My latest whinge...

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 12 May 2006 16:48:55 +1000
deejbah wrote:
No argument there. Some people have to learn somethings the hard way.
{:-).Then there are the gender issues. I am never failed to be amazed by how
many guys fail to progress in their sport because they will not listen
to what a female coach or slightly more experienced player/competitor
has to say.

Or women who don't progress because the male coaches don't comprehend
women's body type or way of thinking.

Zebee

On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:58:21 +1000, Kathy wrote:

But war sure is competative

Which is why W. is telling us that it's not whether you win or lose, but
how you play the game.

--
Dave Hughes |
"Violins are the first refuge of the incontinent." The Cave

Kathy wrote:
the place had got very silent.

That is always funny to see. Best i've ever seen was odd kid who was
regarded as klutz, until we had him on the rock face for climbing on a
school camp. You could have heard a pin drop. they just couldn't believe
this guy. Was just like a spider on a the rock. All the unco disappeared.

Very important lesson later drive home by the ropes course.

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 12 May 2006 10:38:27 +1000
Tamyka Bell wrote:
Big thumbs up to the fact that the sport of cycling gives participants
different grades in which to race, so that you can do it at a level
which is challenging, without being depressing. And a big thumbs up to

One of the big grassroots motorcycle racing categories is the one
called "bracket racing". Where they group people together into lap
time brackets. So it doens't matter what you are riding, you are
racing with people who are about as fast as you are.

That's why we have grades for bike racing too.

The variety of machines is amazing and people don't have to spend
heaps on their bikes. Plus the racing's always close. I presume
machine cost isn't as vital in cycle racing as in motorcycle racing,
because motorcycle racing in other classes has grades but the
expensive bikes do a lot of winning.

A $1000 roady is only fractionally slower than a $15,000 roady, and at
anything but the elite level, will not make a scrap of difference to
most race results.

TimC wrote:
On 2006-05-12, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Tamyka Bell wrote:
Bleve wrote:

snip
The way I look at it is that a bike race is not a zero sum game (or in
the case of bike racing, less than zero sum!). You "win" in a race
when you achieve what you set out to achieve, and that's not
necessarily first over the line. How you set your goals is a key.

Ah, how many times did I try to explain that to hippy...

One of the aboc "secrets" is how to do that

You teach a course in how to explain that to hippies?

No, I just beat it into him "You are *NOT* going to win this race! If
you do, I'll beat you with a stick, and give you a brain blockage"

See what happened?!



--
TimC
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
"Terry Collins" wrote

Now, on a practical note,if anyone can come up for a way of
explaining
to my wife about street power being 415/240V (she just doesn't get
the
star/delta explanation) that would be helpful. I have until 11am
tomorrow to give it to her so she can go back to her coaching
college
kids with an explanation.

It's about points of reference. The power station outputs three phases
of electricity. Each of these is 240V with reference to neutral.
Neutral is defined as Ground at the power station. These three phases
are 120º out of phase to each other. When the phases are connected in
Delta they are referenced to each other and not to neutral. The
differential between the phases is 415V. In a Star configuration, the
centre point of the star is connected to neutral, hence each phase is
referenced to neutral and is thus 240V.

Good luck.

Theoyou mean ..if a baker steps on a fruit bun...a curre(a)nt might run up
his leg...


--
rooman

Tamyka Bell wrote:

Vincent Patrick wrote:

Tamyka Bell wrote:

Exactly - students are expected to pay back HECS debts, and even
students on PhD scholarships will as postdocs contribute tax (in a
higher bracket than from their undergrad degree) - oh except that with
no incentive to keep scientists in Australia, most head overseas...

PhDs in a higher tax bracket? You obviously don't mean the PhD scientist
I
employed who previously had a job stacking comics. :-(

Well, at least he had a job. His basic science degree would've got him
the dole.

Tam

I think his non-PhD mates had gotten jobs years before.

Mostly they are deluded fools, those who do PhDs for the money. Oops. :-)

Cheers,

Vince

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Bleve" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tamyka Bell wrote:
Terry Collins wrote:

Tamyka Bell wrote:

Given that obesity levels in Australia are pretty appalling, and
getting
worse, does anyone else think that, instead of the govt spending
money
so much money on elite athletes, we should probably focus on
encouraging
EVERYONE to play sport?

Well, not sport, but certainly more recreational[1] activities.
but that isn't a popular attitude. I do not support kids engaging in
competitive sport outside their local area as i think until they are
adults, it should be about fun, then they can decide if they want to
compete heavily.
snip

Well, see here's the thing - when did "sport" become something that had
to be highly competitive?


It's a metaphor for life. And life is intensely competitive. For me,
my sport is a way to channel my competiveness into an arena where it's
controlled and useful.

Hmmm... "And life is intensely competitive"... mine's not, so shouldn't
that be "MY life is intensely competitive?"

I have found, with competitive people, that yours is a common view - that
life itself is competitive rather than (IMO) thinking that THEY are the
source of competitiveness.

A good example - my boss has been asking what I want from my work. He can't
understand that I'm not after promotions, career path or anything else. I
just want to finish my PhD and get out. He has nothing to offer me as all
he's offering is a competitive advantage to someone who's not competing. He
just doesn't get it. To him, working is very much about competing and he
doesn't understand another outlook.

So, how is life itself competitive? If I'm not competing, does that
automatically make me a loser because there are only winners and losers,
nothing between? Or is competition in the eye of the beholder? Would it give
you a competitive thrill to pass me on the road even though I'm not
competing?

Again, not having a go - just trying to understand an alternative view to my
own.

Cheers,

Frank

On 2006-05-12, Terry Collins wrote:
Now, on a practical note,if anyone can come up for a way of explaining
to my wife about street power being 415/240V (she just doesn't get the
star/delta explanation) that would be helpful. I have until 11am
tomorrow to give it to her so she can go back to her coaching college
kids with an explanation.

Easy. Power stations have their generators designed to put out three
phases, each out of phase to each other by 120 degrees. Draw your
standard X-Y axis, then plot three sine waves, out of phase with each
other by 120 degrees, to represent a 240 V RMS amplitude in each case.
Those represent the voltages of the three separate lines, relative to
the neutral line.

If you then plot the difference between any two of those phases, you'll
get another sine wave, this one being a 415 V RMS amplitude. No, I can't
derive this result easily; just break out a mathematical graphing
application, and you'll see it well enough.

As to why the generators produce three phases: it means that the load on
the generator is pretty much constant. If you add the phases together,
and plot the result, you'll get yet another sine wave, but the amplitude
of it will be miniscule, signalling that the variance in the load on the
generator is also miniscule. If they only produced one phase, the load
would vary with (roughly) the amplitude of the output, and that would
severely reduce the useful life of the equipment.

It may be a bit late, but I hope it's useful nonetheless.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

remove DAKS to reply wrote:
I tend to think the promotion of a competitive spirit that puts people off
enjoying sport. Yeah, sure, the old "it's not whether you win or lose"
stuff is spouted, but let's face it, who really believes that? This group
is full of the 'win' spirit (not just this group - only using it as an
example). There's a piece above about keeping ahead of someone on an MTB;
there are threads about faster, faster, faster; threads about how
frustrating it is to be stuck behind slower riders on paths; even a thread
about riding a motorcycle at stupid speeds just to avoid being overtaken
by a hoon! I don't see a lot about the simple pleasure of plodding along.

Understand, I'm not having a go at anyone here. The thrust of this and
other sport oriented groups does seem to be about increasing performance
rather than fun - as Terry pointed out above,
"And that is what is wrong with that program; it is sports orientated.
They will get far more kids if it is general, active fun orientated."

My own story: I was a pretty good long-distance runner at school, just for
the sheer joy of it. That is, until there was an attempt to make me run
competitively for the school. Nup. Don't want to. Forced to the starting
line at an interschool carnival I waited for the gun and walked back to
the changerooms. The trouble I was in put me off running for years, until
I was unable to enjoy it anymore (knackered knees). The competitive spirit
killed the joy of physical activity.

It would be nice to focus a little more on the social aspects of
participation. For example the guy who HAD to keep ahead of the MTB rider
(can't find the thread) - would it have been worthwhile to ride a bit
slower and have a chat? What was the need to stay in front? Not having a
competitive streak at all, I don't understand the need to win. I do
understand that many people are turned off participating because they are
made to feel like they are not good enough - Tam's point.

So, how about some stories about plodding, chatting and smelling the
roses? Not just here, but in contact with other people? Instead of
boasting about
how you can ride quicker than a car for in peak-hour traffic, how about
chatting about how it's a good feeling to get some air and turn the
pedals? Who, apart from other efficiency-obsessed people, gives a toss if
you shaved 12 seconds off your commute? The key to converting people to
riding is to relieve the pressure to perform and emphasise the fun aspect.

By all means, bang on about speed and efficiency but save it for a race
context, not for converting non-cyclists or non-competitive cyclists.
That's your fun, but it simply makes many others feel they shouldn't
bother.

My 2cents...

Frank

Hi Frank, thanks for your refreshing and thought-provoking thoughts. I would
like to think there is a wider mixture of cycling types represented here.
Here is a description of some types I have noticed, along with some
personal comments to make it less boring:

* Athletic competitors. Not me, never me, but they have some fascinating
tales to tell, and I enjoy reading about their experiences. It would be sad
if all cyclists were in that category, but it would also be sad if they
weren't around.

* Bicycle technical types. The idea of extracting a crank scares me, but I
like to learn from their mechanical knowledge. Now I know that a chain whip
is not some kinky perversion.

* Political types. Without wanting to upset people, riding my bicycle has
nothing to do with voting Labor, hating car drivers, being vegetarian,
being anti-capitalist, or being a greeny. I like the idea of fuel
efficiency, but the extra food I eat probably makes up for it.

* Those who are obsessed with "training". Not my sort at all, but
interesting enough to read about. When I do an activity, the training is
usually the activity itself. Supplements seem to go along with "serious
training". My energy supplements are chocolate, cakes and lollies. My only
herbal supplement is made from oxidised Camellia sinensis, good for both
before and after riding.

* Commuters: fast commuters, slow commuters, obsessive commuters, laid-back
commuters, efficiency sorts and quirky individuals. I belong to this group,
and enjoy a light bike because it makes my 28 km/day commuting more fun and
easier. I wouldn't be riding if I had to sweat and grind every inch of the
way.

* There's another class of "competitors", too: cyclists who enjoy competing
against themselves and noticing their gradual increase in strength or
speed. It's not my main reason for cycling, but I plead guilty to enjoying
going a little faster than I could before. Not always: sometimes my
commute is a slow slog into a headwind, and sometimes I just enjoy
freewheeling along at a leisurely pace. Speed is not just to be enjoyed by
competitive athletes. There is a point well before any feeling of athletic
exertion when you can enjoy a bicycle's speed. As a young boy I liked
to 'race along' by myself on my single speed bike. Certainly, it is not
the same as "smelling the roses", but it is still enjoying the special
nature of cycling.

Now, like Frank, I am as inclusive as the next guy, but will all you
pain-training and weirdo-supplement freaks relax and have a nice cup of
tea?

It is really annoying when you zoom by so effortlessly. :-)

Cheers,

Vince