Bike aerodynamics / weight
Larry
hear very little about the aerodynamic advantage of a bike frame and
components. It is so critical in time trialing and yet most bikes are round
tubes glued to round parts. I am mostly referring to high end carbon frames.
I can't tell the difference when riding with 2 full water bottles or 2
empty ones ( 2 - 3 pounds). I can however feel a slight improvement when
riding 20 + MPH with a frame I have that is quite aerodynamic, not one round
part on it but the steering tube.
Phil Holman
"Larry" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:XrGdnf7NvLemMgDY...@comcast.com...
I doubt it. Without a computer you would never tell the difference
between 22 and 23 mph. Besides, there are many other variables that
overshadow the benefit of aero tubing.
Phil H
almos...@yahoo.com
Shhh! As long as my competition is obsessed with light weight, I can
keep my aero advantage.
JeffWills
Larry wrote:
> I can however feel a slight improvement when
> riding 20 + MPH with a frame I have that is quite aerodynamic, not one round
> part on it but the steering tube.
I really doubt you could tell the difference in speed between a "round
tube" bike and an "aero tube" bike without a wind tunnel. Your body
accounts for the vast majority of the aero drag, and small changes in
body position can have major changes in speed.
Jeff
Ron Ruff
Larry wrote:
> Any comments on why everyone is so concerned with saving a few grams and you
> hear very little about the aerodynamic advantage of a bike frame and
> components. It is so critical in time trialing and yet most bikes are round
> tubes glued to round parts.
People are obsessed with weight because it is easier to measure...
don't need a multi-million dollar wind tunnel... a $20 scale will work
fine.
There is a Sufi parable that illustrates this... something about losing
a coin in the alley, but looking for it under a street lamp because the
light is better...
BTW, people who do TTs worry about aero a lot.
cat0020
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/waterford/hunn/Waterford.12.jpg
Jim Higson
>
> Larry wrote:
>> Any comments on why everyone is so concerned with saving a few grams and
>> you hear very little about the aerodynamic advantage of a bike frame and
>> components. It is so critical in time trialing and yet most bikes are
>> round tubes glued to round parts.
>
> People are obsessed with weight because it is easier to measure...
> don't need a multi-million dollar wind tunnel... a $20 scale will work
> fine.
It is a bit like how speed rules are enforced on the roads more routinely
than agressive driving rules. It is a property that you can easily put a
number to, so it is easy to compare.
I think that all the component makers publishing weights contributes towards
it as well. If a someone looking for parts on an online shop sees they list
the weight, it encourages a culture of cyclists thinking weight is
something they should consider when buying parts (while for most people it
doesn't really matter all that much within reason)
At least the worry about weight lets component makers make good, but
slightly heavier bits in their lower range, which I can then buy for not
very much money.
mike.a...@gmail.com
cat0020 wrote:
> Real aerodynamic advantage:
>
> http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/waterford/hunn/Waterford.12.jpg
Both banned by the UCI, the recumbent since the 1930s.
Art Harris
> Any comments on why everyone is so concerned with saving a few grams and you
> hear very little about the aerodynamic advantage of a bike frame and
> components.
Because climbing hills is the hardest thing to do and aerodynamics
don't help there. Also, few riders cruise at 25+ mph where aerodynamics
really matters.
Art Harris
Skippy
"Art Harris" <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168007137....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Where does the 'magic' 25MPH come from? I've seen it quoted, especially
when comparing aero/non aero kit. Is it the benchmark for a reasonable
TTer?
On the flat, every rider's cruising speed is limited by wind drag.
Skippy
27MPH, head down ;-)
E&OE
Skippy
"Ron Ruff" <rruff...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167987007.0...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Turn up at a TT with your 'pointy' bike and you'll still have people asking
'how much does it weigh?'. I really annoyed a guy once by admitting that I
didn't know.
I agree that it is near impossible to accurately and reliably measure drag
yourself, so you're left with weight and colour! (Red is fastest, followed
by black ;-) )
Skippy
E&OE
russell...@yahoo.com
The bike and parts are a minimal, minimal, minimal part of drag. What
is the largest part on a bike? Weight and surface area? The rider.
It takes effort and work on the rider's part to ride the drops, ride in
a very small hunched up position, ride to minimize surface area
presented to the front, etc. This is free for the most part. Hard to
sell free. It also requires a change, maybe radical change, by the
rider. Its harder to sell radical change on the rider's part and work
required by the rider, than it is to sell free.
Peter Cole
> "Art Harris" <n2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168007137....@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
>> Larry wrote:
>>> Any comments on why everyone is so concerned with saving a few grams and
>>> you
>>> hear very little about the aerodynamic advantage of a bike frame and
>>> components.
>> Because climbing hills is the hardest thing to do and aerodynamics
>> don't help there. Also, few riders cruise at 25+ mph where aerodynamics
>> really matters.
>>
>> Art Harris
>>
>
> Where does the 'magic' 25MPH come from? I've seen it quoted, especially
> when comparing aero/non aero kit. Is it the benchmark for a reasonable
> TTer?
>
It is that (roughly), but aero drag power losses go up as the cube of
speed -- so it gets disproportionately more important as you go faster.
> On the flat, every rider's cruising speed is limited by wind drag.
As Art points out, most people get dropped on climbs, both in road
racing and fast club rides. When you're drafting in a pack aerodynamics
isn't too important.
> Skippy
> 27MPH, head down ;-)
Be careful, one guy in our club just rear-ended a car that way.
Ron Ruff
Art Harris wrote:
> Because climbing hills is the hardest thing to do and aerodynamics
> don't help there. Also, few riders cruise at 25+ mph where aerodynamics
> really matters.
Aero drag dominates even at 10mph on the flat... of course most of us
aren't working too hard then anyway, so we don't care.
I looked into a comparison of aero rims vs light rims for climbing
awhile back. It turns out that the small aero advantage of a 30mm rim
more than compensates for it's extra ~100g weight on a hill with less
than 8% grade.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Aerodynamics of a bicycle is largely imaginary, the drag of rider
cross section being so enormously greater compared to shape changes on
the bicycle that have an effect two orders of magnitude smaller...
with tear-drop shaped tubing, rims and spokes. Those % improvements
are often touted alone rather than as their % of the composite of
rider and bicycle... where it is closer zero.
Of course, we are all Walter Mitty, riding as fast as the average
speed of the TdF, seconds saved making a difference in our live$$.
Jobst Brandt
DougC
Yea, but,,,, what sort of racing is it when an average club-level rider
on an IHPVA bike can beat top-level riders on UCI-legal bikes?
Damn sorry racing, by my figuring.
They might as well go back to hobby-horses.
~
frkr...@gmail.com
DougC wrote:
> mike.a...@gmail.com wrote:
> > cat0020 wrote:
> >> Real aerodynamic advantage:
> >>
> >> http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/waterford/hunn/Waterford.12.jpg
> >
> > Both banned by the UCI, the recumbent since the 1930s.
> >
>
> Yea, but,,,, what sort of racing is it when an average club-level rider
> on an IHPVA bike can beat top-level riders on UCI-legal bikes?
That's not much different than asking why there are different classes
in auto racing. Why have displacement limits? Why restrict Formula 1
and Indy to open wheels? Why have NASCAR at all, with production car
look-alikes?
The solution is the same: If you don't like the rules in one class,
find a class you like, and either participate or spectate there.
- Frank Krygowski
Ron Ruff
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Aerodynamics of a bicycle is largely imaginary, the drag of rider
> cross section being so enormously greater compared to shape changes on
> the bicycle that have an effect two orders of magnitude smaller...
> with tear-drop shaped tubing, rims and spokes. Those % improvements
> are often touted alone rather than as their % of the composite of
> rider and bicycle... where it is closer zero.
The rider's body generally accounts for 70-80% of the drag, the bike
making up the rest. Quite a lot of effort is spent to reduce both
components, among those who are serious about maximizing their speed in
TTs. Of course, the sellers of things like to exaggerate (and even lie
about) the benefits of their products. I'm thinking of the current
ceramic bearing craze...
A more ecomonical approach would be to use whatever equipment you have,
and calculate what your time would have been if you'd spent x$ on
better equipment. If it would make a meaningful difference in your
cycling "career", then maybe...
> Of course, we are all Walter Mitty, riding as fast as the average
> speed of the TdF, seconds saved making a difference in our live$$.
There are worse fantasies that could be indulged in...
Most of the people I know of who race frequently and are obsessed about
these things, seem to have a healthy enjoyment of the sport. They are
merely trying to maximize their performance in a competitive
environment. They may not have the physical gifts to be a pro, but they
can still enjoy the attempt to maximize the potential they have.
Larry
most of the time you are not climbing hills for the cumulative advantage
should be greater. If you have a 160 lb. rider and a 15 lb bike a 17 lb bike
is only 1% heaver and what percentage of time are you climbing? And yes my
aero frame which is UCI legal is red and black so it must be the reason I
feel faster.
Ozark Bicycle
By the first name of Davis, by any chance?
JeffWills
Michael Press
<0pSdnbQEHtO1kwLY...@comcast.com>,
"Larry" <som...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> This is all exactly my point there is minimal effect from a aero bike but
What all?
> most of the time you are not climbing hills for the cumulative advantage
> should be greater. If you have a 160 lb. rider and a 15 lb bike a 17 lb bike
> is only 1% heaver and what percentage of time are you climbing? And yes my
> aero frame which is UCI legal is red and black so it must be the reason I
> feel faster.
--
Michael Press
Derk
> Aerodynamics of a bicycle is largely imaginary, the drag of rider
> cross section being so enormously greater compared to shape changes on
> the bicycle that have an effect two orders of magnitude smaller...
> with tear-drop shaped tubing, rims and spokes. Those % improvements
> are often touted alone rather than as their % of the composite of
> rider and bicycle... where it is closer zero.
By chance TOUR Magazin just did an article (January 2007 issue) on this.
They put Uwe Peschel on a normal bike:
Needed Watts for Speed = 45 km/h :
Stevens San Remo bike with normal handlebar 465 Watts needed to go 45 km/h
Same bike Hands down the drops: 406 watts needed
Same bikeEaston Aeroforce bar: 369 Watts
Same bike Triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards): 360 Watts
Cervelo + Tri spoke front 328 Watts
Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel : 320
Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet: 317
Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit: 307
Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit +
saddle 3 cm further back: 293 Watts
GR, Derk
Ron Ruff
Derk wrote:
> By chance TOUR Magazin just did an article (January 2007 issue) on this.
Derk
> Curious... what were the "baseline" wheels?
Hubs: Shimano Tiagra 4500
Rims: Rigida Flyer, CNC side 32 L
Spokes: DT Swiss Competition 2.0-1.8mm
Tires: Michelin Dynamic 700x23C
Gr, Derk
John Forrest Tomlinson
>By chance TOUR Magazin just did an article (January 2007 issue) on this.
>They put Uwe Peschel on a normal bike:
>
>Needed Watts for Speed = 45 km/h :
>Stevens San Remo bike with normal handlebar 465 Watts needed to go 45 km/h
>Same bike Hands down the drops: 406 watts needed
>Same bikeEaston Aeroforce bar: 369 Watts
>Same bike Triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards): 360 Watts
>
>Cervelo + Tri spoke front 328 Watts
>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel : 320
>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet: 317
>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit: 307
>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit +
>saddle 3 cm further back: 293 Watts
Interesting.Thanks.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Lou Holtman
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 09:04:25 +0100, Derk <nob...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>>By chance TOUR Magazin just did an article (January 2007 issue) on this.
>>They put Uwe Peschel on a normal bike:
>>
>>Needed Watts for Speed = 45 km/h :
>>Stevens San Remo bike with normal handlebar 465 Watts needed to go 45 km/h
>>Same bike Hands down the drops: 406 watts needed
>>Same bikeEaston Aeroforce bar: 369 Watts
>>Same bike Triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards): 360 Watts
Derk missed one data point here:
Same bike Triathlon position (5.5 cm lower bar, saddle forwards) and
carbon Tri spoke wheels front and rear: 345 Watt
>>Cervelo + Tri spoke front 328 Watts
>>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel : 320
>>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet: 317
>>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit: 307
>>Cervelo + Tri spoke front + disk rear wheel +Giro helmet + speed suit +
>>saddle 3 cm further back: 293 Watts
>
>
> Interesting.Thanks.
Lou
Ron Ruff
This is typical of how they test... but I wish their baseline wheels
had been something a little more aero with better tires.
Does anyone know what tires they used in the aero test?
Derk
> This is typical of how they test... but I wish their baseline wheels
> had been something a little more aero with better tires.
>
> Does anyone know what tires they used in the aero test?
looking at the pictures closely, I see both tires are yellow and black, but
they're not the same kind.
The Cervelo tire looks starting from the rim :yellow side, thin black line,
yellow, thick black center.
The Stevens has a yellow side and then black.Like the Vredestein Volante
TriComp in yellow.
Gr, Derk
Derk
Gr, Derk
cat0020
for competition in reguard of aerodynamics.
In this picture:
http://www.ohpv.org/albums/pir2006/day1/roadrace/pages/kirke088.htm
You can clearly see that the upright bike rider has a greater front
section than that of the recumbent riders, hence less aerodynamic.
In conclusion, I stay with my claim.. for more aerodynamic advantage:
ride a recumbent.. regurdless of stupid french UCI rules, you're moving
under your own power...
even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
Obree.
On Jan 6, 2:02 am, "JeffWills" <jwi...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> mike.a.sch...@gmail.com wrote:
> > cat0020 wrote:
> > > Real aerodynamic advantage:
>
> > >http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2006/waterford/hunn/Water...
russell...@yahoo.com
You completely missed the point. The aeroness of the RIDER is what is
important. The surface area of the rider hitting the wind is where
about 99% of the drag comes from. Why spend thousands or even hundreds
of dollars on aero bike parts if you sit up on the hoods with a high
rise stem catching the wind. Ride the drops for free and you will have
more aeroness than the most aero bike ever built. Why do you even
mention weight? How does that affect aeroness?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>The surface area of the rider hitting the wind is where
>about 99% of the drag comes from.
99%? I find that hard to believe, at least for a cyclist in a racing
position.
JT
Mark Hickey
>even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
>record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
>Obree.
And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition without
anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride the "superman
position" (one that by all accounts is much more dangerous than a
typical time trial position) a bad thing?
The fact that
Michael Warner
> 99%? I find that hard to believe, at least for a cyclist in a racing
> position.
I've seen figures of 70-75% quoted a few times.
--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
cat0020
Do you mean that the "Superman" position is too dangerous to be
competitive?
so by making it illegal, UCI is making the competition more fair?
How about the racers in third world countries who can't even aford to
have clipless pedals on their bikes? clipless pedals could be
dangerous, who is making competition more fair for them?
With enough practice, I'm certain that "superman" position could be
safe, just like clipless pedals.
Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
everything that you wanted to express.
On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
> "cat0020" <cat0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
> >record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
> >Obree.And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition without
Clive George
news:r8s5q21m2tqu0et8k...@4ax.com...
Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because it's
dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't noted
for being politic with officials?
Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute, changing
the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
That said, I think the current UCI hour record bike rule is actually fairly
sensible - there are open competitions for other bikes.
cheers,
clive
Mark Hickey
>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>news:r8s5q21m2tqu0et8k...@4ax.com...
>> "cat0020" <cat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
>>>record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
>>>Obree.
>>
>> And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition without
>> anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride the "superman
>> position" (one that by all accounts is much more dangerous than a
>> typical time trial position) a bad thing?
>
>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because it's
>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't noted
>for being politic with officials?
>
>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute, changing
>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar. Even Obree admitted that
the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
even with a much more conservative position).
>That said, I think the current UCI hour record bike rule is actually fairly
>sensible - there are open competitions for other bikes.
Exactly! Nothing would be gained by allowing an uncomfortable and
unsafe position to become a defacto standard.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Mark Hickey
>I don't fully understand your point..
>
>Do you mean that the "Superman" position is too dangerous to be
>competitive?
>so by making it illegal, UCI is making the competition more fair?
I'm saying that the position is a nightmare from the perspective of
anything other than a track bike, and even then it's so inherently
less controllable than a "normal" TT position that it wouldn't help
the sport to force even "only" trackies to adopt it to be competitive.
Perhaps you can go even faster if you hold onto the front hub
(eliminating the fork) and use a periscope to navigate. Wouldn't make
it a good idea. ;-)
>How about the racers in third world countries who can't even aford to
>have clipless pedals on their bikes? clipless pedals could be
>dangerous, who is making competition more fair for them?
Walmart.
>With enough practice, I'm certain that "superman" position could be
>safe, just like clipless pedals.
Uh huh... I'm sure you could say the same about a penny farthing (and
be as wrong about that, too). ;-)
>Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
>everything that you wanted to express.
Methinks you should should work on parsing and the concept of
parentheticals. It's tortured a bit, but a proper sentence.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
>On Jan 8, 8:36 pm, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
Clive George
>>Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
>>everything that you wanted to express.
>
> Methinks you should should work on parsing and the concept of
> parentheticals. It's tortured a bit, but a proper sentence.
I've left your post intact below. The "sentence" he's complaining about has
precisely 3 words, none of which is a verb, and no full stop. Take a look
:-)
cheers,
clive
Clive George
> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>>news:r8s5q21m2tqu0et8k...@4ax.com...
>>> "cat0020" <cat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break a
>>>>record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or Graeme
>>>>Obree.
>>>
>>> And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition without
>>> anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride the "superman
>>> position" (one that by all accounts is much more dangerous than a
>>> typical time trial position) a bad thing?
>>
>>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because
>>it's
>>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't noted
>>for being politic with officials?
>>
>>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute, changing
>>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
>
> Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
position, but for other reasons.
> Even Obree admitted that
> the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
> be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
> position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
> trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
> even with a much more conservative position).
Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was doing.
Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?
cheers,
clive
Tim McNamara
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> news:56i8q2hcja0lv83rv...@4ax.com...
> > "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
> >>news:r8s5q21m2tqu0et8k...@4ax.com...
> >>> "cat0020" <cat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>even if you comply with UCI rules, they'll change it if you break
> >>>>a record that they don't like you.. just ask Chris Boardman or
> >>>>Graeme Obree.
> >>>
> >>> And how, precisely, is making a rule that allows competition
> >>> without anyone with competitive capability being forced to ride
> >>> the "superman position" (one that by all accounts is much more
> >>> dangerous than a typical time trial position) a bad thing?
> >>
> >>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a)
> >>because it's dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme
> >>Obree, who wasn't noted for being politic with officials?
> >>
> >>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute,
> >>changing the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
> >
> > Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>
> Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
> position, but for other reasons.
Obree wasn't one of cycling's elite (e.g. he hadn't won the Tour de
France) and his success in the Hour Record was a slap in the face for
the hidebound traditionalists. The Hour Record is a holy relic which
can only be approached by the elite. Note that they eventually
reinstated *Merckx's* Hour Record and the official standard, rolling the
clock back right past Boardman's, Obree's, Rominger's and Francesco
Moser's aero bike records.
> > Even Obree admitted that the position was pretty sketchy as I
> > recall. I can't see how it could be otherwise - moving from the
> > superman to any reasonable braking position would take enough time
> > that we'd see a lot of carnage at time trials and triathlons (the
> > latter of which tends to contain a fair bit even with a much more
> > conservative position).
>
> Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
>
> It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was
> doing. Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?
They changed the rules to outlaw Obree's first aero tuck position only
after Francesco Moser hauled his Jurassic ass out of retirement and
bettered his own longstanding record. That was the hammer in the coffin
for Obree's original position. Obree gave them the bird with the
"Superman" position, but at that point of he'd turned up on a regular
track bike the UCI would probably have outlawed that, too.
Brian Huntley
cat0020 wrote:
> Real aerodynamic advantage:
>
>
>
Is that a belt on the primary drive of that recumbent?
KERRY MONTGOMERY
"Brian Huntley" <brian_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168400423.6...@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
goes from the (large) chainring to the idler near the rider's knees, to the
cluster, to the derailleur, back to the chainring.
Kerry
carl...@comcast.net
<brian_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I don't think so.
The picture does make the top run look a bit like a belt.
But it's the only drive, not a primary connected to a secondary.
What looks like a return lower run from the "small" idler is actually
the "spoke" of the 4-strut front wheel on the bike beyond the
recumbent.
idler __ front
\/
der
The chain goes about 90 degrees down to a cassette, not 170 degrees
back to the front sprocket.
If you enlarge the picture, you can see three teeth on the
derailleur's outer jockey wheel.
The comparatively huge front-sprocket-to-cassette ratio is needed to
spin the tiny wheel up to high speed at a reasonable cadence.
Or so I think--maybe someone who has one of those things will explain
that it's trickier than I think.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
JeffWills
carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Or so I think--maybe someone who has one of those things will explain
> that it's trickier than I think.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
No, you're correct, Carl. The bike is question is a Challenge NME:
http://www.challengebikes.com/html/index.php?taal=en&selectie=nme ,
which features a unique monoblade front-wheel-drive fork.
Here's a better photo of the drivetrain: http://tinyurl.com/ymm2s9
"Normal" recumbent riders think lowracers are pretty wild. FWD
lowracers are another animal- and lowracers with FWD and monoblade
forks just plain peg the Weird-Stuff-O-Meter.
Jeff
Mark Hickey
>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>news:8bi8q2h062kthd2qi...@4ax.com...
>
>>>Anyhow, finish your thought.. it seems that you didn't get to type
>>>everything that you wanted to express.
>>
>> Methinks you should should work on parsing and the concept of
>> parentheticals. It's tortured a bit, but a proper sentence.
>
>I've left your post intact below. The "sentence" he's complaining about has
>precisely 3 words, none of which is a verb, and no full stop. Take a look
Oh... THAT "sentence". I just assumed that it was part of a snip.
What I was going to type is:
The fact that I left off the end of this sentence will cause a great
amount of angst.
But it didn't look right that way... ;-)
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the....
Mark Hickey
>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>news:56i8q2hcja0lv83rv...@4ax.com...
>> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because
>>>it's
>>>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't noted
>>>for being politic with officials?
>>>
>>>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute, changing
>>>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
>>
>> Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>
>Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
>position, but for other reasons.
I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
the equation.
>> Even Obree admitted that
>> the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
>> be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
>> position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
>> trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
>> even with a much more conservative position).
>
>Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
I was extrapolating to the logical conclusion of allowing the
position.
>It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was doing.
>Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?
Nope.
Clive George
> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>>news:56i8q2hcja0lv83rv...@4ax.com...
>>> "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Why do you think the "superman position" was banned? Was it a) because
>>>>it's
>>>>dangerous or b) because the UCI didn't like Graeme Obree, who wasn't
>>>>noted
>>>>for being politic with officials?
>>>>
>>>>Given that they had a history of stopping him at the last minute,
>>>>changing
>>>>the rules as they went, it looks rather like b).
>>>
>>> Nice try at circular logic, but no cigar.
>>
>>Not circular at all. They didn't like him not because of his riding
>>position, but for other reasons.
>
> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
> the equation.
Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
justifications.
>>> Even Obree admitted that
>>> the position was pretty sketchy as I recall. I can't see how it could
>>> be otherwise - moving from the superman to any reasonable braking
>>> position would take enough time that we'd see a lot of carnage at time
>>> trials and triathlons (the latter of which tends to contain a fair bit
>>> even with a much more conservative position).
>>
>>Um, braking position? Brakes? This was a track bike...
>
> I was extrapolating to the logical conclusion of allowing the
> position.
The UCI already allows different bikes for different disciplines - eg no
aero bars for road racing, no brakes for track bikes. There's no reason the
superman position couldn't have been restricted to the track.
>>It was within UCI rules - they changed them when they saw what he was
>>doing.
>>Have you read "Flying Scotsman"?
>
> Nope.
Recommended.
cheers,
clive
cat0020
I apologize for my inaccuracy in the english language, for I have only
been speaking and reading english for seven years.
It seems to me that in your first reply to my post, you failed to
finish your post, with the last three words of the post being:
"The fact that"
those three words present that you have yet to finish your thoughts and
failed to relate to any fact.
The fact is that the topic of this thread is about aerodynamics on
bicycles, not about competition, UCI rules, nor former racing records.
The fact is, recumbent bicycles are more aerodynamic than normal
bicycles, with or without fairing that cover the rider.
You can save the attempts to mock my english writing ability, I know my
english isn't as good as yours, thanks to you, I can point out facts
and complete my sentences now.
Perhalps you could complete your unfinished sentece of:
"The fact that"?
Mark Hickey
>"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
>> I'm not discussing whether the UCI "liked" him, but on their ruling.
>> I think that outlawing a dangerous and uncomfortable position stands
>> on its own merits without bringing their fondness for the rider into
>> the equation.
>
>Unfortunately you can't really discuss one without the other - their ruling
>was originally brought in because they didn't like him, and didn't like that
>an outsider was setting records. "dangerous and uncomfortable" are post-hoc
>justifications.
So you're saying that teh UCI would gladly adopt dangerous and
uncomfortable positions from riders they DO like? Can you name one?
Mark Hickey
I obviously misread your intent (too much to do, not enough coffee).
;-) But I did cover the omission in another post... in the end, I
ended up mocking nothing but my own reading comprehension... I had
made an assumption that those three dangling words were just left over
after deleting a subsequent paragraph (almost).
Mark "is 'mea culpa' English?" Hickey
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
Also, there was some acrimony about the acceptance of aero bars in
road times trials -- with different UCI officials ruling differently
in the same year. To whit, Greg LeMond used them and it was accepted.
In a race in the same country a few weeks later another rider was
stopped the morning of a time trial and told he could not use them.
I don't know the motivations of the officials in those cases, but it
is surely worth considering the antipathy with which Obree was viewed
by cycling traditionalists.
Also, I don't understand why you keep suggesting comfort is part of
the issue.
Clive George
Boardman. Got less grief than Obree ever did.
Of course it's still a slightly tricky question, since they were the ones
working to get a faster bike - nobody else was trying quite as hard, and
after not very long the UCI gave up anyway and went to the current rules. So
nobody the UCI really liked had a go.
cheers,
clive
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
>"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Mark,
First they outlawed the "supine" match rifle position, but I said
nothing because I hate sprawling on the ground either way:
http://www.nsc-bisley.co.uk/common/photos/mr4.jpg
Then they outlawed the "tuck" position, but I said nothing because it
looked painfully uncomfortable:
http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree/obreetuck2
Next they outlawed the "superman" position, but I said nothing because
I bet that it would be uncomfortable, too:
http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree/superman
Now they're going to outlaw this position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_ride
If they outlaw silly posts, I won't be able to have any fun at all.
But I won't complain, since others have had less fun:
"Obree was the defending champion and had modified his bike to bring
him into line with the new rules. However, on the evening of the
Championships the UCI brought in a new law effectively banning his
unique tuck position. The rule was so new that it hadn't even been
written down. Obree had no chance to get used to a new design and was
thus disqualified after his first qualifying attempt."
http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree
Of course, nowadays any hour-record challenger is required to borrow
Eddy's bike, tires, shoes, costume, and bad back to maintain a safe
and level playing field.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
wayne...@yahoo.com
> him into line with the new rules. However, on the evening of the
> Championships the UCI brought in a new law effectively banning his
> unique tuck position. The rule was so new that it hadn't even been
> written down. Obree had no chance to get used to a new design and was
> thus disqualified after his first qualifying attempt."
>
> http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree
>
> Of course, nowadays any hour-record challenger is required to borrow
> Eddy's bike, tires, shoes, costume, and bad back to maintain a safe
> and level playing field.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
The UCI is interested in retaining the traditional appearance of riding
a bicycle but must also deal with commercial concerns of the bicycle
industry that supports racing and indirectly the UCI. This conflict
has resulted in inconsistent and conflicting rulings. I attribute its
unfair last minute rules changes to the basic incompetence of the UCI
in running the sport and not a personal dislike for Obree. The UCI's
current "management" of doping in its races and it war with the most
popular races on its calendar are just more evidence in its
incompetence.
Wayne Sulak.
Mark Hickey
>Also, I don't understand why you keep suggesting comfort is part of
>the issue.
Let's say that I come up with a new position on a bike - it's 5%
faster (which would require anyone who wants to be competitive to
adopt it). Tiem trials would become a virtual torture-fest.
Now what's the UCI gonna do?
Their job is one of two things...
1) Make the bikes all go as fast as possible
2) Govern in such a way that it maximizes the sport
Now it seems to me that if #1 was their ultimate goal, no one would
win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
cost $100K of course).
OTOH, if #2 is their intent (no pun intended), they'd likely outlaw
the uncomfortable position - doubly so if the position compromised
bike handling (which both of the ones in question clearly did).
cat0020
On Jan 11, 9:34 am, Mark Hickey <m...@habcycles.com> wrote:
> no one would win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
> cost $100K of course).
I thought recumbent bicycles are not allowed in UCI TT events, faired
or not.
A home-made or adopted faired recumbent bicycle does not need to cost
upward of $1000; especially a nice Habanero titanium frame could be
fabricated at $795.
My goal here is to raise the awearness of recumbent bicycle riding
position as a more aerodynamic form than the regular bicycle riding
position.
Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
commonly available bicycle technologies. Hopefully, the more people are
awear of the potentials of recumbent bicycles as more comfortable and
efficient riding; the more popular the idea of human powered vehicle
will become and replace automobiles on the road. Maybe one day UCI
would realize the same and allow recumbents to compete along with
regular bicycles since they are all powered by the rider, but that's
even less likely to happen.
frkr...@gmail.com
cat0020 wrote:
> Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
> commonly available bicycle technologies.
Please, don't attach the term "dangerous" to bicycling as a way to push
your agenda. The "dangers" of bicycling are already exaggerated far
beyond what the data indicates. We already get too many problems from
that exaggeratioin.
> Hopefully, the more people are
> awear of the potentials of recumbent bicycles as more comfortable and
> efficient riding; the more popular the idea of human powered vehicle
> will become and replace automobiles on the road.
I admire your objectives, but I think you're mistaken about recumbents
making any such dent. I see very little evidence that the minor
differences a recumbent provides will change people's behavior.
I believe people are put off bicycling by
A) laziness ("It's too hard!"),
B) fear ("I'll get hit by a car and killed!")
C) total mechanical incompetence
I don't think comfort is a big issue. A few may claim narrow bike
seats as an excuse, but most of those people would probably eyeball a
"comfort bike" in a bike shop and assume it would be as effective a
solution as a recumbent. Therefore, a recumbent isn't going to
convince them. (As evidence: the closest bike shop to me has sold
hundreds of comfort bikes for every recumbent it sells, and they have
had several recumbents on the floor for a long, long time.)
Recumbents are not a solution to item A, the "It's too hard" aspect
anyway. People who say that don't want to go a mile per hour faster on
the flat, or five mph faster downhill. Instead, they complain about
uphills, where almost all recumbents are harder and slower than regular
bikes.
Recumbents aren't the solution to C, either. If anything, they're more
unusual, therefore less comprehensible.
As to B, the fear element - recumbents are probably safer for simple
falls, but that's not what most people fear. They fear getting smashed
by cars. So if your mission is to get more people out of cars, saying
"recumbents aren't as dangerous as other bikes" (or anything similar)
works against your objective.
Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
>
>cat0020 wrote:
>
>> Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
>> commonly available bicycle technologies.
>
>Please, don't attach the term "dangerous" to bicycling as a way to push
>your agenda.
[snip]
Dear Frank,
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d9355f6577c479ad
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
cat0020
My posting in this thread has not much to do with general public that
do not ride bicycles.
I would assume that for anyone who read this thread have some
competency in all three reasons that you've given in your reply.
Thank you for your contribution, however, they are somewhat misplaced
among the people who would read this thread/usegroup.
I am trying to promote recumbent bicycles among the riders who might
read into this topic/thread/usegroup.
Thanks for the support Carl
Theo C
dkahn400
> "Obree was the defending champion and had modified his bike to bring
> him into line with the new rules. However, on the evening of the
> Championships the UCI brought in a new law effectively banning his
> unique tuck position. The rule was so new that it hadn't even been
> written down. Obree had no chance to get used to a new design and was
> thus disqualified after his first qualifying attempt."
>
> http://www.richardpettinger.com/cycling/graham_obree
>
> Of course, nowadays any hour-record challenger is required to borrow
> Eddy's bike, tires, shoes, costume, and bad back to maintain a safe
> and level playing field.
See Michael Hutchinson's book "The Hour".
<http://www.amazon.com/Hour-Sporting-Immortality-Hard-Way/dp/0224075195>
When Hutchinson made his attempt at Manchester the UCI official ruled
minutes before the start that he could not use a heart monitor nor a
digital watch because Merckx had not used them. This was not a written
down rule, and digital watches were theoretically available to Merckx
though still hideously expensive then.
Within a couple of laps of the start Hutchinson realised that the
stadium's digital event timer and lap counter were not running. Again
the UCI official had decided that Merckx had not had one so neither
could Hutchinson. He therefore had no way of knowing how much time had
gone or how he was doing against his schedule.
To ease his aching shoulders he rode the odd lap with his hands on the
tops rather than in the drops. He started to worry that the official
would leap onto the track and stop him. After all, Eddy Merckx had not
ridden on the tops. :-)
--
Dave...
Ron Ruff
dkahn400 wrote:
> Within a couple of laps of the start Hutchinson realised that the
> stadium's digital event timer and lap counter were not running. Again
> the UCI official had decided that Merckx had not had one so neither
> could Hutchinson. He therefore had no way of knowing how much time had
> gone or how he was doing against his schedule.
Now, that one is really sick. Surely Merckx had someone there to give
him time splits. The idea that it is "ok" to make up rules on the spot
is truly nuts. Don't they have anyone smart enough to think about
things ahead of time?
On the other hand, their attempt to pretend that they are dialing
everything back to Merckx has failed anyway. They still allow small
aero improvements that he didn't have.
The UCI is clearly incompetent... in so many ways. It is a wonder that
the sport has survived this long.
Michael Press
<1168533085....@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
bicycle.
--
Michael Press
Mark
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
>
> Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
> killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
> bicycle.
I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
Mark J.
[1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Mark,
Actually, the raw numbers may be closer than we'd think . . .
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants.html
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.
They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
about racing bikes. Never.
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>cat0020 wrote:
>
>> Recumbent bikes are not as dangerous nor expensive as other more
>> commonly available bicycle technologies.
>
>Please, don't attach the term "dangerous" to bicycling as a way to push
>your agenda. The "dangers" of bicycling are already exaggerated far
>beyond what the data indicates. We already get too many problems from
>that exaggeratioin.
>
>> Hopefully, the more people are
>> awear of the potentials of recumbent bicycles as more comfortable and
>> efficient riding; the more popular the idea of human powered vehicle
>> will become and replace automobiles on the road.
>
>I admire your objectives, but I think you're mistaken about recumbents
>making any such dent. I see very little evidence that the minor
>differences a recumbent provides will change people's behavior.
>
>I believe people are put off bicycling by
>A) laziness ("It's too hard!"),
>B) fear ("I'll get hit by a car and killed!")
>C) total mechanical incompetence
>
>I don't think comfort is a big issue.
I think it is, but not for racers or would-be racers who care about
aerodynamics vs weight.
Tim McNamara
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
You should be signing your posts as "Carl 'Googlemeister' Fogel."
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Tim,
Honest, finding stuff like that using Google is about as hard as
finding ice cream on a rug using a basset hound.
I typed "killed by elephants" into Google and took the first link:
Here's an example that might appeal to you. A friend recently emailed
me to ask if I knew the name of a psychological test that asked people
to look at a picture and make up a story.
He claimed that he couldn't find it, but I suspect that he just lacked
the confidence to put "psychology," "test," and "story" into
Google--the first hit would have told him all about the TAT.
(I remembered George MacDonald Fraser mocking the TAT in "Monsoon
Selection Board" in "The General Danced At Dawn," but I couldn't for
the life of me remember TAT or what it stands for.)
Hell, Google even corrects dumb typos. I carelessly put "tim,"
"mcnamara," and "pschologist" into a google groups search to check
that your profession fits my anecdote:
Google politely asked if I meant to spell "psychologist" with a "y".
Cheers,
Carl "Anyone can Google, But Typing is harder" Fogel
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>wrote:
>>Now what's the UCI gonna do?
>>
>>Their job is one of two things...
>>
>>1) Make the bikes all go as fast as possible
>>2) Govern in such a way that it maximizes the sport
>
>>Now it seems to me that if #1 was their ultimate goal, no one would
>>win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
>>cost $100K of course).
>>
>>OTOH, if #2 is their intent (no pun intended), they'd likely outlaw
>>the uncomfortable position - doubly so if the position compromised
>>bike handling (which both of the ones in question clearly did).
>
>You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
>want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.
Then why restrict tubing sizes? They can still look like traditional
bikes, but they'd be awfully flexy. And I have to say that modern
(very legal) carbon fiber TT bikes don't look even remotely like the
bikes that St. Eddy used to ride. UCI didn't seem to get their nose
out of joint about that.
>They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
>descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
>about racing bikes. Never.
Would you be tempted to participate in a sport where it was required
to get into a contorted, very uncomfortable position just to compete?
It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>wrote:
>
>>>Now what's the UCI gonna do?
>>>
>>>Their job is one of two things...
>>>
>>>1) Make the bikes all go as fast as possible
>>>2) Govern in such a way that it maximizes the sport
>>
>>>Now it seems to me that if #1 was their ultimate goal, no one would
>>>win a UCI TT on anything other than a faired 'bent (one that would
>>>cost $100K of course).
>>>
>>>OTOH, if #2 is their intent (no pun intended), they'd likely outlaw
>>>the uncomfortable position - doubly so if the position compromised
>>>bike handling (which both of the ones in question clearly did).
>>
>>You're making a false dichotomy and leaving out key factors. They
>>want the fastest bikes that look like traditional bikes.
>
>Then why restrict tubing sizes? They can still look like traditional
>bikes, but they'd be awfully flexy. And I have to say that modern
>(very legal) carbon fiber TT bikes don't look even remotely like the
>bikes that St. Eddy used to ride. UCI didn't seem to get their nose
>out of joint about that.
>
>>They might outlaw something that is unsafe, but I have never heard
>>descriptions of comfort in UCI statements or officials statements
>>about racing bikes. Never.
>
>Would you be tempted to participate in a sport where it was required
>to get into a contorted, very uncomfortable position just to compete?
The UCI is a not grassroots or developmental racing organization,
trying to get broad participation. It's a sport for elite racing and
most of it's leadership could care less about the number of new
participants.
You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
UCI. I'm not sure how much you know about it. I don't know much other
than what I read, and that's quite a bit. You should examine your
sources of information more carefully as your assumptions seem
detached from what news about the UCI, and UCI statements, say.. In
particular,
Have you read material on the UCI website? Have you read commentary
from UCI officials? Have you read the Obree biography, biased as it
may be? I've done the first two, and read excerpts of the latter.
You're talking from the standpoint of what seems reasonable to you,
but the discussion is about history and what happened -- so the
historical record is more important.
>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
They don't care.
Mark Hickey
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>
>wrote:
>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
>UCI.
<snip>
>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
>
>They don't care.
And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
the UCI"???
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
>>UCI.
>
><snip>
>
>>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
>>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
>>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
>>
>>They don't care.
>
>And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
>the UCI"???
I've read comments about safety by the UCI. I've read statements about
what they think of the sport. I've never read anything about
grassroots development or comfort -- two things that it woudl be easy
and positve of them to mention. So it's maybe speculation, but if so
it's informed speculation based on their behaviour and statements.
Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
tenuous.
Ryan Cousineau
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:40:59 -0700, Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:42:02 -0700, Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com>
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>You're just speculating/making things up about the motivation of the
> >>UCI.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>It's bad enough that a TT will drain your very soul through your lungs
> >>>- but let's face it... there is no overwhelming pool of participants
> >>>as it is - how much smaller do we want to make the fields in a TT?
> >>
> >>They don't care.
> >
> >And that is NOT "speculating/making things up about the motivation of
> >the UCI"???
>
> I've read comments about safety by the UCI. I've read statements about
> what they think of the sport. I've never read anything about
> grassroots development or comfort -- two things that it woudl be easy
> and positve of them to mention. So it's maybe speculation, but if so
> it's informed speculation based on their behaviour and statements.
I think part of the reason is that the UCI sees grassroots development
as the purview of national and regional bodies. Certainly, grassroots
development is a lot of what those groups deal with.
> Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> tenuous.
I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
> > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
> > tenuous.
>
> I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
> within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
Ben
UCI Minister of Taste
bret...@gmail.com
That link didn't work for me but I'm guessing you meant to use this
one:
http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/totg_day1_211.JPG
You should see his skate ski boots.
Bret
UCI Assistant Minister of Taste
Ryan Cousineau
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
Let's all hoist a glass to the excellent and tasteful work of the UCI.
Somehow Rujano was missed during Operation Good Taste:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/giro05/?id=giro0520/giro20_027
Skippy
<b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1168668398.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That's why lots of cyclists bother about weight more that aerodynamics:
that does not look cool!
Actually, being 'aero' full stop doesn't look good to many. I happen to
like the aesthetics of a lot of pointy kit (The LotusSport Pursuit is a
Thing Of Beauty). Many prefer a more traditional look and riding position.
We're fickle creatures in the end.
Skippy
E&OE
Michael Press
<hrCdnVCZPMWQLTvY...@comcast.com>,
Mark <remove.ma...@remove.comcast.this.net>
wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.
> >
> > Conveniently ignoring the fact that far more people are
> > killed on upright bicycles than are killed on recumbent
> > bicycle.
>
> I believe it would be easy to prove that far more people are killed
> annually riding either uprights or recumbants than are killed as a
> consequence of goosing an angry male elephant, though arguably the
> latter is far more dangerous. Perhaps that was your point?[1]
>
> [1] i.e. more deaths due to more opportunity, not more danger.
I was making a joke on misuse of statistics by
contrasting raw figures for recumbent riders and
upright riders without normalizing with the relative
number of riders.
--
Michael Press
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >
> > Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
> > for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
> > http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
> >
> > Ben
> > UCI Minister of Taste
>
> That link didn't work for me but I'm guessing you meant to use this one:
> http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/totg_day1_211.JPG
>
> You should see his skate ski boots.
>
> Bret
> UCI Assistant Minister of Taste
Yes thank you. I don't know what's up with that link; sometimes
it works and sometimes it apparently goes into an infinite redirect
loop.
How weird can skate ski boots get? I mean they can be
pretty garish, but can they be abnormally shaped for
greater aerodynamics?
I never lived near a ritzy rich-people ski area, so I only recently
discovered that when you do go to one, the local thrift shop and
secondhand ski store are veritable museums of regrettable
ski fashion (and occasional pieces of nice little-used equipment).
Ben
Mark Hickey
>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
>> > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
>> > tenuous.
>>
>> I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
>> within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
>
>Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
>for TT bikes.
I think my position has been mischaracterized in this thread. I'm not
suggesting that it's the UCI's obligation to keep us "comfortable" (a
true oxymoron when it comes to time trialing), but that they would
react to a very UNcomfortable position. There's a difference. Think
La-Z-Boy recliner and a bed of nails. ;-)
> It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
>http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
Now THAT should be banished on aesthetics alone, no question. I may
have nightmares (you should have posted a warning...). ;-)
frkr...@gmail.com
My objection stands. I don't care if you're talking to people in this
newsgroup or yelling to people passing by on the street. It's time to
stop linking the terms "dangerous" and "bicycling."
Even if you could produce some data on the relative safety of uprights
and recumbents per mile ridden - which I doubt - you'd be comparing
infinitesmals. The risk of significant injury during normal competent
riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.
Promoting recumbents as a way to lessen that infinitesmal risk does
more harm than good. It slanders ordinary bicycling.
- Frank Krygowski
cat0020
Do you realize that reguardless of your rejection, I can still promote
whatever I want in this group.
Whether or not cycling is dangerous, that is all relative.
Statistically, driving a car is far more dangerous than flying with an
airline, but more people are still afraid of flying than driving.
I promote recumbent bicycle on the basis that they are more efficient
than reagular upright bicycle because they are more aerodynamic and
heathier alternative for a person's prosterior.
Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.
Contribute some facts that regular upright bicycles are superior to
recumbent bicycles rather than telling me how you do not care what I
have to say, in which case only shows that you have little tolerance to
point of view different than your own.
Have a nice day
Theo
Ron Ruff
> The risk of significant injury during normal competent
> riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.
I agree that the perception of cycling as dangerous by the general
population is overblown (ie they consider it suicidal), but I think you
underestimate the level of fear (and avoidance of it) that the average
person lives with. You can say that cycling is reasonably safe if you
can ride for decades and survive... but most people would consider a
single incident of a very large vehicle traveling at high speed and
missing them by a few inches totally unacceptible for a "leisure"
activity. This is a common occurance if you have to ride on roads with
an inadequate shoulder.
When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.
frkr...@gmail.com
Ron Ruff wrote:
> frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The risk of significant injury during normal competent
> > riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.
>
> I agree that the perception of cycling as dangerous by the general
> population is overblown (ie they consider it suicidal), but I think you
> underestimate the level of fear (and avoidance of it) that the average
> person lives with.
I think there's something there you're missing. Yes, the public's
perception of danger _is_ overblown. And that's what _causes_ the
level of fear that they live with!
> You can say that cycling is reasonably safe if you
> can ride for decades and survive...
More realistically, you could literally ride for thousands of years, on
average, and "survive," if it were only possible to live that long.
Although data is sparse, the best numbers from various "western"
countries indicate there are roughly 15 million miles ridden between
bike fatalities. Divide your annual mileage into 15 million to see
how many years it would take you to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on
the bike. (The answer is much more than mere "decades"!)
> but most people would consider a
> single incident of a very large vehicle traveling at high speed and
> missing them by a few inches totally unacceptible for a "leisure"
> activity. This is a common occurance if you have to ride on roads with
> an inadequate shoulder.
I'm not sure about your words "common" and "few inches." How common?
And how few?
I ride on all sorts of roads - everything from quiet neighborhood
streets to busy arterials. Cars passing at speed closer than one foot
(assuming that's what you mean by "a few inches") are not common, by my
standards. It may happen once a year, if that.
If dangerously close passes happen a lot to you, it may be that you're
permitting it too often. Ride far enough left to be safe. (That would
be 'far enough right' in Britain, etc.)
> When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
> to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
> killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.
I'm sure that you're telling the truth. But please don't pretend
that's anything but an anomaly! There's plenty of data that shows
cycling is acceptably safe. One cluster of anomalous data points
doesn't change the reality.
Of course, there could be some specific cause for that cluster. If so,
people should be working to fix the problem. But odds are it's just a
random tragedy, and _not_ something that "proves" cycling is dangerous.
-
People do have a problem assessing risk. I think we're still wired to
live in tiny isolated villages, where risk is assessed by tales told
around the lodge fire. "Og talked to someone in the next village who
saw a wolf pack. We'd better move our camp."
Taking such tales of risk seriously may have worked for hundreds of
thousands of years, but it doesn't work in a world of billions with
instantaneous communication. We can _always_ find a scary story.
As contrast with your "3 people in 5 years" tale, I prefer the tales
from Britain's Cyclist's Touring Club. Roughly four fatalities per
year in a club membership of 60,000.
Try taking the quiz at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
- Frank Krygowski
frkr...@gmail.com
cat0020 wrote:
> Frank,
>
> Do you realize that reguardless of your rejection, I can still promote
> whatever I want in this group.
Sure. It's an open forum. You can promote giraffe unicycles as the
ultimate vehicle, too. But if you speak nonsense, expect to be called
on it.
> Whether or not cycling is dangerous, that is all relative.
Precisely. And relative to walking, riding in a car, playing
basketball, etc. cycling is acceptably safe. Don't slander it to
promote your choice.
> I promote recumbent bicycle on the basis that they are more efficient
> than reagular upright bicycle because they are more aerodynamic and
> heathier alternative for a person's prosterior.
>
> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
> ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
> the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
> pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.
Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I don't.
Again, don't slander ordinary bikes.
>
> Contribute some facts that regular upright bicycles are superior to
> recumbent bicycles rather than telling me how you do not care what I
> have to say, in which case only shows that you have little tolerance to
> point of view different than your own.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. I'm not so much objecting to your
promotion of recumbents. I'm objecting to your denigration of other
bikes, especially regarding safety. Scaring people away from bicycles
is not going to make your world, or my world, any better.
I undertstand you're a recumbent fan. We've been around and around
with the claims of recumbent fans. If you want to promote a bike
that's harder to pedal up hills, harder to carry loads, harder to
afford, harder to transport, harder to take into buildings, harder to
ride off-road, etc. because it's one or two miles per hour faster on
flat ground, that's fine. Just don't slander other bikes to do it.
- Frank Krygowski
carl...@comcast.net
[snip]
[Ron Ruff wrote]
>> When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
>> to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
>> killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.
>
>I'm sure that you're telling the truth. But please don't pretend
>that's anything but an anomaly! There's plenty of data that shows
>cycling is acceptably safe. One cluster of anomalous data points
>doesn't change the reality.
>
>Of course, there could be some specific cause for that cluster. If so,
>people should be working to fix the problem. But odds are it's just a
>random tragedy, and _not_ something that "proves" cycling is dangerous.
>
>-
>
>People do have a problem assessing risk. I think we're still wired to
>live in tiny isolated villages, where risk is assessed by tales told
>around the lodge fire. "Og talked to someone in the next village who
>saw a wolf pack. We'd better move our camp."
>
>Taking such tales of risk seriously may have worked for hundreds of
>thousands of years, but it doesn't work in a world of billions with
>instantaneous communication. We can _always_ find a scary story.
>
>As contrast with your "3 people in 5 years" tale, I prefer the tales
>from Britain's Cyclist's Touring Club. Roughly four fatalities per
>year in a club membership of 60,000.
>
>Try taking the quiz at
>http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
>
>- Frank Krygowski
Dear Frank,
"Preference" may not be a convincing argument.
A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their
father's 80th birthday.
Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
fracture.
One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle accident
and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
motorcycle accident.
I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
ever been injured in cars.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Dan...@gmail.com
A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their father's
80th birthday.
1) Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
2) Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
fracture.
3) One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle
accident and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
4) Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
motorcycle accident.
I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
ever been injured in cars.
What style of bicycling are you referring to? Either the people you
are referring to are astoundingly uncoordinated, or you're unfairly
applying BMX/Freestyle/Freeride/AM instances into a debate that's
rather clearly about road bikes.
I've spent a few years on our roads, on bicycles, in autos, etc.
I've had my share of injuries on all fronts. I've been hurt by
being rear-ended by a car whose driver was busy picking pimples in the
rearview to notice the people in the crosswalk, or my motorcycle
stopped at the crosswalk.
I've also had my share of stitches, broken bones & dentistry done due
to BMX & dirt jumping. I've managed to hurt myself (though not too
badly) once or twice on the mountain bike as well. You'll note that
all these injuries have happened off-road, however, and in the midst of
what is often called "extreme sports". It's hardly fair to
compare someone coming up short on a twenty-foot gap with someone
riding a road bike down the street.
Here's where it gets interesting. In all my years on the roads,
I've never been injured while on a bicycle. I've been in several
MV accidents, and have been hurt on quite a few occasions in cars,
trucks, and motorcycles. Again, never on the road bike.
To address your above statements:
1) What type of bicycle was their uncle riding when he broke his neck?
I'd imagine fatal neck breaking on recreational road bicycling must
be extremely rare. I'd be tempted to call it an anomaly.
2) Again, what type of bicycling are we referring to? Is this
aggressive downhill, where blood is the entry fee, or is this family
having trouble keeping the rubber on the road with pedal bikes?
3) Bike style? Helmet? I can't imagine 3 responsible riders on the
road having this type of a run within a single family. Especially with
the stats and my experience suggesting even one of these would be a
rare occurrence.
4) Solo motorcycle accident is hardly comparable to bicycling on the
road. Motorcycle safety is another debate entirely. I'd like to get
into the single vehicle motorcycle crash, but am afraid I'd derail
the thread.
Bill Sornson
> cat0020 wrote:
>> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
>> ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
>> the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
>> pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.
> Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I don't.
Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank! LOL
frkr...@gmail.com
Yes, Carl - and I can start listing the folks I know that have been
killed or seriously injured riding in cars or trucks. It would start
with two members of a small college club of mine, who died in separate
accidents within a year. It would include four close family members
with fairly serious injuries (including two head injuries). It would
include my son's good friend and his death, and my colleague at work
and his head injury. And the list would go on, limited not so much by
data as by my memory.
Is my count anomalous? How do we tell?
People of scientific bent don't flip coins to choose between "my
brother-in-law knew a guy..." stories. They look at large population
data. It's not a quirky preference. It's science.
Of course, there will always be people who prefer their
brother-in-law's expertise. You can find them in the "Homeopathic
Remedies" aisle, trying to cure their own cancer.
frkr...@gmail.com
Not literally "infallible," Bill. Just careful and competent. Sorry
it bothers you.
- Frank Krygowski
cat0020
I've been working as a bicycle mechanic in bicycle stores since 1990,
that's over 16 years of trurning wrenches on human powered vehicles of
all kinds. I've ridden over 30,000 miles on upright bicycles in my
lifetime so far and I still ride them.
I state facts, I repeat, facts in my postings about recumbents vs
upright bicycles, not slander, not claims nor denigration; only facts.
Maybe step out of "your world" once in a while and you may realize that
the facts that I presented in "your world" exsit just as much in the
real world, deny them as you may in "your world".
Now can you present the fact that upright bicycles are harder to pedal
versus recumbent bicycles? any chance you've counted the calories
burned and use as facts? standing up on the pedals to get up a hill may
seem easier, but do you know the fact that constant cadence and effort
on the pedals are actually more efficient way of cycling? rocking the
upright bicycle side to side as you get out of saddle actually waste
the energy that your body produced to propell the bicycle forward.
I have seen more luggage carrying capacity on recumbents than regular
upright bikes, besides towing a trailer make both kind of bikes even,
but recumbents are more aerodynamic.
Have you counted how many welding points are required to fabricate a
recumbent frame versus a regular frame? Allow me to state the facts,
not including the fork: regular bicycle frame takes 18 welds minimum,
my Vision R40 recumbent 10 welds minimum. The compenentry on a
recumbent are not as readily available, hence the pricing of
componentry reflects that, in my case, cost me $450 complete bike.
Just because something is massly produced doesn't mean the fact is that
they are less expensive or time consuming to fabricate.
We're talking about aerodynamics within this thread, off-road riding
crowd are hardly concern with aerodymics, mostly roadies are concerned
with aerodynamics.
I have crossed the north american continent on upright bicycle twice,
the next time I do, it will be on a recumbent bicycle because of its
efficiency and aerodynamics over the regular upright bicycles.
Bill Sornson
Read what you wrote and not what you meant, Frank. (Actually, I dount
there's a difference in your case, which was my point.)
I've ridden more than 16,000 road miles in the last few years and haven't
"[fallen] off my bike", either. Doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.
HTH, B
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> Dear Frank,
...stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven bicycle
replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant inroad on it
for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for bicycling around
the world in countries where the two wheeler has been a major means of
personal transportation as well as for goods.
Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does nothing
to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it is offered.
A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the lack of
recumbents (in Asia for instance).
Why do you need to hide your identity?
Use a spell checker! These are not typos.
Jobst Brandt
frkr...@gmail.com
Yes, let's read what I wrote. I didn't say "I can never fall." Nor "I
will never fall." Nor "I have never fallen."
I said "I don't." That is, I don't fall off my bike. In my ordinary,
day by day riding, I don't fall. In my touring, I don't fall. On club
rides, I don't fall. Even in the (now little) mountain biking I do, I
don't fall. It just doesn't happen, day after day, year after year,
mile after thousands of miles.
How odd that you tell _me_ to read what I wrote!
- Frank Krygowski
cat0020
> stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
> of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven bicycle
> replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant inroad on it
> for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for bicycling around
> the world in countries where the two wheeler has been a major means of
> personal transportation as well as for goods.
>
> Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
> assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does nothing
> to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it is offered.
> A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the lack of
> recumbents (in Asia for instance).
>
> Why do you need to hide your identity?
>
> Use a spell checker! These are not typos.
>
> Jobst Brandt-
Jobst,
As stated earlier in this thread, I'm not a native english
speaker/writer, I apologize if I mis-spell words, if you could kindly
show them to me and spell them out I would appreciate that. Besides the
mis-spelling, anything about what I wrote that was not clear?
Which "item" that I wrote was not factual?
Credibility is something that can not be taken, I was merely being
polite.
Is my identity important to you? or anyone else who read this thread?
What would you do if you know my identity?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
>> of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven
>> bicycle replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant
>> inroad on it for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for
>> bicycling around the world in countries where the two wheeler has
>> been a major means of personal transportation as well as for goods.
>> Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
>> assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does
>> nothing to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it
>> is offered. A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the
>> lack of recumbents (in Asia for instance).
>> Why do you need to hide your identity?
>> Use a spell checker! These are not typos.
> Jobst,
> As stated earlier in this thread, I'm not a native english
> speaker/writer, I apologize if I mis-spell words, if you could
> kindly show them to me and spell them out I would appreciate that.
> Besides the mis-spelling, anything about what I wrote that was not
> clear?
I'm sure you have a spell checker at your disposal and if not, you can
download an editor that has one.
> Which "item" that I wrote was not factual?
Among other things, energy lost in leaning the bicycle while standing.
No energy is wasted. This is especially apparent if you consider the
lean angles that are such that sighting through the front wheel makes
apparent that the tire remains between the hub flanges while climbing.
Those are a small angles that takes no more energy than pulling on the
bars while seated. Other than that, there isn't any significant done
by the arms that are uses as static braces during the pedal stroke and
add no work.
That's just one aspect. But how about addressing why you imply that
people who choose not to ride a recumbent are foolish by extension,
because they do not recognize the benefits over their choice of mount.
> Credibility is something that can not be taken, I was merely being
> polite.
Your "Dear Frank" gave emphasis to the impolite message you delivered
in a snide tone. You seem to master English well enough to do that.
> Is my identity important to you? or anyone else who read this
> thread? What would you do if you know my identity?
Your anonymity gives the flavor of talking to a wall rather than
responding to a person. You'll notice that many of the rudest
postings here are anonymous (or an alias), not by accident.
Civil courtesy prefers that when introduced, you rise if seated, take
off gloves to shake hands, remove dark glasses when doing so and make
eye contact. By extension, sniping from an obvious alias is the
opposite of these common courtesies. So what is your excuse?
Jobst Brandt
Bill Sornson
Ah, let's go get it -- ALL of it -- shall we? You wrote, quote: "I'd worry
about that if I /ever/ fell off my bike. But I don't." (emphasis added)
You conveniently ignore the word "ever" -- not to mention your own story of
a fall in a parking lot (?) or near your vehicle (?) once long ago.
Slightly injured your arm (?) IIRC.
I hope your and my streaks continue, Frank, and that we indeed "don't fall
off [our} bike[s]"...ever! I'm just not so smug to think it can't (or even
won't) happen.
HTH...again.
B
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>Carl Said:
>
>A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their father's
>80th birthday.
>1) Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
>2) Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
>fracture.
>3) One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle
>accident and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
>4) Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
>motorcycle accident.
>I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
>ever been injured in cars.
>
>
>What style of bicycling are you referring to? Either the people you
>are referring to are astoundingly uncoordinated, or you're unfairly
>applying BMX/Freestyle/Freeride/AM instances into a debate that's
>rather clearly about road bikes.
I think that family is doing something really wild on the bike. Solo
bike accidents breaking bones so often? Wow.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************