"Better biking"

Bill H. wrote:
I'll agree that in complex machines with moving parts, there
is a lot more room for improvement. Things can be made lighter,
stronger, stiffer/more flexible, etc.

But there is a lot of hype out there...

There certainly is.

Regarding the "lighter, stronger, stiffer/more flexible" issues, I
think it's safe to say top quality bikes are way past the point of
diminishing returns.

I fully expect Shimano to come out with, say, new chainring bolts that
are "30% lighter and 28% stiffer!"

Buycycling magazine will say "We immediately felt the surge in
acceleration as the new chainring bolts allowed the bike to respond to
each twitch of our well-shaven muscles."

But nobody except those posting here will say - or even understand -
the word "negligible."

- Frank Krygowski

velco
shoelace
necktie
sock


Ken M

wrote in news:1125015838.763520.315470
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Better biking
at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...5358-9742r.htm


Is the WashTimes still owned by the Moonies?

I would like to say that I object to the characterization that recumbents
are for people who can't lean over the handlebars. Even if that were true,
if there's any comfort advantage at all, it will show up for someone
leaning forward after some number of miles on a ride. ALthough the
recumbent is more comfortable to ride, it is absolutely true that it has
less drag than a conventional bike. It also has less CG travel than a
conventional bike, making it more "fuel efficient."

ANd that's my rant on bents. Thank you.

--ag