Positively stylish

Peter Clinch wrote:
Paul Luton wrote:

What is stylish about a bike that is too heavy to ride uphill ? Daft I
call it. Form follows function as someone said.

So how heavy is "too heavy to ride uphill"?

From the original article :
"The elephant in the room is that old-style bicycles can be amazingly
heavy. Although I love my own Pashley Princess, I can't go up any hills
because even in a low gear, pedalling like crazy, I get overtaken by
pensioners and three-legged hedgehogs. Once I even started rolling
backwards."

That sounds too heavy to me or may just be inefficient position. I can
ride my thorn tourer in ordinary clothes or full lycra depending on the
ride.

Paul

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

In article ,
Paul Luton wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:

What is stylish about a bike that is too heavy to ride uphill ? Daft I
call it. Form follows function as someone said.

So how heavy is "too heavy to ride uphill"?

From the original article :
"The elephant in the room is that old-style bicycles can be amazingly
heavy. Although I love my own Pashley Princess, I can't go up any hills
because even in a low gear, pedalling like crazy, I get overtaken by
pensioners and three-legged hedgehogs. Once I even started rolling
backwards."

That sounds too heavy to me or may just be inefficient position. I can
ride my thorn tourer in ordinary clothes or full lycra depending on the
ride.

The most plausible explanation is that is hyperbole. If it isn't,
weight has nothing to do with it, and there is a SERIOUS problem
with either the position or the maintenance of the bicycle.

In general, a traditional upright is MORE efficient riding uphill
than any other form of safety bicycle - humans have been upright
bipeds for 3 million years, and breathe best in that position.
On the flat, the extra windage over a racing crouch, or even
semi-crouch, means that they lose out.

A badly set up or maintained hub gear can lose a lot of efficiency,
but they are generally pretty good - and a lot better than a dirty
derailleur at the extremes of the gearing. Uphill, it is unlikely
that very low pressure tyre pressures would be the issue, either.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Paul Luton wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
A positive article about cycling. Now all I have to do is find a young
person to tell me who these people are. http://tinyurl.com/cyclestyle
(http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifest...-details/Style
+riders%3A+the+new+breed+of+cyclists+in+London/article.do).


What is stylish about a bike that is too heavy to ride uphill ? Daft I
call it. Form follows function as someone said.

Paul

of the three photos two are in rather flat parts of the world, the last
doesn't say. but regardless yes these ladies on these bikes may not be
getting up hardknott say but then cambridge and london are not known for
double arrow hills are they now.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

wrote:
In article ,
Paul Luton wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
What is stylish about a bike that is too heavy to ride uphill ? Daft I
call it. Form follows function as someone said.
So how heavy is "too heavy to ride uphill"?

From the original article :
"The elephant in the room is that old-style bicycles can be amazingly
heavy. Although I love my own Pashley Princess, I can't go up any hills
because even in a low gear, pedalling like crazy, I get overtaken by
pensioners and three-legged hedgehogs. Once I even started rolling
backwards."

That sounds too heavy to me or may just be inefficient position. I can
ride my thorn tourer in ordinary clothes or full lycra depending on the
ride.

The most plausible explanation is that is hyperbole. If it isn't,
weight has nothing to do with it, and there is a SERIOUS problem
with either the position or the maintenance of the bicycle.

In general, a traditional upright is MORE efficient riding uphill
than any other form of safety bicycle - humans have been upright
bipeds for 3 million years, and breathe best in that position.
On the flat, the extra windage over a racing crouch, or even
semi-crouch, means that they lose out.

A badly set up or maintained hub gear can lose a lot of efficiency,
but they are generally pretty good - and a lot better than a dirty
derailleur at the extremes of the gearing. Uphill, it is unlikely
that very low pressure tyre pressures would be the issue, either.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In the meantime the specialised hill climbers are mainly wiry Colombians
and not the bulky trackies like Hoy.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Paul Luton wrote:

From the original article :
"The elephant in the room is that old-style bicycles can be amazingly
heavy. Although I love my own Pashley Princess, I can't go up any hills
because even in a low gear, pedalling like crazy, I get overtaken by
pensioners and three-legged hedgehogs. Once I even started rolling
backwards."

As Nick suggests, I think Hyperbole has something to do with
this... To quote someone or other quite well known in cycling
circles it's (often) not (all) about the bike: My ~ 20 Kg touring
recumbent is *not* a sprightly machine up hills, but on a CTC ride
once I overtook 9 out of 12 on much lighter uprights up a beast of
a hill and was asked if recumbents were especially good uphills?
They're not, but my legs have had more practice and I'm more
bloody-minded about getting up hills than the other folk that were
along that day.

That sounds too heavy to me or may just be inefficient position.

A bolt-upright position is only inefficient becuase it tends to
catch the wind a lot, not because one's ability to pedal is
affected. And if you're going up a steep hill then progress tends
to be relatively slow, and consequently air resistance is something
of a moot point.

I can
ride my thorn tourer in ordinary clothes or full lycra depending on the
ride.

I ride a Thorn every (school) morning in ordinary clothes... except
rolling up a trouser leg. The stoker in trousers either needs to
roll up both trouser legs or use a pair of trouser clips. Both
stokers have to exercise special care not to get oil on their
trousers/tights/socks when mounting and dismounting. The rear
stoker has to put a pair of shorts on under her pinnie or dress, or
it gets a bit on the rude and cold side going down Ninewells Avenue
at speed in the morning. So it's close to "ordinary clothes", but
not completely there.

And when I threw the (derailleur) chain climbing back up to work
last week and I didn't have any rubber gloves with me my hands got
/very/ dirty getting it back on, another non-issue with a bike like
a Princess.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 16/09/2009 11:24, Peter Clinch wrote:
My ~ 20 Kg touring
recumbent is *not* a sprightly machine up hills, but on a CTC ride
once I overtook 9 out of 12 on much lighter uprights up a beast of
a hill and was asked if recumbents were especially good uphills?
They're not, but my legs have had more practice and I'm more
bloody-minded about getting up hills than the other folk that were
along that day.

That reminds me of a recent morning commute on my 20kg touring
recumbent. Just before overtaking 3 roadies on the final climb to the
office, I heard one of them commenting to his mates that this hill was
hard work. Just after overtaking them, I heard one of his mates saying:
"Well he's making it look easy".

This was a hill that I typically used to climb at 12-16mph in my upright
riding days. On the Street Machine I typically climb it at 8-12mph.

--
Danny Colyer http://www.redpedals.co.uk
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:36:06 +0100
Danny Colyer wrote:

On 16/09/2009 11:24, Peter Clinch wrote:
My ~ 20 Kg touring recumbent is *not* a sprightly machine up hills,

That reminds me of a recent morning commute on my 20kg touring
recumbent.

I'm sure I weighed my Speed Ross at 15kg, and I don't think it's
particularly light. CBA to go out to the garage with the bathroom
scales at 9pm though.

The key is that 'benters (and Moulton riders) /have/ to learn to spin,
and as LA and other wiry grimpeurs have shown that's the way to get up
hills.


Mike
--
Mike Causer

Danny Colyer writes:
That reminds me of a recent morning commute on my 20kg touring
recumbent. Just before overtaking 3 roadies on the final climb to the
office, I heard one of them commenting to his mates that this hill was
hard work. Just after overtaking them, I heard one of his mates
saying: "Well he's making it look easy".

:-)

Although I am tempted to wonder exactly how hard it can be if they still had
breath to hold a conversation. "HTFU"


-dan

Quoting Daniel Barlow :
Danny Colyer writes:
hard work. Just after overtaking them, I heard one of his mates
saying: "Well he's making it look easy".
Although I am tempted to wonder exactly how hard it can be if they still had
breath to hold a conversation. "HTFU"

Pish tosh. I've held a conversation while riding up Blue Bank with a
hangover. Admittedly, little of it was printable.
--
David Damerell flcl?
Yesterday was Aponoia, September.
Today is Epithumia, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Olethros, September - a weekend.

David Damerell wrote, On 18/09/2009 05:08:
Pish tosh. I've held a conversation while riding up Blue Bank with a
hangover. Admittedly, little of it was printable.


Was it a true conversation or just a number of words thrown out into the
air? And what's a blue bank, Barclay's?

LN

--

Never knowingly understood