Noise from new Sunrace cassette

On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Duane wrote:

So how is a phone acting as a Garmin different than a Garmin?


If you're good at ignoring incoming e-mail, phone calls, text messages and
Facebook alerts, there is little difference. If not, the phone is more of a
distraction.

I suspect that if you've taken the trouble to get your text messages and
phone calls while riding your bike, you're not very good at ignoring them.

And I didn't even know Facebook alerts were possible.

(Imagine someone explaining a traffic crash by saying "But there was a
new cat video!!!")

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2018 3:52 AM, James wrote:
On 28/11/18 3:27 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:


1 hp = 746 W, which is within the range of a track cyclist.

There are plenty of road cyclists who can produce 500W for
5 minutes, and certainly 746 W for shorter times.

But I think Andrew is right with his statement "No matter
what gear, we cannot raise 33,000lb one foot in one minute."

To raise 33,000 pounds you'd need extreme gear reduction,
and with that gear reduction would come losses in
efficiency. I think the resulting internal friction would
make Andrew's specific task impossible.


Right but that power (1HP or 746W, disregarding gearing or
mechanical losses) is way beyond your average human.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew, short term outputs of up to 2,000 watts can be made in things like a sprint by Cat 1's and 2's. Coming out of the corners in a crit even Masters can be putting out 1,700 watts. Average watts over 10 km of 400 watts isn't unusual for Cat 2 and Masters. Normal performance riders can do 340 watts steady.

Pretty surprising what you can do. I did a 10K ride with an average power of about 300 watts and I'm Mr. Dead Slow.

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 1:36:13 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 5:56:48 PM UTC-6, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:16:19 -0800, Joerg

In my case, 10-speed with friction shifters would not be that great. Of
course, I could buy a new bike ...

Interesting. One of my bikes has a ten speed cassette and I shift it
with a friction down tube shifter with no problems.

Kind of weird, but maybe friction with many gears (10) works better than friction with old time 5 speed freewheels. You have to move the lever less distance to change gears. Its easier to shift 10 speed than 5 speed with friction shifters.

Probably not Russell, the far closer spacing would be a real bear to get accurate with friction shifters. We have a guy riding with us with an 8 speed and is using friction shifting and he has trouble zeroing in.

On 29/11/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Duane wrote:
John B. slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 00:55:57 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 23:32:52 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:20:01 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 28/11/2018 12:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-11-28 08:16, Duane wrote:
On 28/11/2018 10:57 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-11-27 16:59, John B. slocomb wrote:

[...]


The problem, at least my problem, with spinning is that without a
meter to tell you how fast you are pedaling it is pretty hard to
maintain a constant spin rate. One could, I suppose, calculate the
bike speed in some gear at some pedal rate and then use the
speedometer to try and maintain a constant pedal rate. Or do what I
did and convert a speedometer to a rev meter.


Or go all out and have one speedometer with a spoke sensor and a 2nd
one mounted next to it with a sensor near the inner chain ring. With a
cheap set such as the Bell 100 that should cost less than $30 for both.


Or just do what most people do and buy a bike computer with speed and
cadence.Â* Cateye's aren't that expensive.Â* Even a wireless one is
probably 70 bucks CA.


70 bucks buys me the ingredients for brewing a 10 gallon batch of IPA :-)

I am not very interested in cadence data, others might be. While I am
trying to spin more at least under heavy load (one reason for this
cassette hack) I don't care much about it on the longhaul routes in the
valley. That's where I'll likely use the new "overdrives" a lot.



I was replying to whomever wrote "Or go all out and have one speeometer..."

My first smart phone is on the way and I am wondering whether that
could be pressed into such service, with one Bluetooth transmitter at
the spokes and another near the inner chain ring. Then maybe run
Strava on top of that. Of course, battery runtime is a concern for
all-day rides but in my case I could tie it into the large on-board
lighting battery with a USB converter. Or press a dynamo into service.


I think WAHOO makes bluetooth speed and cadence sensors.Â* The other
option is to get the ant+ versions and then an ant+ dongle for your
phone.


Aha, thanks, I'll have to research that. I have copied this into the
wiki file for the new phone so I remember what to look for.

The phone would allow me to switch the same "cycling computation
machine" between MTB and road bike, it wouldn't lose mileage totals upon
battery changes and with its 5" screen I could keep more data on the
display instead of just speed and time.


I've tried using my phone as a bike computer. I have several apps that
work but the problem is that the iPhone display isn't very legible in
direct sunlight. I received a Garmin for a present since then and that
works fine. Today you can buy head units to mount on your bar (Wahoo
also I think) that connect to your phone and give you an lcd display.

I can see it now. The modern cyclist... head down, arse in the air,
staring at his smart phone... But Officer I was looking at my
telephone.

cheers,

John B.




Lots of people use Garmins. Phone apps aren’t much different.

I never heard a Garmin user say something like, "Oh Officer, but I was
texting" :-)


cheers,

John B.




Your leaps of logic are hard to follow.

Simple. The fewer things that you have to distract you the more likely
you are to see what is happening around you :-)

cheers,

John B.




So how is a phone acting as a Garmin different than a Garmin?


If you're good at ignoring incoming e-mail, phone calls, text messages and
Facebook alerts, there is little difference. If not, the phone is more of a
distraction.


I have an 800 so that's not an issue but the newer Garmins do most of
that if you don't turn those features off. So not much different.

On 11/29/2018 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Duane wrote:

So how is a phone acting as a Garmin different than a Garmin?


If you're good at ignoring incoming e-mail, phone calls, text messages
and
Facebook alerts, there is little difference. If not, the phone is more
of a
distraction.

I suspect that if you've taken the trouble to get your text messages and
phone calls while riding your bike, you're not very good at ignoring them.

It may be one of those package-deal situations. One feature of the
Garmin 820 link with your cell phone is live tracking for friends. You
can set up the phone/Garmin pair to send an email linking to a map
showing your location and status (speed, heartrate, other "fun" stuff).

I do this to reassure the wife that when I'm away on all-day rides, I
haven't disappeared off the face of the earth, that I'm still moving
(i.e. not in a ditch), still alive, etc. It seems to make her happy.

IIRC, setting up the tracking feature also means you get an on-Garmin
notice of incoming calls, showing caller ID (also nice if the wife is
calling - she doesn't if it isn't really important). Even with the
phone ringer set to max volume, I can often miss it. I find it easy to
ignore other calls during a ride.

The press made much of live tracking in October when it was used to
locate Trek-Segafredo's Directeur Sportif Steven De Jongh after a crash
on an solo ride in Spain; "'A helicopter found Steven lying in a ravine,
unconscious, but with a pulse and breathing,' the update from
Trek-Segafredo read."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/de-j...ously-injured/

Mark J.

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:39:58 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:56:39 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 6:58 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2018 3:52 AM, James wrote:
On 28/11/18 3:27 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:


1 hp = 746 W, which is within the range of a track cyclist.

There are plenty of road cyclists who can produce 500W for
5 minutes, and certainly 746 W for shorter times.

But I think Andrew is right with his statement "No matter
what gear, we cannot raise 33,000lb one foot in one minute."

To raise 33,000 pounds you'd need extreme gear reduction,
and with that gear reduction would come losses in
efficiency. I think the resulting internal friction would
make Andrew's specific task impossible.


Right but that power (1HP or 746W, disregarding gearing or
mechanical losses) is way beyond your average human.


When did we lower the bar to "average"?


Good point. That is indeed a low bar.

I was thinking of us RBT denizens (an exceptional lot by any
measure!)


More fun with unit conversions.

1 hp for 1 minute equals?
746 W x 60 sec = 45,000 Joules
45,000 Joules = 11,000 calories
11,000 calories = 11 Calories
Human metabolic efficiency is 25%
So 44 Calories = 11 g of sugar

2640 Cal/hr

Looking at it another way.

33,000 ft-lb/min / 180 lb = 183 ft/min
183 ft/min = 18 stories/min
18 stories/min = 3.3 sec

So if a 180 lb person can climb a flight of stairs every 3.3 seconds for a
minute, that's 1 hp. That's pretty out there, but somebody could do it.

The race up the Empire State Building in New York City is 86 flights
of stairs. The male record is 9 minutes and 33 seconds, about 6.6
seconds per flight.

cheers,

John B.

OK, so a half a horsepower for 10 minutes is possible. I guess that
doesn't provide much insight as to whether a human could put out twice as
much power for 10% of the time.

I'm looking at a Human Power Output vs. Duration graph in the 2nd
edition of _Bicycling Science_ by Whitt & Wilson, on page 31. The curve
for "first class athletes" shows 400W for 10 minutes. The same curve
shows 800W for 0.2 minutes, or 12 seconds.

It shows 1 HP is limited to half a minute for "first class athletes."
And mere "Healthy men" can't do it for more than about 15 seconds,
according to this graph.

BTW, they've highlighted a point for Eddy Merckx, about 430W for an hour
on a dynamometer. But he's always been the extreme outlier.


Hmmm. This is me in some home video making toast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4O5voOCqAQ It was an off morning. I usually keep riding to fry an egg, make some bacon, brew some coffee.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 11/29/2018 12:41 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 11/29/2018 8:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Duane wrote:

So how is a phone acting as a Garmin different than a Garmin?


If you're good at ignoring incoming e-mail, phone calls, text
messages and
Facebook alerts, there is little difference. If not, the phone is
more of a
distraction.

I suspect that if you've taken the trouble to get your text messages
and phone calls while riding your bike, you're not very good at
ignoring them.

It may be one of those package-deal situations.Â* One feature of the
Garmin 820 link with your cell phone is live tracking for friends.Â* You
can set up the phone/Garmin pair to send an email linking to a map
showing your location and status (speed, heartrate, other "fun" stuff).

I do this to reassure the wife that when I'm away on all-day rides, I
haven't disappeared off the face of the earth, that I'm still moving
(i.e. not in a ditch), still alive, etc.Â* It seems to make her happy.

IIRC, setting up the tracking feature also means you get an on-Garmin
notice of incoming calls, showing caller ID (also nice if the wife is
calling - she doesn't if it isn't really important).Â* Even with the
phone ringer set to max volume, I can often miss it.Â* I find it easy to
ignore other calls during a ride.

The press made much of live tracking in October when it was used to
locate Trek-Segafredo's Directeur Sportif Steven De Jongh after a crash
on an solo ride in Spain; "'A helicopter found Steven lying in a ravine,
unconscious, but with a pulse and breathing,' the update from
Trek-Segafredo read."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/de-j...ously-injured/

Sorry, I'm not on board, and probably will never be. For at least 30
years I did frequent long solo rides, even multi-day tours, without even
a flip phone. On overnights, I'd use a pay phone to check in come dark.
I do take my smart phone now, but get nearly zero calls and almost never
answer them anyway.

I think the only cell phone call I've ever received from my wife while
biking was something like "Oh, we need peanut butter too" when I was
riding to the grocery.

Oh, and the odds on me duplicating De Johgh's incident in Spain are
extremely close to zero.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:49:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Duane wrote:

So how is a phone acting as a Garmin different than a Garmin?


If you're good at ignoring incoming e-mail, phone calls, text messages and
Facebook alerts, there is little difference. If not, the phone is more of a
distraction.

I suspect that if you've taken the trouble to get your text messages and
phone calls while riding your bike, you're not very good at ignoring them.

And I didn't even know Facebook alerts were possible.

(Imagine someone explaining a traffic crash by saying "But there was a
new cat video!!!")

Given that "Oh! I was texting" seems to have become a common reason
for hitting something/someone one might assume that watching a video
might also qualify.


cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 13:50:44 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:56:39 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 6:58 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2018 3:52 AM, James wrote:
On 28/11/18 3:27 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:


1 hp = 746 W, which is within the range of a track cyclist.

There are plenty of road cyclists who can produce 500W for
5 minutes, and certainly 746 W for shorter times.

But I think Andrew is right with his statement "No matter
what gear, we cannot raise 33,000lb one foot in one minute."

To raise 33,000 pounds you'd need extreme gear reduction,
and with that gear reduction would come losses in
efficiency. I think the resulting internal friction would
make Andrew's specific task impossible.


Right but that power (1HP or 746W, disregarding gearing or
mechanical losses) is way beyond your average human.


When did we lower the bar to "average"?


Good point. That is indeed a low bar.

I was thinking of us RBT denizens (an exceptional lot by any
measure!)


More fun with unit conversions.

1 hp for 1 minute equals?
746 W x 60 sec = 45,000 Joules
45,000 Joules = 11,000 calories
11,000 calories = 11 Calories
Human metabolic efficiency is 25%
So 44 Calories = 11 g of sugar

2640 Cal/hr

Looking at it another way.

33,000 ft-lb/min / 180 lb = 183 ft/min
183 ft/min = 18 stories/min
18 stories/min = 3.3 sec

So if a 180 lb person can climb a flight of stairs every 3.3 seconds for a
minute, that's 1 hp. That's pretty out there, but somebody could do it.

The race up the Empire State Building in New York City is 86 flights
of stairs. The male record is 9 minutes and 33 seconds, about 6.6
seconds per flight.

cheers,

John B.

OK, so a half a horsepower for 10 minutes is possible. I guess that
doesn't provide much insight as to whether a human could put out twice as
much power for 10% of the time.

In setting a new record for the 100 meters it has been calculated that
Usain Bolt had a maximum power of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89 seconds
of the race, when he was at half of his maximum speed.

According to the calculations, Usain Bolt exerted 81.58kJ of energy
during the 9.58 seconds he spent setting the 100 meter record, but
only 7.79 per cent of this was used to achieve motion; the remaining
92.21 per cent (75.22 kJ) was absorbed by the drag.

cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:39:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/29/2018 8:50 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 01:56:39 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 6:58 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
On 11/28/2018 10:24 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/28/2018 3:52 AM, James wrote:
On 28/11/18 3:27 pm, Ralph Barone wrote:


1 hp = 746 W, which is within the range of a track cyclist.

There are plenty of road cyclists who can produce 500W for
5 minutes, and certainly 746 W for shorter times.

But I think Andrew is right with his statement "No matter
what gear, we cannot raise 33,000lb one foot in one minute."

To raise 33,000 pounds you'd need extreme gear reduction,
and with that gear reduction would come losses in
efficiency. I think the resulting internal friction would
make Andrew's specific task impossible.


Right but that power (1HP or 746W, disregarding gearing or
mechanical losses) is way beyond your average human.


When did we lower the bar to "average"?


Good point. That is indeed a low bar.

I was thinking of us RBT denizens (an exceptional lot by any
measure!)


More fun with unit conversions.

1 hp for 1 minute equals?
746 W x 60 sec = 45,000 Joules
45,000 Joules = 11,000 calories
11,000 calories = 11 Calories
Human metabolic efficiency is 25%
So 44 Calories = 11 g of sugar

2640 Cal/hr

Looking at it another way.

33,000 ft-lb/min / 180 lb = 183 ft/min
183 ft/min = 18 stories/min
18 stories/min = 3.3 sec

So if a 180 lb person can climb a flight of stairs every 3.3 seconds for a
minute, that's 1 hp. That's pretty out there, but somebody could do it.

The race up the Empire State Building in New York City is 86 flights
of stairs. The male record is 9 minutes and 33 seconds, about 6.6
seconds per flight.

cheers,

John B.

OK, so a half a horsepower for 10 minutes is possible. I guess that
doesn't provide much insight as to whether a human could put out twice as
much power for 10% of the time.

I'm looking at a Human Power Output vs. Duration graph in the 2nd
edition of _Bicycling Science_ by Whitt & Wilson, on page 31. The curve
for "first class athletes" shows 400W for 10 minutes. The same curve
shows 800W for 0.2 minutes, or 12 seconds.

It shows 1 HP is limited to half a minute for "first class athletes."
And mere "Healthy men" can't do it for more than about 15 seconds,
according to this graph.

BTW, they've highlighted a point for Eddy Merckx, about 430W for an hour
on a dynamometer. But he's always been the extreme outlier.

The top sprinters exceed those numbers by a factor of 2 or more during
their less then 10 second runs.

https://tinyurl.com/yaekymow
"Usain Bolt expends a maximum power of 2619.5 watts after only 0.89
seconds of the race, when he was at half of his maximum speed..."


cheers,

John B.