Hub Gears: no need to scoffjaw the warranty

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 31, 1:18 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:

[Quotation marks are messed up, so I will supply my own.]

"dustoyevsky's" post is fine. It is Ed Dolan's Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0
that has been mucking up posts recently.

Then why aren't your posts equally messed up? The fact is that it is only
posts that come from Google Groups that are messed up and then only some of
them.
[...]
I am using Thunderbird (the Mozilla product, not the cheap wine from
Gallo), which does not seems to have the issues of a Micro$oft Vista
product (surprise, surprise).

For the love of both Tullio Campagnolo and Shozo Shimano, get a real
newsreader, Ed!!!

Put your brain into gear and tell me why some messages from Google Groups
are messed up and others aren't.

It seems that Ed Dolan's Micro$oft Windows Mail 6.0 is having problems
with posts originating from Google Groups [1]. Why this is so remains a
mystery, but Micro$oft products have some history of such problems.

[1] Gurgle Gropes for gene.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
asked:


What was the prize?


First Prize: a one night stay at Chateau de Smarm in Pueblo, Colorado,
with your host Carl "top dung beetle" Fogel.

Second Prize is, of course, a two-week stay at Chateau de Smarm.

And death is not an option?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
I do not have a fixation on cadence by any means, but I believe that much
of the poor climbing reputation recumbent have is due to three factors:
1 - Non-optimum bicycle design. The DF upright frame has been optimized
since WW1, with the only real improvements coming from better materials.
Conversely, the recumbent is still in an evolutionary stage towards
improved designs.

The recumbent is done evolutionizing. It has been around for over a hundred
years and everything has been tried at least once.

2 - Trying to climb like an upright rider, using relatively high gears and
low cadence and mashing more than pulling on the pedals. Most stock
recumbents (and many stock uprights for that matter) are geared too high
overall for most riders.

Alas, only too true! But 99% of all cyclists will never pull on the pedals.

3 - Most recumbents are being ridden by older and/or less fit riders. On
invitational rides, upright riders walking the steeper uphill sections is
not too uncommon of a sight, but in that case observers judge the riders
to be unfit and do not condemn the bicycle design. Instead, the upright's
climbing ability is judged by those ridden by racers and very fit riders.

Recumbents and their riders regardless of age and fitness are not up to
climbing hills at all well - period! The design of the recumbent itself is
against it. Funny an engineer would not know this!
[...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Jan 31, 9:35*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
asked:

What was the prize?

First Prize: a one night stay at Chateau de Smarm in Pueblo, Colorado,
with your host Carl "top dung beetle" Fogel.

Second Prize is, of course, a two-week stay at Chateau de Smarm.

*
And death is not an option?


Death by smarm? I believe there are constitutional
guarantees.......cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
asked:
What was the prize?
First Prize: a one night stay at Chateau de Smarm in Pueblo, Colorado,
with your host Carl "top dung beetle" Fogel.
Second Prize is, of course, a two-week stay at Chateau de Smarm.

And death is not an option?


Death by smarm? I believe there are constitutional
guarantees.......cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

No, death as the preferable alternative to the prize.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 31, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
asked:
What was the prize?
First Prize: a one night stay at Chateau de Smarm in Pueblo, Colorado,
with your host Carl "top dung beetle" Fogel.
Second Prize is, of course, a two-week stay at Chateau de Smarm.

And death is not an option?

Death by smarm? I believe there are constitutional
guarantees.......cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

*
No, death as the preferable alternative to the prize.

Yes, I understood that....

The question at hand is would it be death by smarm, at the hands of
the smarm master himself, "Dear Carl"?

On Jan 31, 6:41*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Former Normal person "

Former is the word. Although I understand they're doing much better
with the current mayor (the bike shop guy).

Ever seen a state of the are recumbent with a properly trained rider?
(The answer is almost certainly not.) Do not compare apples to oranges.

Are you saying that bents climb *better* than uprights? Gear for gear?

The proper climbing technique
on a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a
relatively low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase
one's "effective" weight.

Where was the claim otherwise stated up-thread?

"technique is unlike" is what is objected to. The upright rider can
ride "either way", as long as they have the gears for it. So your
statement isn't true.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (snip)

"Also"? Where did "also" come from? 120rpm in a 15" gear? Isn't that
right about stall speed for you guys?

"Also" in comparison to climbing on a recumbent, not to upright
bicycles. That should have been obvious from the context

It sounds like "will also descend faster", when the antecedent was
"climbing", means the bent climbed faster.

If you think this was intended to proselytize, your comprehension is off.

You are not a champion of the recumbent? --D-y

On Jan 31, 10:07*pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:59*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:



Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 9:35 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
asked:
What was the prize?
First Prize: a one night stay at Chateau de Smarm in Pueblo, Colorado,
with your host Carl "top dung beetle" Fogel.
Second Prize is, of course, a two-week stay at Chateau de Smarm.

And death is not an option?

Death by smarm? I believe there are constitutional
guarantees.......cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

*
No, death as the preferable alternative to the prize.

Yes, I understood that....

The question at hand is would it be death by smarm, at the hands of
the smarm master himself, "Dear Carl"?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

AKA, the Marquis de Smarm. ;-)

", escapee from Normalcy, wrote:
On Jan 31, 6:41 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Former Normal person "

Former is the word. Although I understand they're doing much better
with the current mayor (the bike shop guy).

See http://vitessecycle.com/page.cfm?PageID=66.

Ever seen a state of the are recumbent with a properly trained rider?
(The answer is almost certainly not.) Do not compare apples to oranges.

Are you saying that bents climb *better* than uprights? Gear for gear?

The upright will probably always be the fastest on very steep climbs.
However, at lesser grades the aerodynamic advantage of the recumbent
could turn the tables, particularly with a professional class rider
putting out close to 400 watts of power. The standing position on an
upright creates considerable drag, even at speeds as low as 20-25 kph.

Unfortunately, none of the famous climbs have ever been done in timed
runs by a world class cyclist, trained on a recumbent, on a state of the
art (stiff frame and seat, less than 7.5 kg mass) design. Therefore,
this question remains unanswered.

The proper climbing technique
on a recumbent bicycle is unlike that for an upright bicycle, where the
preferred climbing technique of many is to stand and pedal at a
relatively low cadence, while pulling on the handlebars to increase
one's "effective" weight.

Where was the claim otherwise stated up-thread?

"technique is unlike" is what is objected to. The upright rider can
ride "either way", as long as they have the gears for it. So your
statement isn't true.

However, most upright riders climb at a fairly low cadence, and many
stand for much of the time. My statement was to indicate predominant
behavior, not all techniques used. The point remains that the
predominant method of climbing steep grades on an upright is not
suitable for a recumbent, and for a given rider, lower gears are needed
on the recumbent than the upright.

The (performance oriented) recumbent will also descend faster (snip)
"Also"? Where did "also" come from? 120rpm in a 15" gear? Isn't that
right about stall speed for you guys?
"Also" in comparison to climbing on a recumbent, not to upright
bicycles. That should have been obvious from the context

It sounds like "will also descend faster", when the antecedent was
"climbing", means the bent climbed faster.

If you think this was intended to proselytize, your comprehension is off.

You are not a champion of the recumbent? --D-y

Well, I am not "DougC" who in the past frequently posted to the effect
that people should dump their uprights for recumbents.

It should also be noted that for every instance of recumbent
proselytizing, whether in the real world or Usenet, there are many
instances of ignorant and gratuitous recumbent denigration.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 31, 10:52*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:

See http://vitessecycle.com/page.cfm?PageID=66.

Yeah, Koos, that's the guy.

They still sponsor a racing team?


The upright will probably always be the fastest on very steep climbs.
However, at lesser grades the aerodynamic advantage of the recumbent
could turn the tables, particularly with a professional class rider
putting out close to 400 watts of power. The standing position on an
upright creates considerable drag, even at speeds as low as 20-25 kph.

Unfortunately, none of the famous climbs have ever been done in timed
runs by a world class cyclist, trained on a recumbent, on a state of the
art (stiff frame and seat, less than 7.5 kg mass) design. Therefore,
this question remains unanswered.

Fair enough. I've done a little reading on the subject recently; the
bent, for most people (again from just a little skimming), is admitted
to have speed disadvantage compared to an upright on climbs.

However, most upright riders climb at a fairly low cadence, and many
stand for much of the time. My statement was to indicate predominant
behavior, not all techniques used. The point remains that the
predominant method of climbing steep grades on an upright is not
suitable for a recumbent, and for a given rider, lower gears are needed
on the recumbent than the upright.

One of the big advantages the upright has, and not only for climbing.
Plus the ability to change back and forth, a very useful thing when
climbing longer hills, something that has become even more effective
with shift-on-the-bars (brifter) controls. Shift up a cog or two for
standing, back down for sitting. From what I've seen, many alternate
because they aren't trained to stand for long periods.

It should also be noted that for every instance of recumbent
proselytizing, whether in the real world or Usenet, there are many
instances of ignorant and gratuitous recumbent denigration.

Well, bents-- just the machine itself-- tend to be funny-looking--
crank out in front instead of handlebars, for instance, and great big
long chains weaving around. Some are much more gnarly than others, but
even the smoothest don't look like an upright, which of course people
are a whole lot more used to seeing. Then, the various rider
positions, some where the feet look about as high as the head, look
strange to most people. Catching a little grief is part of the deal
with wanting to look/be different. --D-y