfortable.
>
>Isn't the claim that toeclips/clipless are a more efficient use of
>energy? They just attach differently. Seems like this is a matter of
>personal preference. Also, for in-town errands, ie: frequent stops, I
>don't like either.
As far as I can tell, toeclips do not make more efficient use of
energy. What that do is allow you to apply more power in a given time,
by using the up stroke in addition to the down stroke. This is really
handy for short, high energy bursts like accelerating away from a light
for climing a small hill. But you also get tired faster. As a bonus,
toeclips can also reduce mussle fatigue since the same set of mussles
is not required to generate all the power.
Clipless pedals extend this advantage by providing a more solid
connection to the pedal than the tightest toeclips. And, unlike fully
sinched toclips, clipless pedals are actually easy to get in and out
of.
I use clipless pedals for all my in-town errands. The special shoes
can be a nusance but the pedals are not. This is mostly because I ride
enough that clipping in and out quickly has become second nature. If I
didn't ride enough to get *good* at the pedals I might a different
view.
JerZ Fox
How 'bout Myth # Whatever: "I'm too old/fat/clumsy/chicken/busy/tired to
ride a bike."
'Nuff said.
Diana B.
What would I know?
JerZ Fox wrote:
No it's true!!! I seen it! : )
What would I know?
What would I know?
pardon pardon my my redundancy rendundancy
JerZ Fox
Diana B.
The JerZ Fox
Money doesn't buy happiness.
Poverty doesn't buy anything.
Charmaine M. Ruppolt
My brother recently broke his collarbone in a mountain biking fall.
I've seen some info here in the past in the group about collarbones --
does anyone know if there's anything (like vitamins, etc.) that would
help to heal the collarbone more quickly? He is wearing a shoulder
brace for the next 6-8 weeks.
Thanks for any help.
Charmaine
Pete Smith
cha...@ix.netcom.com(Charmaine M. Ruppolt) wrote:
>Thanks for any help.
>Charmaine
Wear the brace for as long as the doc tells you. My experience: it
seems like nothing is improving for 4 1/2 to 5 weeks, then everything
heals up really quickly. I was back on the bike in exactly 6 weeks
(at age 50; younger people often heal more quickly).
My doc said there was nothing I could do to speed the process, except
to wear the harness and avoid further injury.
Gene&Pat Cottrell
John Everett wrote:
> How else? Well, some people put a bunch of ramps and half pipes in a parking
> lot and ride over and around them while other people judge their performance.
> The person with the most points is judged to be the best cyclist. It all
> depends upon your criteria.
>
> --
> jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/
I didn't think we were talking about circus performers here. ;-)
Gene&Pat Cottrell
Tom Lawrence wrote:
>
> In article <33E00C...@worldnet.att.net> Gene&Pat Cottrell <cott...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> Tom Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > In article <33DE39...@dmv.com> jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> writes:
> >
> > variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
> > miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
> >
> > makes one cyclist better than another. This is only valid if you are a
> > racer, i.e. it is only valid for a very small minority of cyclists.
> > If I told you I did a ride last year at an average speed of 12.7 mph
> > including stops, you probably wouldn't think I was a very good
> > cyclist. If I told you it was a triple century, does that make me a
> > good cyclist or not? By your definition it does not.
>
> best cyclist is the one who is not only strong, but can go the fastest
> between 2 points using the best technique. How else can you possibly
> measure who is the best?
>
> worthy goal. Are you so unimaginative that you can't think of anything
> else that one might achieve with a bicycle? If speed is your only goal
> then that is certainly your right. But don't go claiming that so and
> so is a better cyclist than I am because he rides faster. That is just
> your opinion, not fact.
Tom,
I don't see anything in my post that should lead you to believe I think
speed is the only worthy goal for a cyclist. All I said was that, I see
speed as the only objective & measurable way to determine the best
cyclist whether it be Time Trial, Crit, Stage etc. I think Bobby Julich
and Vasseur had much more fun than Ullrich in the TDF, but neither one
would say they were better cyclists than Jan Ullrich. The lone cyclist
can have fun at any speed but in my experience in club riding, the
rider(s) that get dropped want to go faster to stay with the front
group. I'm not talking racing here, I'm talking recreational evening
rides. I've never met anyone that would honestly say that a slow rider
is the better rider. Typically the faster rider is more experienced,
stronger, better conditioned for long rides and having more fun. The
slower riders are having fun, but will invariably say "I wish I could
ride like the 'A' pacers".
After all that is said and done, I have neither the time nor the
inclination to become 'the best'. But I'll keep working so I don't get
dropped by the best. :-)
--
,__o
_-\_<,
(*)/'(*) Gene (Nothin beats ridin in a pack at 25-30mph to make
you xxxxxxxxx feel alive)
Lorenzo L. Love
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>Rafael Aviles wrote:
>>
>> In article <33DFA442...@sheldonbrown.com>,
>> Sheldon Brown <Capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Since I've been riding as an adult for over twenty years I've noticed
>> >>many myths concerning the sport of cycling. Here are a few:
>> >>
>> >>variable that seperates cyclists, is dependendent on hard sesssions not
>> >
>> >>miles. Ride 10,000 miles at 14 mph and you will be a 14 mph rider.
>> >
>>
>> I suggest we call you Sheldon "Poet" Brown from now on.
>Those that ride slow, ride slow because they can't ride fast. Everyone
>wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the commitment.
>
>Jack
>
It's your type of narrow minded elitism what turns a lot of people off
from bicycling. Most people would rather go slow and enjoy themselves
then go fast and brag about it. You probably have sex like you ride.
Lorenzo
jack rose
B.V.Jarvis
John Foltz wrote:
>
> Ride on, Lorenzo! Hammerheads usually can't understand bicycling as a
> recreational activity rather than a sport, and believe themselves to be
> superior to the rest of us. One group learned otherwise last week.
>
> I was riding two-up with a friend at a 'decent' clip of about 18mph when
> I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
> purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
> stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
> unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
> as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
> did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
> that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
> tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
> seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
>
> Jack should be careful who he's deriding (pun intended). Some of us
> prefer to not go fast, in spite of being perfectly capable.
> --
> John Foltz
Since we're on the topic, how about checking out the story on this web
site:
http://www.web-presence.com/mac/bike.html
Just happened to come across it this morning. Responses ought to be
interesting.
brian (in Ohio)
=====
John Foltz
Jack wrote:
>> Everyone wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the
>> commitment.
>>
> It's your type of narrow minded elitism what turns a lot of people off
> from bicycling. Most people would rather go slow and enjoy themselves
> then go fast and brag about it. You probably have sex like you ride.
>
Rachel A
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>Those that ride slow, ride slow because they can't ride fast. Everyone
>wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the commitment.
I occasionally want to ride fast, and do, usually want to ride easy,
and do, and occasionally want to ride slow, and do. I don't look on
cycling as a competition but as transportation, recreation and and
fun.
Rachel Aschmann
http://www.azstarnet.com/~rachela/rachel.html
"The point of living, and of being an optimist,
is to be foolish enough to believe the best is
yet to come." -- Peter Ustinov --
Chris Malcolm
In article <19970802210...@ladder01.news.aol.com> jer...@aol.com (JerZ Fox) writes:
>How 'bout Myth # Whatever: "I'm too old/fat/clumsy/chicken/busy/tired to
>ride a bike."
I'm recovering from a muscle weakening and fatiguing disease. At first
the most I could walk was about a mile, but I could cycle about 3 miles,
slowly, on the flat. So I began my recovery by a short slow cycle on the
local cycle paths once a week. I recovered the strength to cycle to work
long before I could manage the walk.
I expect that as I get older, I will, like my mother, find that I can
still do my shopping by bike when I can no longer even do the walk on
foot, let alone carry the bags.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
Gordon Snapp
In article <33EA29...@arepara.sites>, spam...@arepara.sites wrote:
> After all, it's the desire to cover ground
> faster that put us on bicycles in the first place, is it not?
Nope, it's not. If I want to cover ground fast I drive my car or ride my
motorcycle. My reasons for bicycling go much deeper.
Katy Mulvey
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:22:17 -0400, B.V.Jarvis <brian...@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>Since we're on the topic, how about checking out the story on this web
>site:
>
> http://www.web-presence.com/mac/bike.html
>
>Just happened to come across it this morning. Responses ought to be
>interesting.
Huh. Satire.
From P.J. O'Rourke even. How surprising.
Tom Lawrence
I was riding two-up with a friend at a 'decent' clip of about 18mph when
I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
Wow, what a major asshole you are. I sure hope you don't live in my
area. God forbid anyone should want to go faster than you. The nerve
of them.
jack rose
John Foltz wrote:
>
> Jack wrote:
> >> Everyone wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the
> >> commitment.
> >>
> > It's your type of narrow minded elitism what turns a lot of people off
> > from bicycling. Most people would rather go slow and enjoy themselves
> > then go fast and brag about it. You probably have sex like you ride.
> >
> Ride on, Lorenzo! Hammerheads usually can't understand bicycling as a
> recreational activity rather than a sport, and believe themselves to be
> superior to the rest of us. One group learned otherwise last week.
>
> I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
> purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
> stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
> unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
> as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
> did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
> that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
> tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
> seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
>
> prefer to not go fast, in spite of being perfectly capable.
> --
> John Foltz
Boys,
I don't think you need to be personal about this. Your seriousnesss
tells me that your vey sensitive about being "bike nerds". Don't worry
you guys will grow up.
Jack
Randy Coverstone
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>Those that ride slow, ride slow because they can't ride fast. Everyone
>wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the commitment.
>Jack
If I want to go fast, I take my car -- it'll do over 150mph.
There must be a reason other than the "need for speed"
to get on a bike.
-Randy
JerZ Fox
> At first
>the most I could walk was about a mile, but I could cycle about 3 miles,
>slowly, on the flat.
Chris: Interesting point. I ride about 31/2 miles each way to work.
Just before I get to the office I have to slog up a hill which is about
1/4 mile long, so I crank the bike into the lowest gear and just take my
time. I get less winded riding up that damn hill than I do climbing up a
flight if steps at the office!
bacon
Gordon Snapp wrote:
>bacon wrote:
>> After all, it's the desire to cover ground
>> faster that put us on bicycles in the first place, is it not?
>
>Nope, it's not. If I want to cover ground fast I drive my car or ride my
>motorcycle. My reasons for bicycling go much deeper.
I was refering to the invention, you weenie. BTW, Did you start driving
and motorcycling at 5 years of age? If you care not for speed, why not
do the environment a favor and jog or walk? You know the manufacture of
bicycles uses up considerable resources and contributes to polution, not
to mention all the environmental damage they cause (according the the
Vandeman types), and the hazard presented on the roads. Then again
maybe your deep reason is the feeling of a narrow seat in your butt. Or
maybe it's to see how many miles you can cover under your own power.
Nope, that wouldn't work, because at some point fitness will make time
the bigger consideration which would return us to speed as the
motivator. Please explain your deep reasons.
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
Ingore Mike Vandeman and he will melt like the wicked witch of the west.
Support the anti-Spam amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
bacon
fast in a car.
Jean-Paul Baird
Tom Lawrence (t...@hellfudge.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <33EA82...@lsd.k12.mi.us> John Foltz <mfo...@lsd.k12.mi.us> writes:
: I was riding two-up with a friend at a 'decent' clip of about 18mph when
: I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
: purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
: stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
: unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
: as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
: did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
: that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
: tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
: seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
: Wow, what a major asshole you are. I sure hope you don't live in my
: area. God forbid anyone should want to go faster than you. The nerve
: of them.
--
I think it depends on what he meant by being 'buzzed'. That could be some
deliberate attempt to cut-off a rider or something like that.
Jean-Paul Baird
: Ya, you're probably wrong. After all, it's the desire to cover ground
: faster that put us on bicycles in the first place, is it not? If you
: ride for fitness, the ability to go faster is the surest sign of
: progress. I often ride slow and easy, but I ALWAYS want to ride faster
: at a given energy output.
I would argue that the surest sign of fitness progress is heart rate and
other measures, obtained using a heart rate monitor and other tools, like a
cadence meter, etc. An equal and alternative sure sign of progress wold be
the ability to go longer. So by your logic it is equally arguable that
people ride to go longer, not faster, if they ride for fitness. Your last
statement makes no sense, largely due to its ambiguity. At a given amount
of wattage, holding all else constant, you cannot go faster. X watts = X
speed assuming equal gearing, drag, resistance, etc. As for the alternative
interpretation, that no matter what speed you are at, you always want to be
going faster than you are, then you must continually be dissatisfied with
riding, since you never get what you want and you never will. You therefore
appear to be a glutton for punishment and failure since you emphasize what
you are not able to do. Is this because of some harbored insecurities
lurking somewhere?
Jean-Paul Baird
bacon (spam...@arepara.sites) wrote:
: Gordon Snapp wrote:
: >bacon wrote:
: >> faster that put us on bicycles in the first place, is it not?
: >Nope, it's not. If I want to cover ground fast I drive my car or ride my
: >motorcycle. My reasons for bicycling go much deeper.
: I was refering to the invention, you weenie. BTW, Did you start driving
: and motorcycling at 5 years of age? If you care not for speed, why not
: do the environment a favor and jog or walk? You know the manufacture of
: bicycles uses up considerable resources and contributes to polution, not
: to mention all the environmental damage they cause (according the the
: Vandeman types), and the hazard presented on the roads. Then again
: maybe your deep reason is the feeling of a narrow seat in your butt. Or
: maybe it's to see how many miles you can cover under your own power.
: Nope, that wouldn't work, because at some point fitness will make time
: the bigger consideration which would return us to speed as the
: motivator. Please explain your deep reasons.
---
This attempt at an inflammatory response isn't even cogent. Let's try to
follow the argument structure. you first defened the idea that people
invented bikes to go faster. sounds reasonable. then you try to relate this
idea to the fact that kids learn to ride bikes before they drive, but that
makes no sense, since kids go fast as passengers in cars, so you must mean
somethingabout a sense of control in one's going fast. But i see no
relation to the invention of the bicycle. I am sure you have one, but it is
impossible to fathom from your grammar.
You then incorrectly assume the writer does not want to go fast,
which is not true. he says when he wants to go fast, he takes his car. so
the stuff about environment is irrelevant. You next try to argue that he
rides because he is homosexual, implying you accept homosexuality as a
valid alternative to bike riding versus speed motivation (but this hurts you
because are trying to defend the bold assertion that the only reason for
biking is to go faster).
You then come around to the idea that maybe poeple bike to go
longer, not faster. You rejects this on the basis that 'at some point
fitness will make time a bigger issue'. I tihnk you are trying to say,
however awkwardly, that as one gets more fit, if they travel at the same
speed, cycling will take more time. that is true, and if one has limited
time, they may seek to bike faster. but this does not reject that idea that
people may bike to ride longer in the first place, as opposed to
faster. Practically speaking, they may have time limits, but then again,
there are a lot of people motivated to become millionaires, though it is
not practically possible for them. So your logic does not support a
rejection of biking longer versus faster as a valid motivation for why
people bike.
bacon
Tom Lawrence wrote:
>>John Foltz <mfo...@lsd.k12.mi.us> writes: I was riding two-up with a >>friend at a 'decent' clip of about 18mph when
>> I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
>> purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
>> stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
>> unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
>> as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
>> did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
>> that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
>> tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
>> seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
>
>Wow, what a major asshole you are. I sure hope you don't live in my
>area. God forbid anyone should want to go faster than you. The nerve
>of them.
Kinda sounds like Mr. Foltz is a little more concerned with speed than
he lets on, doesn't it? Assuming the story is true, he had to let the
fast guys know he was even faster.
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
bacon
Jean Paul wrote:
>: Bacon wrote:
>: I was refering to the invention, you weenie. BTW, Did you start driving
>: and motorcycling at 5 years of age? If you care not for speed, why not
>: do the environment a favor and jog or walk? You know the manufacture of
>: bicycles uses up considerable resources and contributes to polution, not
>: to mention all the environmental damage they cause (according the the
>: Vandeman types), and the hazard presented on the roads. Then again
>: maybe your deep reason is the feeling of a narrow seat in your butt. Or
>: maybe it's to see how many miles you can cover under your own power.
>: Nope, that wouldn't work, because at some point fitness will make time
>: the bigger consideration which would return us to speed as the
>: motivator. Please explain your deep reasons.
>This attempt at an inflammatory response isn't even cogent. Let's try to
>follow the argument structure. you first defened the idea that people
>invented bikes to go faster. sounds reasonable. then you try to relate this
>idea to the fact that kids learn to ride bikes before they drive, but that
>makes no sense, since kids go fast as passengers in cars, so you must mean
>somethingabout a sense of control in one's going fast. But i see no
>relation to the invention of the bicycle. I am sure you have one, but it is
>impossible to fathom from your grammar.
I didn't defend the idea, I stated the fact that bicycles were
invented to allow a person to travel faster. I made no attempt to
relate the fact that kids often learn to ride at an early age to the
invention of the bicycle. It was simply an off the cuff statement as
indicated by the BTW (by the way) preceding the statement. I was
referring to the probability that at age five the reasons for taking up
bicycling were not so deep. You say that kids go fast in cars implying
that they somehow are in control. Kids are taken fast in cars, which is
significantly different from the personal ability to go fast.
>You then incorrectly assume the writer does not want to go fast,
>which is not true. he says when he wants to go fast, he takes his car. so the
>stuff about environment is irrelevant.
I assumed nothing. We were discussing bicycles, the writer himself
stated he did not ride a bike out of any desire to go fast. Since speed
is not a factor, why not choose one of many other endeavors which can
approximate the other pleasures and benefits of riding without
necessitating the industry required to produce a bicycle. It was,
admittedly, a facetious statement, but the logic holds even if the
premise is silly.
>You next try to argue that he rides because he is homosexual, implying you accept >homosexuality as a valid alternative to bike riding versus speed motivation (but >this hurts you because are trying to defend the bold assertion that the only
>reason for biking is to go faster).
Good God, now you're really out there. One of the biggest complaints
amongst new bikers and experienced riders alike is the discomfort of the
narrow saddle. I have, on very long rides, reached the point at which
the pain was so intense as to be unbearable. My statement about seats
was an attempt at tongue in cheek humor which probably would have been
better stated without the humor as something like, "certainly you don't
ride for comfort" or some such thing. Nor have I ever stated that the
only reason to bike is to go faster. I have often posted about the
various joys of bicycling. For most the goal is fitness and biking
presents a way to achieve that end combined with the thrill of getting
oneself from point A to B quickly (under ones own power), along with
many other pleasures.
>You then come around to the idea that maybe people bike to go
>longer, not faster. You rejects this on the basis that 'at some point
>fitness will make time a bigger issue'. I tihnk you are trying to say,
>however awkwardly, that as one gets more fit, if they travel at the same
>speed, cycling will take more time. that is true, and if one has limited
>time, they may seek to bike faster. but this does not reject that idea that
>people may bike to ride longer in the first place, as opposed to
>faster. Practically speaking, they may have time limits, but then again,
>there are a lot of people motivated to become millionaires, though it is
>not practically possible for them. So your logic does not support a
>rejection of biking longer versus faster as a valid motivation for why
>people bike.
I do deeply regret that I lack your supreme intellect and ability to
clearly state my ideas so that anyone might understand them. My
statement was intended to point out in few words that in time as one
endeavors to cover more distance, his physical performance will increase
to the point that the only way to cover more miles in the time available
will be to go faster. Which, at that point, will shift the focus from
distance to speed even though the ultimate goal may still be more
distance. It's a fine point and I can't even remember how this got
started, and it really doesn't matter anyway, but I remain convinced
that the desire to travel fast under one's own power is the overriding
factor influencing most riders to participate. As to the millionaire
analogy, it is certainly possible for anyone motivated to become a
millionaire to succeed. In fact, of all the lofty goals humans might
aspire to, this is one of the most universally achievable. While many
who are motivated do not succeed, the practical possibility always
exists for anyone who is willing to pay the price.
Finally, I must point out that I have no illusions about being a fast
rider. Maybe my preoccupation with speed is rooted in my own desire to
keep up. Also, I must apologize to the poster at whom the post in
question was directed. I usually try not to be inflammatory, but I
sometimes I get full of myself and go overboard. I do recognize that my
own opinions are indeed merely opinions and no more valid than anyone
elses. Of course, I do believe I'm right.
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
Ingore Mike Vandeman
bacon
Jean-Paul wrote:
>I would argue that the surest sign of fitness progress is heart rate and
>other measures, obtained using a heart rate monitor and other tools, like a
>cadence meter, etc. An equal and alternative sure sign of progress wold be
>the ability to go longer. So by your logic it is equally arguable that
>people ride to go longer, not faster, if they ride for fitness. Your last
>statement makes no sense, largely due to its ambiguity. At a given amount
>of wattage, holding all else constant, you cannot go faster. X watts = X
>speed assuming equal gearing, drag, resistance, etc. As for the alternative
>interpretation, that no matter what speed you are at, you always want to be
>going faster than you are, then you must continually be dissatisfied with
>riding, since you never get what you want and you never will. You therefore
>appear to be a glutton for punishment and failure since you emphasize what
>you are not able to do. Is this because of some harbored insecurities
>lurking somewhere?
In the case of high performance riders at maximum effort (racing)
there are very few heart rate monitors in sight. They are indeed useful
training tools but far from the ultimate measure of ability. The only
measure of ability is physical performance, admittedly until time
constraints become a factor, distance could be the sole motivation.
Did I mention Wattage? I don't think so. I always wish that a given
output of effort would result in moving me at a higher rate of speed. I
suppose I must admit to the charge of constant dissatisfaction. I
suppose one of my great weaknesses is constantly striving for
improvement. Maybe one day I'll overcome this weakness and achieve some
measure of success.
Arthur J. Torano
In <5sav0u$c...@camel4.mindspring.com> smit...@mindspring.com (Pete
Smith) writes:
>
>jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>
>!snip!
>>>
>>> I suggest we call you Sheldon "Poet" Brown from now on.
Everyone
>>wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the commitment.
>
>>Jack
>
what you wrote about going fast. But remember my friend, There is
always a faster gunslinger just around the corner ready to have you eat
some humble pie.
Low and Slow*
*Until Disturbed
Jack Dingler
Jean-Paul Baird wrote:
>
>
> : Wow, what a major asshole you are. I sure hope you don't live in my
> : area. God forbid anyone should want to go faster than you. The nerve
> : of them.
>
> I think it depends on what he meant by being 'buzzed'. That could be some
> deliberate attempt to cut-off a rider or something like that.
With a 6mph differetial, I doubt it. That pack would've been passing
too fast. Sounds more like an ego problem. I wonder if John could've
stayed the pace? Or is 24mph something he can only do in a sprint?
--
* Jack Dingler * Bill Clinton, has never, does not,
* jdin...@onramp.net * and will never, have any knowledge
* Probably not * of any WhiteHouse activities.
* your opinion * Isn't it obvious?
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <33EE42...@arepara.sites>,
bacon <spam...@arepara.sites> wrote:
(lots of argument that obviously has to do with misunderstanding
the original argument and hysterical explainations of what each
REALLY means.)
I guess this is another case of a parent not being proub if their
daughter DOES bring home the Bacon. :-)
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <TCL.97Au...@hellfudge.engr.sgi.com>,
Tom Lawrence <t...@hellfudge.engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>In article <33EA82...@lsd.k12.mi.us> John Foltz <mfo...@lsd.k12.mi.us> writes:
>
> I was riding two-up with a friend at a 'decent' clip of about 18mph when
> I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
> purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
> stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
> unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
> as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
> did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
> that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
> tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
> seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
>
>area. God forbid anyone should want to go faster than you. The nerve
>of them.
>
You don't believe this guy do you? DO you also believe in the tooth fairy?
Lorenzo L. Love
bacon <spam...@arepara.sites> wrote:
[snip]
> I didn't defend the idea, I stated the fact that bicycles were
>invented to allow a person to travel faster.
The only fact here is that you don't know that you are talking about.
When bicycles were invented, if you wanted to go fast, you rode a horse
or took a carriage. Bicycles became popular because they were CHEAP. The
increasing urbanization of industrialized nations meant that it was very
expensive to maintain a riding horse or a carriage team in the city. Most
people were forced to take a trolly, which limited were you could go, or
walk. Bikes cost a fraction of a horse and had no stable fees. The early
bikes were not noticeabley faster then walking, but they were EASIER
which meant you could go farther. And most important, bikes were FUN.
They give the young urban working men and women a freedom of movement
that they never had before. The need for speed didn't come around until
bike racing became popular, after the auto became the transportion of
choice for urban life. People who feel that speed is the most importent
part of bicycling are frustrated wanttobe jocks that think they're
impressing somebody by bragging about how fast they are going nowhere. By
trying to turn all bicycling into a competitive sport you are forcing
many people away from biking, because they don't want to compete. Saying
everyone wants to go as fast as possible is as foolish as saying everyone
wants to go as fast as possible in their car. Most people ride bikes
because they are CHEAPER then cars; EASIER then walking; and more FUN
then either.
Lorenzo
Rick Arnoldy
>==========bacon, 8/7/97==========
>>I doubt that each of these people, always, wants to ride faster.
>>
>>Maybe I'm wrong...
>
>Ya, you're probably wrong. After all, it's the desire to cover ground
>faster that put us on bicycles in the first place, is it not?
<Stuff deleted>
>
>Bacon
If all I wanted to do was to cover ground faster I would get in my car.
bacon
Thomas wrote:
>I guess this is another case of a parent not being proub if their
>daughter DOES bring home the Bacon. :-)
Jeez. What did I say?
John Serafin
bacon <spam...@arepara.sites> writes:
>>
>>I doubt that each of these people, always, wants to ride faster.
>> ^^^^^^
>>Maybe I'm wrong...
>Ya, you're probably wrong.
I guess we can all get rid of our brakes then. But sometimes I want to slow
down, maybe even a lot.
--
John P. Serafin | Operating a bicycle is more like driving than riding.
jps at pobox com | Operating an automobile is more like riding than driving.
Thomas H. Kunich
In article <33F004...@arepara.sites>,
bacon <spam...@arepara.sites> wrote:
>Thomas wrote:
>>I guess this is another case of a parent not being proub if their
>>daughter DOES bring home the Bacon. :-)
>
>Jeez. What did I say?
Geez, what does it matter when you can give me a reason to post
an awful pun?
bacon
Lorenzo wrote:
>>bacon <spam...@arepara.sites> wrote:
>>[snip]
>> I didn't defend the idea, I stated the fact that bicycles were
>>invented to allow a person to travel faster.
>>
> The only fact here is that you don't know that you are talking about.
>When bicycles were invented, if you wanted to go fast, you rode a horse
>or took a carriage.
Ok Mr. Big Brains. First of all. From the very beginning we have been
talking about bicycles, not cars, not horses, not carriages, not
locomotives, not jets, not camels. The bicycle was indeed invented to
allow a human being to travel at a greater rate of speed under his own
power than he could travel walking. This was clearly stated by many of
the early inventors. As bicycle design was being pounded out the
success of various models varied wildly. The most successful early
attempt was a vehicle called the Drasisine built around 1815 which had
two in-line wheels and a saddle upon which the rider sat backwards and
moved along by pushing his feet against the ground. Even this early
attempt was quite noticeably faster than walking although not nearly as
EASY. In the 1830's the bike evolved through various stages including
treadles attached to cranks on the rear axles and many various
configurations all designed to make the vehicle faster and more
manageable. It was in 1861 in France that the pedals attached to the
front axle concept came about. The called it the "Velocipede". Get
it? Velocipede, as in velocity, as in speed. Sheer coincidence? Or
were they, perhaps, thinking about speed. Rubber tires were added in
1869 to smooth out the jolts and enable the rider to move at a faster
rate of SPEED more comfortably. Actually, in spite of the name, the
velocipede wasn't particularly fast, as the front wheel was fairly
small, but it was soon recognized that by increasing the size of the
wheel one could go FASTER. So the "High Wheel" was rapidly developed.
Large front wheel, small back wheel. Eventually the front wheel reached
as large as 84 inches, although the largest practical height was around
60 inches due the length of the average riders legs. All of the bikes I
have mentioned thus far were far from EASY to ride. The high wheel
being not only difficult but down right dangerous. (I have a high wheel
by the way, it goes like a bat out of hell, or at least it feels like it
from that high in the air.) Many people were willing to make this trade
of of safety for speed, others opted for the tricycle (keeping the large
drive wheel, however. Apparently even they wanted to go fast). In 1879
the first version of the "modern bike" came along with the rear wheel
being driven by a chain. It was called the "safety bicycle". You could
now go fast and still touch the ground with your foot. Basic bicycle
design has changed little since then, other than small modifications,
pneumatic tires, gearing, suspension, configuration, most all aimed at
getting from A to B faster and easier.
>People who feel that speed is the most importent part of bicycling are >frustrated wanttobe jocks that think they're impressing somebody by
>bragging about how fast they are going nowhere. By trying to turn all
>bicycling into a competitive sport you are forcing many people away
>from biking, because they don't want to compete. Saying everyone wants >to go as fast as possible is as foolish as saying everyone wants to go >as fast as possible in their car.
In response to your personal attack. It is rather obvious that you
haven't been following these posts. I have repeatedly stated that I am
not particularly fast, nor competitive (except as far as trying to
improve on my own past performance). Nor have I said that everyone
wants to go fast as possible all the time. Comparing speed on a bike
with speed in a car is asinine, by the way. Going fast in a car is a
simple matter of pressing the gas pedal. Going fast on a bike requires
a long term personal investment. What I have said, is that I feel that
it is the ability to move yourself along at a relatively high rate of
speed that attracts people to bicycling. There are many endeavors which
allow one to build physical fitness, to get outdoors and so on. Many
are free and require little or no equipment. Why choose a bicycle?
Because it is faster which equals more fun. No competition is required
to go fast and have fun. One persons fast is another’s slow, it is
relative to the rider and the slow person’s fast is just as thrilling to
that person as the fast person’s is to the fast person.
>Most people ride bikes because they are CHEAPER then cars; EASIER then >walking; and more FUN then either.
I know of very few, actually I can't think of any off hand, who ride a
bike but own no car, or who ride to save money on gas. There must be
some, but it certainly isn't most.
What do you mean by EASIER? Walking is far easier than riding a
bike. Walking comes naturally to humans, bicycling must be learned. If
you mean easier to get from A to B for one who knows how to do ride,
I'll buy it, but what is it that makes it easier? The fact that you get
there in less time with less effort? Something to do with speed,
perhaps?
What is it that makes it FUN? Is it the balancing aspect? Is it the
wonderful feeling of your feet spinning round and round? Is it the
sound of the chain? Is it the thrill seeker aspect of knowing you might
tip over? What is it? That gives me an idea.
Jeff Dantzler
John Foltz <mfo...@lsd.k12.mi.us> writes:
>I was buzzed by 3 groups of racers. They were obviously doing it on
>purpose, just for the sport of abusing the lower life forms. After
>stewing about it for a few seconds, I decided they weren't going to go
>unpunished. They were only doing 24, so I caught them in a flash, just
>as the offending rider had finished his pull. I informed him if he EVER
>did that to me again, his riding days would be over. He looked amazed
>that I was keeping up with him, never mind that I'd caught him like a
>tethered dog. A <small> body-check demonstrated he'd better take me
>seriously, and elicited an immediate apology from him.
You're an asshole, John! While I may be one of those "hammerheads"
who generally goes as fast as possible (given safety conditions), I
do try to politely ring my bell when I pass folks and only do so
in a safe and considerate manner. As far as I'm concerned anyone
that pedals a bike at ANY speed is okay by me. Physically touching
another rider is entirely inappropriate. If he was so impressed
how easily you caught him then a stern "thats not cool, buddy" should
have been enough. You're just proving that you need to exert your
manly bravado (inappropriately) just as much as you *percieve* we
"hammerheads" do.
Jeff "the polite hammerhead" Dantzler
--
Jeff Dantzler dant...@u.washington.edu
bacon
Chris Malcolm <c...@dai.ed.ac.uk>
>I'm sure the original writer did not mean your friends when he wrote
>"most people ride bikes because...", and given that this is an
>interrational cycling newsgroup, it is fair to assume that he meant
>"most of the world's cyclists". While we are fascinated to discover that
>you know no cyclist who doesn't own a car, non-car-owning cyclists are
>commonplace in Europe, and the vast majority in India, Korea, Thailand,
>etc..
I too, doubt he was referring to my friends. He probably doesn’t know
‘em. I was pointing out my own perspective. I live in a sprawling
rural area in which not having a car would make a trip to the grocery
store an all day affair. After thinking about it, you're probably right
that there are a lot of riders who have no car, perhaps even most, I
hadn't even considered Asia where bicycling is probably the principle
form of transportation.
>Please note too that the general equation of cycling as a
>recreational fitness promoting exercise is unique to the US. Most
>cyclists in most of the world cycle because it is cheap utilitarian
>transport, and very few of them have cars.
However, my premise still stands that the bicycle is chosen because it
allows a human being to travel faster, under his own power, than the
alternatives. This would be easier to demonstrate in the case of
utilitarian transport than in the case of fitness, but I believe it to
be true in either case.
I'm really surprised at the response to this line of thinking. I
keep getting attacked for this, usually on irrelevant peripheral issues,
"If I want to go fast, I'll take a car", "You seem to be saying
homosexuality is a viable alternative to bicycling", “All you people who
think speed is important are jock wannabes and are ruining the sport”.
And there are a lot of non answers: "I use it to commute."-Why?, "I use
it for fitness."-Why?, "I ride cause I like it."-Why? and so on.
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
Jon Isaacs
Regarding the myth "People don't ride faster because they can't":
I have made the observation that the riders who are truely fast often do
much of their riding at very moderate speeds, maybe 15 mph average or
less. They are deliberate in their riding because they know what they are
doing from a training stand point and are confident in their abilities so
that some one passing them does not upset them. They are not concerned by
mortals such as myself because they know where they stand with the riders
that count. One local rider who owns several national age group records
is known for his habit of looking for pennies along the road as a way to
keep his speed down. I have never had him pass me or catch me while
riding. On race day or on a serious workout ride he is all business.
My point is this: When I get in to an impromtu race with someone while
riding and we play burn out trying to drop the other guy or gal, this is
tidley winks or pitching pennies in the world of cycling. Serious riders
just watch us pass, knowing we are having fun playing our penny-ante game.
I like it because it's the only game I have, but I don't delude myself.
Andy Katz
Rick Arnoldy <rick.a...@nospam.daytonoh.ncr.com> wrote:
>
>If all I wanted to do was to cover ground faster I would get in my car.
Not if you lived in Manhattan, Rick;)
Andy Katz
__________________________________________
So sophisticated is my Net presence that I
now disdain sigs, ascii and even URLs....
a...@interport.net
andre...@aol.com
Remove * to reply
Mark R. Miller
Sara Easler wrote:
>
> Jack Rose writes:
>
>
> |> 5. Buying a more expensive bike increases speed. Most people
> |> don't experience much difference.
>
> No argument here. There's all kinds of opportunities to spend money
> in the quest for "better cycling" bicycle socks, bicycle glasses,
> bicycle shirts, the list goes on and on.
>
No argument from me either, but a different spin. Many, like myself,
started with a dept. store mountain bike. I definitely picked up some
speed when I upgraded to shifters/derailleurs that shift on demand under
bad conditions (on hills, etc.). I picked up considerable speed when I
added toe clips and later clipless, getting forward motion out of more
degress of my spin.
If the equipment is cheap enough and the terrain is bad enough, any
beginner will be slowed down considerably. Perhaps the issue isn't
buying a "more expensive" bike. Maybe the speed increase comes from
buying a bike (or equipment) that's more appropriate to the riding
conditions.
> |> Any comments or any additions to the list?
>
> 6. Riding a bicycle is a dangerous sport. There's many, many
> different styles of cycling, racing, mountain biking, touring,
> commuting etc. If done with some common sense, riding a bicycle is
> quite safe. Bicycles can be an excellent mode of transportation too,
> as well as an enjoyable recreation.
>
> Sara
I used to work on high voltage radar equipment, with 18,000 volt exposed
terminals. As I taught the younger troops to work on such equipment, I
told them that a little fear would help them survive the experience. I
look at cycling in traffic the same way. Not the sort of fear that
paralyzes a person, but just enough fear to breed respect and avoid
complacency.
Kevin Cole
Why do some people unicycle? And what is their top speed? Do they need to
go faster? ;-) Are cyclists who believe speed is everything just envious
of those of us who unicycle? ;-)
I unicycle and bicycle. I unicycle cuz it was fun to learn, and it's a
great conversation piece. I bicycle cuz it's cheap, it's faster than
walking and it's also enjoyable. I don't ride to challenge myself, any
more than I watch TV to challeng my mind. Can you say F-U-N? Can you
say P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? C-H-E-A-P? I've done some long-distance
trips, never going fast, but going far. I could probably argue that
anyone who hasn't gone 2350 miles in one trip is a wimp no matter how fast
they can ride. But that would be stupid. As stupid as those who believe
speed is the ultimate reason to bike. (Sometimes I think mountain bikers
believe that parachuting is the only reason to bike. ;-) To each their
own.)
--
=========== Physical ============================= Virtual =================
Kevin Cole <Flatline> | E-mail: kjc...@gallux.gallaudet.edu
Gallaudet Research Institute | WWW: http://www.gallaudet.edu/~kjcole/
Hall Memorial Bldg E-111 |
800 Florida Avenue, N.E. | Voice: (202) 651-5575
Washington, D.C. 20002-3695 | FAX: (202) 651-5746
============================================================================
"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."
bacon
Bacon wrote:
>Ok Mr. Big Brains. First of all. From the very beginning we have been
>talking about bicycles, not cars, not horses, not carriages, not
>locomotives, not jets, not camels.
At the time I wrote the above I was in a state of frustration over all
the "If I wanted to go fast I'd become an astronaut" type statements.
In fact the statement, "From the very beginning we have been
talking about bicycles, not cars, not horses, not carriages, not
locomotives, not jets, not camels." is totally irrelevant, untrue, and
pointless. I wish I'd not said it and I appologize profusely.
Bacon
actual address=ba...@utah.uswest.net
Check out Jeff Napiers online repair manual at
http://members.aol.com/biketune
bacon
Kevin Cole wrote:
>I unicycle and bicycle. I unicycle cuz it was fun to learn, and it's a
>great conversation piece.
No argument there.
> I bicycle cuz it's cheap, it's faster than
>walking and it's also enjoyable.
Of the three reasons you mention one is speed. Another is enjoyment. I
wonder how enjoyable it would be if it were no faster than walking?
> I don't ride to challenge myself, any
>more than I watch TV to challeng my mind. Can you say F-U-N? Can you
>say P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? C-H-E-A-P? I've done some long-distance
>trips, never going fast, but going far. I could probably argue that
>anyone who hasn't gone 2350 miles in one trip is a wimp no matter how fast
>they can ride. But that would be stupid. As stupid as those who believe
>speed is the ultimate reason to bike. (Sometimes I think mountain bikers
>believe that parachuting is the only reason to bike. ;-) To each their
F-U-N What makes it so? P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? What makes it so?
C-H-E-A-P? Can't argue that one except to say that it is less cheap
than walking, jogging, or skating for that matter (all of which are
slower). In my own case I've spent a small fortune on it, but I realize
that it wasn't really necessary to do so. You mention long trips, never
going fast, but going far. You didn't mention your speed, but I'll bet
it was faster than walking or jogging. 2350 in one trip is impressive
indeed. By bringing it up you did make the argument. But I would have
to maintain that the choice of a bicycle to make the trip probably had
something to do with the ability to cover those 2350 miles (under your
own power, I must clarify that or we'll get a bunch of "If I wanted to
go fast I'd tie myself to a missile" posts) somewhat faster.
I've made quite a few posts in reference to this topic. Many
misconstrue my statements about speed as meaning all out, gut wrenching,
pedal to the metal efforts all the time. But no, all I have tried to
point out is the idea that people choose the bike because it allows them
to move faster than the alternatives. As a transportation/commute,
cleaner alternative to cars vehicle it would be useless if it were not
faster than walking/jogging (some will argue that they ride no faster
than they jog. True perhaps, but we're talking equal speed with less
effort, or more speed with less effort). As far as fun, I've yet to
hear anyone opposed to speed actually define it. Freedom of motion is
used but what does that mean? I think it is the effortless glide, the
10 feet or so of motion for one movement of the body, the cooling breeze
and so on, all speed related. Most, not all (gotta be careful here or
the cruisers will flame me) but most, of the anti speed posters ride a
bike designed for speed. Skinny tires, light weight, aerodynamic
posture (unnatural and uncomfortable until one becomes used to it), the
big chainring and so on. They ride a bike that sacrifices safety and
comfort for speed. The same holds true for mountain bikes, but with
modifications that make them faster in rough terrain, fat knobby tires
(now the faster slicks are moving in here), suspensions and so on.
The negative responses here have really surprised me I had no idea
this concept was so repulsive to so many. It's as if there is something
inherently evil in wanting to go faster. Kinda like money, everybody
out there scrambling to get it on the one hand and denouncing it, and
people who have it, on the other.
Well, I like money and I like speed and I still maintain that you
wouldn't have gone out and gotten that bicycle if it were not fast.
Sorry. OK Goodbye.
jack rose
> >>wants to ride faster but not everyone wants tpo make the commitment.
> >>
> >>Jack
> >
> >There must be a reason other than the "need for speed"
> >to get on a bike.
>
> It has something to do with self powered transportation. Anyone can go
> fast in a car.
The idea presented by Mr. Coverstone is that bikes are merely
recreational toys. My bikes are far more than this. While I have a lot
of fun riding, I also like to keep in reasonably good shape and maintain
a normal weight. This implies fitness (eg going fast).
This months issue of "Bicyclist" has an excellent article by Jim Martin
subtitled "Are you a lasy man". The article deals with Mr. Coverstone's
approach to riding and points out some of the pitfalls in such a narrow
approach to the sport. I recommend it highly.
Jack
Kevin Cole
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 09:57:45 -0600, bacon (donts...@pretty.please) wrote:
> Kevin Cole wrote:
> >I unicycle and bicycle. I unicycle cuz it was fun to learn, and it's a
> >great conversation piece.
> No argument there.
> > I bicycle cuz it's cheap, it's faster than walking and it's also
> > enjoyable.
> Of the three reasons you mention one is speed. Another is enjoyment. I
> wonder how enjoyable it would be if it were no faster than walking?
I DO walk a lot and find that enjoyable too. But I hate jogging. One
reason I bike more than I walk is because I dislike carrying things on
my back, but find I often need to carry something, and my little red wagon
doesn't cut it any more. The other reason is limited time. So, in
that respect, speed is a factor, 8-15 mph requires no effort on my
part. So I get speed without effort. I'm lazy. I like my enjoyment
to come without pain.
> > I don't ride to challenge myself, any
> >more than I watch TV to challeng my mind. Can you say F-U-N? Can you
> >say P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? C-H-E-A-P? I've done some long-distance
> >trips, never going fast, but going far. I could probably argue that
> >anyone who hasn't gone 2350 miles in one trip is a wimp no matter how fast
> >they can ride. But that would be stupid. As stupid as those who believe
> >speed is the ultimate reason to bike. (Sometimes I think mountain bikers
> >believe that parachuting is the only reason to bike. ;-) To each their
> F-U-N What makes it so?
The air, the sun, the trees, the lack of effort to move along. (I did
some hang-gliding a while back, and it was the sense of gliding that
made it fun, not hauling the kite back up the hill, nor running to get
it airborn.)
> P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? What makes it so?
It's easier to use than my little red wagon, and doesn't tip over as much.
> C-H-E-A-P? Can't argue that one except to say that it is less cheap
> than walking, jogging, or skating for that matter (all of which are
> slower).
I should have said cheaper than a car. My mistake. I meant, that in
terms of hauling my butt and my stuff biking has proven to be more
efficient than walking and less expensive than driving.
> In my own case I've spent a small fortune on it, but I realize
> that it wasn't really necessary to do so. You mention long trips, never
> going fast, but going far. You didn't mention your speed, but I'll bet
> it was faster than walking or jogging. 2350 in one trip is impressive
> indeed. By bringing it up you did make the argument. But I would have
> to maintain that the choice of a bicycle to make the trip probably had
> something to do with the ability to cover those 2350 miles (under your
> own power, I must clarify that or we'll get a bunch of "If I wanted to
> go fast I'd tie myself to a missile" posts) somewhat faster.
I strongly considered walking. But I couldn't get more than a few
months off, and (as I mentioned above) I don't dig backpacking. So,
you're correct in your assessment that speed had something to do with it.
> I've made quite a few posts in reference to this topic. Many
> misconstrue my statements about speed as meaning all out, gut wrenching,
> pedal to the metal efforts all the time. But no, all I have tried to
> point out is the idea that people choose the bike because it allows them
> to move faster than the alternatives.
I wasn't quibbling with any one individual. I was merely responding to
a thread that seemed to suggest that all cyclists continuously strive to
increase their speed. The implication was that the only thing that made
cycling worth doing was breaking past records, either your own or someone
else's. I reject that model of cycling for myself. (If it gets other's
rocks off, more power to them.)
> As a transportation/commute,
> cleaner alternative to cars vehicle it would be useless if it were not
> faster than walking/jogging (some will argue that they ride no faster
> than they jog. True perhaps, but we're talking equal speed with less
> effort, or more speed with less effort). As far as fun, I've yet to
> hear anyone opposed to speed actually define it. Freedom of motion is
> used but what does that mean? I think it is the effortless glide, the
> 10 feet or so of motion for one movement of the body, the cooling breeze
> and so on, all speed related. Most, not all (gotta be careful here or
> the cruisers will flame me) but most, of the anti speed posters ride a
> bike designed for speed. Skinny tires, light weight, aerodynamic
> posture (unnatural and uncomfortable until one becomes used to it), the
> big chainring and so on. They ride a bike that sacrifices safety and
> comfort for speed. The same holds true for mountain bikes, but with
> modifications that make them faster in rough terrain, fat knobby tires
> (now the faster slicks are moving in here), suspensions and so on.
So someone who uses a mountain bike on regular roads is not riding a bike
"designed for speed"? Cuz that's basically what I ride. It's a hybrid.
Thus, I think you suggest that, even though we may be a minority, there
are a few of us who don't do it for speed per se.
> The negative responses here have really surprised me I had no idea
> this concept was so repulsive to so many. It's as if there is something
> inherently evil in wanting to go faster. Kinda like money, everybody
> out there scrambling to get it on the one hand and denouncing it, and
> people who have it, on the other.
I have no problem with speed, or others wanting to go faster. I just
got tired of reading posts that suggested that those who say they don't
push themselves when they ride are either self-delusional or
hypocritical.
Norman Wilson
In article <33F5CB...@pretty.please> donts...@pretty.please writes:
> I've made quite a few posts in reference to this topic. Many
>misconstrue my statements about speed as meaning all out, gut wrenching,
>pedal to the metal efforts all the time. But no, all I have tried to
>point out is the idea that people choose the bike because it allows them
>cleaner alternative to cars vehicle it would be useless if it were not
The trouble with all of your remarks is the usual trouble with
sweeping statements: people aren't all the same, nor do they see
things in the same way.
I make some trips on my bicycle; some on foot; some on public transit.
If I owned a car, I'd proably use it for some trips too. (This is part
of the reason I don't own a car, but that's another story.) For most
trips, cycling is the fastest mode. So why don't I always cycle?
- Sometimes I'd like to travel with someone who (for reasons of their
own, none of my business) isn't cycling: i.e. there are times when
social interaction is more important to me than speed.
- Sometimes I'm exhausted or ill; taking transit may be a little slower,
but it saves energy that I can use at my destination. Moreover, when
I'm tired or ill, I'm less alert, and more likely to make dumb decisions
in traffic. (The only fall I've had in the last ten years was due in
part to my being ill and needlessly putting myself in a hazardous position.)
There are times when safety or the desire to do other things is more
important to me than speed.
- It's a lot more convenient to stop and look at things, visit shops
on a whim (without worrying about where to park the bike), and so on
when walking than when cycling. Sometimes convenience is more important
than speed.
Conversely, sometimes I'll take the bike when it's not the fastest way:
- It's easier (and cheaper!) to make spur-of-the-moment stops and last-
minute changes to route when cycling than on transit: convenience over
speed again.
- One sees more from a bike than from a transit vehicle (or a car).
I particularly enjoy this when going to a part of the city I haven't
seen before, or haven't visited for some time. By the same token,
when travelling by transit or even by bike, I'll often walk for a
mile or two to see the neighborhood before hopping back on a vehicle
to complete my trip. I'm not sure what to name the value shown here,
but again, it is something that is sometimes more important than speed.
- I enjoy cycling, because it feels good to exercise, because it makes
me feel virtuous to get around in a way that improves my health without
endangering that of others, and because the notion of getting around
under my own power appeals to me. This has nothing to do with speed;
as I say, I take some cycle trips when I know I could go faster on transit
just because I enjoy the thought and feel of cycling. (Again, I sometimes
take long walks in preference to cycling or transit for similar reasons.)
Feeling good is sometimes more important than speed.
There are also times when I choose to cycle (or to ride transit, or
to walk) because it's the fastest way to get where I'm going. But
that's rarely the deciding factor in picking a mode for a particular
trip, and often speed isn't in my mind at all when deciding, because
even the slowest mode is often fast enough (even when that means a three-
or four-hour walk).
Your values are not the same as mine; if speed is the most important
factor for you, that's OK by me. I don't assume that everyone shares
my values; you shouldn't assume that everyone shares yours.
Norman Wilson
bacon
Norman Wilson wrote:
>The trouble with all of your remarks is the usual trouble with
>sweeping statements: people aren't all the same, nor do they see
>things in the same way.
Okay Okay I'll admit it. I should have said the vast majority of people
rather that just the word people. There probably are people who would
ride a bike even if it were slower than walking, but I seriously doubt
that you are one of them. I will demonstrate:
>I make some trips on my bicycle; some on foot; some on public transit.
>If I owned a car, I'd proably use it for some trips too. (This is part
>of the reason I don't own a car, but that's another story.) For most
>trips, cycling is the fastest mode. So why don't I always cycle?
>- Sometimes I'd like to travel with someone who (for reasons of their
>own, none of my business) isn't cycling: i.e. there are times when
>social interaction is more important to me than speed.
I never made the statement or any implication that speed is the most
important thing in the world to anybody. I said the motivating factor
in the selection of a bicycle can be boiled down to speed (I've
qualified my definition of speed enough times I'll not do it again
here). In order for your statement to have any relevance whatsoever the
case would have to be that you ride in order to have social interaction
rather than to go fast.
>- Sometimes I'm exhausted or ill; taking transit may be a little slower,
>but it saves energy that I can use at my destination. Moreover, when
>I'm tired or ill, I'm less alert, and more likely to make dumb decisions
>in traffic. (The only fall I've had in the last ten years was due in
>part to my being ill and needlessly putting myself in a hazardous position.)
>There are times when safety or the desire to do other things is more
>important to me than speed.
I'm sorry if I sound inflammatory, but this statement is even more
irrelevant and absurd that the last one. Of course there are times when
safety reasons dictate other means of transportation! In order to have
relevance your statement would have to be along the lines of "I ride my
bike in order to be safe or in order to have the desire to do other
things. So far you have simply given us reasons to forgo the bike, not
reasons to ride. I could add many like yours, such as, "sometimes I'd
rather take a bath than ride a bike therefore speed is not an important
factor in the selection of biking as transportation or recreation."
>- It's a lot more convenient to stop and look at things, visit shops
>on a whim (without worrying about where to park the bike), and so on
>when walking than when cycling. Sometimes convenience is more important
>than speed.
Okay when you want to stroll around browsing shops etc. you leave your
speed, I mean bike home. Irrelevant again. Your statement concerns the
appropriate timing for bike rides rather than the reason to ride.
>Conversely, sometimes I'll take the bike when it's not the fastest way:
>- It's easier (and cheaper!) to make spur-of-the-moment stops and last-
>minute changes to route when cycling than on transit: convenience over
>speed again.
Semi valid point. There are times when convenience is indeed a reason
to ride, however harking back to your point previous to this one, you
use the exact same point as a reason not to bike, but to walk. In the
present case walking would also make it easier to make spur of the
moment stops and last minute changes to route. Possibly you are now
referring to longer commutes when walking would be so slow as to make it
impractical, so you've chosen a more speedy yet still convenient and
self powered mode of transport, the bike. Illustrating my point
beautifully.
>- One sees more from a bike than from a transit vehicle (or a car).
>I particularly enjoy this when going to a part of the city I haven't
>seen before, or haven't visited for some time. By the same token,
>when travelling by transit or even by bike, I'll often walk for a
>mile or two to see the neighborhood before hopping back on a vehicle
>to complete my trip. I'm not sure what to name the value shown here,
Maybe I can help. You enjoy and want to see more of, and even perhaps,
be part of the sights and sounds around you. You could do this by
walking, but much of the time you would like to see more than the slow
speed of walking will allow. Sometimes the bike is too fast so you walk
for a mile or so in order to really take it in. I agree. I often use
my bike to transport myself to interesting areas in which I will poke
along or even dismount and enjoy the surroundings.
>but again, it is something that is sometimes more important than speed.
>- I enjoy cycling, because it feels good to exercise, because it makes
>me feel virtuous to get around in a way that improves my health without
>endangering that of others, and because the notion of getting around
>under my own power appeals to me. This has nothing to do with speed;
Ah yes the fitness aspect. Very important indeed. However there are
many many alternatives to the bike which promote fitness while being
safe (in many cases safer) to others, yet for some reason you chose the
bike.
>as I say, I take some cycle trips when I know I could go faster on transit
>just because I enjoy the thought and feel of cycling. (Again, I sometimes
>take long walks in preference to cycling or transit for similar reasons.)
>Feeling good is sometimes more important than speed.
What is the thought and feel of cycling? Wouldn't be the feel of
gliding would it? Or the feel of one motion of the leg moving you over
a large space? The inertia perhaps? The cooling breeze maybe? The
freedom of being self powered yet still having the ability to cover fair
distances? No, couldn't be any of those, they all depend on a certain
amount of speed. Maybe it's the death defying aspect of knowing you're
out there on two wheels unprotected.
>There are also times when I choose to cycle (or to ride transit, or
>to walk) because it's the fastest way to get where I'm going. But
>that's rarely the deciding factor in picking a mode for a particular
>trip, and often speed isn't in my mind at all when deciding, because
>even the slowest mode is often fast enough (even when that means a three-
>or four-hour walk).
Once again, here you are trying to make speed a life issue rather than a
bicycling issue.
>Your values are not the same as mine; if speed is the most important
>factor for you, that's OK by me. I don't assume that everyone shares
>my values; you shouldn't assume that everyone shares yours.
Okay. I wasn't going to do this, but obviously you still don't
understand my point. It is simple, unimportant, and true. The bicycle
was invented in order to allow humans to travel, self powered, faster
and farther than was otherwise possible. By far the majority of
modifications and improvements in bicycling engineering over the years
have been aimed at increasing this ability to go, self powered, faster
and farther. Not everyone always wants to go faster and farther,
however the vast majority choose a bicycle for the reason that it will
allow them to go faster and farther (I could say farther because
faster). They will use any number of descriptions of the joy of biking,
almost all of which can be boiled down to the reasons for which the
thing was invented. The freedom of self powered motion the bike
provides, which is the root of its value whether it be fitness,
transportation, utility, or just plain fun (my own personal favorite) is
dependent on speed. If the bicycle were no faster than walking, it
probably wouldn't exist.
I'm running a survey elsewhere on this group. On the basis of some of
the responses I got, I thought is would be interesting to ask some
children why they ride. After all most of us started as children and
over the years our motivations have possible become clouded by our
causes and biases. I started with my own nieces and nephews then
expanded from there. I probably asked around 50 kids ranging from 6 or
7 to 15 years of age. The response was almost universal, beginning with
a blank "are you crazy" look followed by either "cause it's fast" or
"cause it's fun". Why's it fun, brought the response, "cause its
fast". The exact wording of the exchanges varied from the examples
given, but not one of the kids had any problem with the concept of speed
being the root motivator in bike riding.
Ok gotta go grab a quick bite to eat, take a fast shower, and hurry my
ass to bed. Gotta sleep fast cause when I get up I have to hurry...
Randy Coverstone
jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> wrote:
>> -Randy wrote:
>> >If I want to go fast, I take my car -- it'll do over 150mph.
>> >There must be a reason other than the "need for speed"
>> >to get on a bike.
>The idea presented by Mr. Coverstone is that bikes are merely
>recreational toys. My bikes are far more than this. While I have a lot
>of fun riding, I also like to keep in reasonably good shape and maintain
>a normal weight. This implies fitness (eg going fast).
??? You have my entire post above -- where the #$% did you get
the idea that I think bikes are merely recreational toys?
>This months issue of "Bicyclist" has an excellent article by Jim Martin
>subtitled "Are you a lasy man". The article deals with Mr. Coverstone's
>approach to riding and points out some of the pitfalls in such a narrow
>approach to the sport. I recommend it highly.
You know nothing whatsoever about my approach to riding.
>Jack
Randy
clo...@wartech.com
In <33FF55...@dmv.com>, jack rose <jgr...@dmv.com> writes:
>This is a very simple thing. Human nature is such that we all want to
>go faster. This doesn't intimate racing, ego trips or any of the other
>silliness I read in some posts (not Bacon's). I have never met any
>biker who didn't want to go as fast as possible all the hand ringing
>over this issue is silly.
How true. When I have far to go over steep terrain, and I'm in my car, it
seems such a shame that I can "only" do 80. I sometimes think about how
fast I could go in a VTOL aircraft instead :-)
Seriously, though, it's no pain at all to do 10mph on a bicycle.
One of the chief reasons I bicycle rather than jog is that, for an equivalent
workout, I'm not beating up my joints. Bicycling is VERY joint-friendly. The
ONLY other moderate exercise one can do throughout life, besides bicycling,
is rapid walking, assuming no catastrophic injuries to the legs in either case
from other causes.
While it is true that women get fractures throughout their legs and pelvis when
running/jogging a lot due to stress fatigue in the bone material, men do not fare
better when doing a lot of it. The bones in men are strong enough; but the
cartilege and lubricant sacs ultimately fail in the knees and hips if done as much
for as much distance as one would do it cycling.
The bottom line is that bicycling, at least over fairly level terrain, is a lifelong
form of exercise, transport, and plain fun.
The only reason speed matters to me is the commute potential (where time going
to and fro matters, since one has only so many hours in a day). The only other
thing I use speed for is wind drag for the pure cardio-fitness potential.
I'd LIKE to go really, really fast. But that's mostly, for me, an ego thing.
JDF
>etc. etc.
>> > I don't ride to challenge myself, any
>> >more than I watch TV to challeng my mind. Can you say F-U-N? Can you
>> >say P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? C-H-E-A-P? I've done some long-distance
>> >trips, never going fast, but going far. I could probably argue that
>> >anyone who hasn't gone 2350 miles in one trip is a wimp no matter how fast
>> >they can ride. But that would be stupid. As stupid as those who believe
>> >speed is the ultimate reason to bike. (Sometimes I think mountain bikers
>> >believe that parachuting is the only reason to bike. ;-) To each their
>>
>> F-U-N What makes it so? P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L? What makes it so?
>> C-H-E-A-P? Can't argue that one except to say that it is less cheap
>> than walking, jogging, or skating for that matter (all of which are
>> slower). In my own case I've spent a small fortune on it, but I realize
>> that it wasn't really necessary to do so. You mention long trips, never
...
Anyone see the 2 page spread in the 8/24 Sunday NY Times Magazine about
consumerism and marketing infiltrating bikes? They described and showed a
$13,000 MTB. It was an exercise in extravagance...
JDF
********************************
remove NOSPAM from email address
jf...@pipeline.com
www.clarusmusic.com
********************************
bacon
>: Bicycling is VERY joint-friendly. The
>: ONLY other moderate exercise one can do throughout life, besides bicycling,
>: is rapid walking, assuming no catastrophic injuries to the legs in either case
>: from other causes.
>
>
Yes, as well as any number of stationary machines (airwalkers,
stairsteppers, cardioglide, and on and on). Beer drinking can be pretty
good exercise too, if you use a large enough mug.
Bacon
actualaddress=ba...@utah.uswest.net