|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 23:12:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 9/10/2017 1:21 AM, John B. wrote: On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 08:58:17 -0500, AMuzi wrote: On 9/8/2017 4:23 PM, wrote: On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 10:45:07 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote: Graham wrote: So if your definition of gear is roll out in mm then it looks close. Do not forget to include the tyre. Right, perhaps I should change "gear" into "roll out" if that's the agreed-upon term. Perhaps I should even make it print the formulae first thing. And I'll include the tyre. Excellent There's always a slight error this way. The radius of a tire and hence it's circumference changes slightly with pressure and/or weight of the rider. The ancient and traditional method from race-rules gear limits to computer input is a rollout. Ride over a spot of paint and measure between marks. In theory it's 2R*3.14159. In practice it is not. As you note, rider weight, inflation etc have some bearing on this Disregarding "gear inches" I found a sequel to the Freakonomics book called "SuperFreakonomics" It gets into the economics of street prostitution early on in the book :-) Yes, that was interesting too. But she wasn't a street prostitute. She was a high-priced call girl. With a degree in economics, as I recall! Ah, you didn't read the whole book. The introduction mentioned a $300/hour "Escort" named Allie, and then Chapter 1 described LaSheena who was a street girl and a later chapter described Allie's business. An interesting point was that while business was poor for the Street Girls the Escort kept raising her prices with no loss of business :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On 9/11/2017 10:52 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. wrote: On one hand you are reciting what the specifications are telling you and on the other hand it is a bloke with years and years of experience in the business is telling you. Shozaburo Shimano founded Shimano in February 1921 which amounts to a collective experience of 96y 7m 11d, and not of the business in general, but of manufacturing bicycle parts. And they say 6/7/8 of their own chain. The other people/shops I've refered to who also say this are probably just repeating what Shimano says on the chain box. And I think that's completely natural! I also trust what manufacturers of an international magnitude like Shimano put on their boxes. First thing with new gear I always read on the box. So even tho I never tried it myself (a 6/7/8 chain on a 6 casette) I dare say yes, I find this story a bit strange. As with SRAM, it was called an 8 chain until they stopped making the wider models. Those are still available, not any more expensively, just not from those two vendors. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 8:05:33 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:00:39 +0200, Emanuel Berg That isn't true at all. I have definitely improved the speed of a C program by using an assembler language sub routines and even had two C compilers that would compile the same program into two different sizes that performed the same "test" program at two different speeds. And I remember a "payroll program" that we developed in Pascal that ran so slowly that we had to rewrite nearly all the in/out stuff in assembler. You want to go back to writing code for a single core CPU screaming along at 1 Mhz :-) About the only improvements you can get with assembly language is servicing RTOS calls. I needed assembly language programs because I was doing very complex and tedious programs that manipulated 16 axis in a chemical analysis instrument using an 8008. But today's fast processors make that unnecessary. Plus today I would design multiple processors into any complex instrument since they are cheap. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
John B. wrote:
Because, as Andrew told you, it will fit. On the other hand, as Andrew told you, if a 6 speed it won't shift well. I think it would make more sense if Shimano put just one digit, or one set of digits, on their boxes, which refered both "fits" and "shifts well". It is the intuition as well. For example if I had a 6 casette from Shimano, then put on a 6/7/8 chain, and it didn't shift well, the thought wouldn't hit me the chain/casette combination could be the problem, but I suppose one will have to get used to disinformation even from the most iconic manufacturers. -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
AMuzi wrote:
As with SRAM, it was called an 8 chain until they stopped making the wider models. Those are still available, not any more expensively, just not from those two vendors. Does that mean the 6/7/8 chain shouldn't be used for 7s as well? Just not as bad as on a 6? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 3:53:29 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:00:09 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: Many times he asks a question then disagrees with what those experts like Andrew who know the RIGHT answer tell him. So let's hear it, why do Shimano put such obvious disinformation on their product boxes? Because, as Andrew told you, it will fit. On the other hand, as Andrew told you, if a 6 speed it won't shift well. I might add that I have used a 10 speed chain with a 9 speed cassette and a 9 speed chain with a 10 speed cassette, and they worked to my satisfaction although Shimano certainly do not state it will work on the box. Didn't Shimano advertise derailleurs as being "9 Speed" when they were precisely the same geometry as their previous derailleurs? - Frank Krygowski |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Didn't Shimano advertise derailleurs as being "9 Speed" when they were precisely the same geometry as their previous derailleurs? Another aspect of this, do you need/want different chain breakers for 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 speed chains or does the bushing diameter stay the same, or at least doesn't vary to the point it matters? On my tool it says "For all speed chain" but its asaklitt, a brand I trust considerably less than Shimano... -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
Frank Krygowski wrote:
Didn't Shimano advertise derailleurs as being "9 Speed" when they were precisely the same geometry as their previous derailleurs? But is that incorrect as long at it works great with 9? (If indeed it does.) -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
John B. writes:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT), wrote: [ ... ] Yesterday I rode on a 35 mile ride. On the way out into a headwind I averaged a little less than 14 mph. I had a cup of coffee while in the city square the worst band I ever heard was making awful noises. When I was in a band if we had played that badly on our first try in a rehearsal we would have quit. On the way back the wind had reversed and I had a hard time maintaining 12 mph for most of the way. By the time I got home I was exhausted. Do you think that I could improve my performance with an 11 or 12 speed? I know my limits and it isn't playing as if I was Chris Froome. Something I've always wondered about is how in the world can I ride an out and back course and have a head wind both ways :-( With some reasonable assumptions I think you can show that this is actually true, in a sense. Suppose for example the wind is blowing at right angles to your (perfectly straight) direction, and that it happens to be blowing at exactly your ground speed, v. The apparent wind will be at 45 degrees your heading, at a velocity of sqrt(v^2 + v^2) = sqrt(2)*v. For turbulent flow, the drag force is approximately proportional to the square of the wind speed, so the drag force will be twice the drag force you would see in still air, F. (At this point we have assumed a cylindrical bike & rider, meaning that the coefficient of drag is the same from the front as the side, since drag from the side is normally greater, this is conservative). Fortunately the drag force acts at 45 degrees to your course, so the drag component that holds you back is cos(45 deg)*F = (2/sqrt(2))*F = sqrt(2)*F ~= 1.414 F This is as true on the way out as it is on the way back, hence you really do have an effective head wind both ways. -- |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
program to compute gears, with table
John B. writes:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 06:06:56 +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote: John B. wrote: That isn't true at all. I have definitely improved the speed of a C program by using an assembler language sub routines and even had two C compilers that would compile the same program into two different sizes that performed the same "test" program at two different speeds. Obviously two different programs will be of different sizes and run at different speeds. But that wasn't what I said at all. As I said the same code compiled on two different compiler resulted in both a different size compiled application and, as well, a speed difference when running. With compilers to do optimization, and with much increased hardware to make optimization unnecessary to begin with, there is close to zero gain re-writing C into assembler, and its Except when it does make a difference. an undertaking that isn't proportional to that gain. So it is rather done when there is a need to manipulate hardware directly or in ways which the high-level language isn't suited for. I'm not sure that is correct in all cases although of course modern computers run at speeds that make the slower software appear to be satisfactory. But I did a search on the question "is modern software written in assembler" and the first hit replied: "Probably more than most people think, especially in the microcontroller field. I write in assembler when it's appropriate, which for the kind of work I do is most of the time I write in assembler every day, not on any rational basis, but because that's how my boss did it back in the day. The big difference between new processors and old, from my point of view, is the much deeper instruction pipelines. In order to get the most from these machines one should write in the least straightforward way possible, doing a little of this, then a little of that, so that there is as long a time as possible between setting some register's value and using it. Compilers are good at this, human beings not so much, especially when the code has to be debugged and modified at some time in the unknowable future. On the other hand, in assembler one may use the low level processor behavior to make sure things are done in an efficient way -- for example carry and overflow conditions are straightforwardly but non-portably checked. In C, if you want to make sure the compiler does what you think it should you have to check the generated assembly, and possibly contort your code to make your intention "clear". -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Table. | Marc[_2_] | UK | 6 | November 25th 09 10:29 AM |
Is Frame spacing for 7 Gears = to 5 Gears? | [email protected] | Techniques | 4 | April 13th 09 12:28 AM |
Now that's a table! | Bob Downie | UK | 4 | April 16th 07 06:23 PM |
Inversion Table | Bill B | Recumbent Biking | 3 | October 22nd 04 03:59 AM |
Gears gears gear..what to choose? | bstephens | Techniques | 8 | February 18th 04 04:06 PM |