A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

IQ-X vs Edelux II



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #431  
Old May 7th 19, 06:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/7/2019 12:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:17:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/5/2019 11:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 6:47:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remain amazed by the number of cycling enthusiasts who are willing to
see all sorts of money spent by themselves or by others, to attempt to
make their cycling experience better. I'm talking about everything from
new tires, new wheels, new drivetrains, new frames, new complete bikes,
new bike lanes, new bike paths, or entirely new transportation systems.

But they won't spend a few bucks on a book that teaches real world
riding techniques, let alone take a cycling course. They somehow assume
they know everything there is to know.

It's the famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect works both ways. The Officious Cycling experts claim to know everything there is to know -- based on a book and a ride-around-some-cones skills class. Half the time, they don't even know the VC -- but they can tell you about "position one."


OK, Jay, you've attempted to raise a valid point: Almost everyone is
very confident that they know all that's necessary for competent
cycling. But yet, avid cyclists disagree strongly on certain points. So
how do we know who actually knows?

Perhaps we should consider an analogy. Employers have a big financial
interest in judging who is likely to be knowledgeable, or who will be
competent in a position. How do they judge?

For people just entering the workforce, they often look at education.
Law firms demand appropriate education, and passing appropriate tests.
So do engineering firms. So do machine shops, etc.

For people who have been at the job, they look at performance. Has the
guy succeeded at the job? Has the guy failed? What's his record?

They may check references. Are the guy's colleagues willing to say he's
good? Does he have a good reputation?

By analogy, perhaps we should give more credence to people who have
taken the cycling classes you disparage (and describe very badly). And
to people who have taught the classes, and contributed to the curricula.
People who have written or reviewed or helped edit books and articles on
the subject, and gotten good reviews as a result. And perhaps give bonus
points to people who have ridden avidly for many decades in many
environments but not had many crashes.

If those should not be the criteria, what should the criteria be? We
can't just ask people if they're competent or knowledgeable. Almost
everyone claims they are. Even those who complain about lots of close
calls, or confess to lots of crashes and injuries.

Neither riding a bike nor driving a car is rocket science. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs...ist-manual.pdf


:-) Funny that you disparage "a book and a ride-around-the-cones skills
class," then imply that all you need is a 20 page booklet to be an expert!


The silly notion is that any of the Officious Cycling crowd are experts. Experts at what? Following the rules of the road? I know the Oregon UVC which is summarized nicely in the Oregon Bicyclist Manual, although there are some laws that are a bit more subtle. But really, what is the fully trained, black-belt, Operating Thetan Cyclecraft expert so good at? Taking the lane? Oooooooh. That is arcane knowledge. Wow. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...ident-cyclist/


Your response is proof that you have not taken their class, or any other
similar, legitimate cycling classes dealing with riding in traffic. You
have no idea what is covered in these courses.

I know cyclists who were commuters as consistent and dedicated as you,
who did lots of long-distance touring like you (including at least one
coast-to-coast) and who took such a course and praised it highly, saying
they learned a lot.

I know another individual who is a nationally recognized cycling expert,
who for years has had a regular column in a well known magazine, has
written at least one book on cycling and was certified as an instructor
in a national cycling education program. He took a Cycling Savvy class
and said it taught him a lot, including better techniques for teaching
others.

It's been said that without a structured class, just learning on ones
own, most cyclists can get decent at handling traffic within a few
years. But that doesn't mean they know everything that's being taught to
others. And as with Joerg's electronics knowledge, learning really does
happen much faster if a person receives the information in a properly
structured class - or failing that, a good book.

Of course, people who haven't learned from others always feel they know
enough. Isn't that true in every field?

And what does any of this have to do with riding on ice or in the dark in 6" of standing water or on slick steep aggregate, e.g., the places where I crashed. I'll put my bike handling skills up against any of the 12mph safety mavens.


Who was the dude who used to post here, who claimed that if you don't
crash a lot, you don't know much about bicycling?

It seems obvious to me that almost any time a cyclist has a solo crash,
he made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't anticipate ice forming in the
shade. Perhaps he misjudged the traction available in a gravelly turn.
Perhaps he didn't think a deep pothole would be under that 6" of water.
Whatever. But if someone else rode that and did not crash, it seems
obvious that's the better rider.

And it doesn't mean the one who didn't crash had better bike handling
skills. All the skill in the world won't protect against sufficiently
faulty judgment.

Maybe it comes down to some sort of ratio between the skills a rider has
and the risks that rider is willing to take. If your risk exceeds your
skill, you go down. And you don't get bonus points for having more
skill. You still screwed up.

I can't do what Danny MacAskill can do. But if I made it through a wet
corner at 15 mph and he crashed at 18 mph, it would mean I did better
than he did.


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #432  
Old May 7th 19, 07:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/7/2019 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2019 23:35:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:47:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 09:38:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, if you'd put as much effort into learning as you put into
misunderstanding, you'd have had this all figured out by now.

Ah but Frank. I simply listened to what you said and interpreted what
you said using common, garden verity, English.

In reality, you've MISinterpreted what I've said. Or at least,
misrepresented it. You've done this multiple times, so it seems deliberate.

You mean I misrepresented the word "Seize" or the word "Take"?


Don't pretend I've never said more than "take the lane." That's
deliberate misrepresentation.

Frank you have said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and
some of which I don't. I was commenting specifically on your Seize
the lane and take the lane advice.


I'll again recommend _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

I am absolutely positive he knows much more than you do about cycling in
traffic.

And how did he learn, or was he blessed from birth with the knowledge?


The knowledge base that is distilled in _Cyclecraft_ has grown for
decades, mostly starting from seminal writings by John Forester, but
improved by contributions from many, many people who tested various
techniques and strategies. There is a good-sized community of people who
dedicate serious time to these topics. There are active discussions,
debates, writings, classes and more. This is the source of the courses
like Cycling Savvy in the U.S., Bikeability in Britain, Can-Bike in
Canada, etc.

John Franklin is not the type of person who just writes what pops into
his mind. That's much more likely to be a characteristic of those who
disparage the work of others.


Right Frank. Someone wrote a book and therefore they became all
knowing and wise beyond their years.

Rather like the Ptolemaic system (the Sun orbits the earth) , isn't
it. A guy "writes a book" and for 1500 years it is the truth, the
only truth and nothing but the truth. In fact it was so true that it
had become a Tenet of the Church. Then it was refuted.


So how did it get refuted?

It happened because other people constantly examined the theories and
the evidence. They discussed it among themselves. They traded ideas.
They learned from each other. Yes, there were flashes of brilliance; but
they didn't happen in isolation.

Your position seems to be that you are so brilliant you don't need to
learn from others; and that it's a waste of time for others to do so.

Perhaps, for your case, you're correct. If all your riding is on roads
with six foot wide shoulders and you're happy never leaving those
shoulders, that's fine. Similarly, I know there are riders in America
who do nothing but drive their car to "rail-trails," unload the bike and
pedal back and forth.

That's not how I ride. I've got at least two utility runs to make today,
by bike. I can't get to those places (or any others, really) via
segregated infrastructure. I'll have to deal with some motor vehicle
traffic. I'll use the knowledge I have, and because of it I'll be happy
and comfortable on at least some roads most Americans would never use
for bicycling.

I learned from others, and I'm glad I did. Ignorance may feel like
bliss, but it isn't. Not really.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #433  
Old May 7th 19, 11:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 8/5/19 1:55 am, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:
On 6/5/19 5:20 pm, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:


Most roads I ride on have no shoulder at all, and many don't even have
fog lines. On some roads you might find a narrow shoulder (maybe 0.5m
wide if you're lucky).

Use them and you'll keep getting flats and keep bailing, like The Great
Joerg, into the ditch because motorists tend not to take standard driver
action (brake or move to adjacent lane) if you ride outside of the perceived
standard traffic position.


Along one major road there is a shoulder for quite a distance, and
though I ride just within the lane, I often move into the shoulder as
motor vehicles are driven past.

Along another road that has as much traffic but no shoulder, despite
riding in lane, I've had numerous close calls and feel far less comfortable.


In lane like this guy?
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1124022735846486025
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1116590779986669570


Not really like that guy. I guess everyone rides a little differently.
I would probably avoid riding on that road, or at least ride there at a
time of day when there was less motor traffic.

I rarely complain about close calls. On the road I mentioned above with
no shoulder, that is similar to the one in the video, I recall hearing a
horn behind me, so I looked and the driver towing wide trailer was
driving at me at 100km/h while there was oncoming cars. The oncoming
cars had just appeared around a bend, so it would have been futile to
move out to block the driver behind me. Instead I avoided a collision
by riding just beyond the fog line in the gravel. Yes I bailed. I
didn't end up in a ditch or with a puncture, and I'm still here today
typing a reply. YMMV.

I don't think Frank would even advocate moving out in front of a vehicle
being driven at 100km/h that obviously did not enough time or distance
to slow safely to 30km/h (my speed).

Should I have been lane centre? Well, moments earlier there was no
reason to be. Timing is everything.

--
JS
  #434  
Old May 8th 19, 12:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:01:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2019 23:35:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:47:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 09:38:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, if you'd put as much effort into learning as you put into
misunderstanding, you'd have had this all figured out by now.

Ah but Frank. I simply listened to what you said and interpreted what
you said using common, garden verity, English.

In reality, you've MISinterpreted what I've said. Or at least,
misrepresented it. You've done this multiple times, so it seems deliberate.

You mean I misrepresented the word "Seize" or the word "Take"?

Don't pretend I've never said more than "take the lane." That's
deliberate misrepresentation.

Frank you have said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and
some of which I don't. I was commenting specifically on your Seize
the lane and take the lane advice.


I'll again recommend _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

I am absolutely positive he knows much more than you do about cycling in
traffic.

And how did he learn, or was he blessed from birth with the knowledge?

The knowledge base that is distilled in _Cyclecraft_ has grown for
decades, mostly starting from seminal writings by John Forester, but
improved by contributions from many, many people who tested various
techniques and strategies. There is a good-sized community of people who
dedicate serious time to these topics. There are active discussions,
debates, writings, classes and more. This is the source of the courses
like Cycling Savvy in the U.S., Bikeability in Britain, Can-Bike in
Canada, etc.

John Franklin is not the type of person who just writes what pops into
his mind. That's much more likely to be a characteristic of those who
disparage the work of others.


Right Frank. Someone wrote a book and therefore they became all
knowing and wise beyond their years.

Rather like the Ptolemaic system (the Sun orbits the earth) , isn't
it. A guy "writes a book" and for 1500 years it is the truth, the
only truth and nothing but the truth. In fact it was so true that it
had become a Tenet of the Church. Then it was refuted.


So how did it get refuted?

It happened because other people constantly examined the theories and
the evidence. They discussed it among themselves. They traded ideas.
They learned from each other. Yes, there were flashes of brilliance; but
they didn't happen in isolation.


That isn't true at all. The Ptolemaic "theory" was refuted by,
primarily, Galileo Galilei who's arguments were not accepted during
his lifetime and he was even tried by the Inquisition, found
"vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant .

Your position seems to be that you are so brilliant you don't need to
learn from others; and that it's a waste of time for others to do so.

Quite the opposite in fact. I was simply pointing out that just
because someone wrote a book that doesn't mean that he knew what he
was talking about. As opposed to your seeming assertion that "Look! He
Wrote a Book! Proof that He knows the Secrets of the Universe!"

As I pointed out a guy "wrote a book" and, for 1,500 it was accepted
as the "Truth". Just as you seem to believe that the Forester book is
the truth. And then someone (Galileo Galilei) came along and proved
that it was wrong.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #435  
Old May 8th 19, 12:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 12:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2019 at 8:17:09 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/5/2019 11:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 6:47:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remain amazed by the number of cycling enthusiasts who are willing to
see all sorts of money spent by themselves or by others, to attempt to
make their cycling experience better. I'm talking about everything from
new tires, new wheels, new drivetrains, new frames, new complete bikes,
new bike lanes, new bike paths, or entirely new transportation systems.

But they won't spend a few bucks on a book that teaches real world
riding techniques, let alone take a cycling course. They somehow assume
they know everything there is to know.

It's the famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

Hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect works both ways. The Officious Cycling experts claim to know everything there is to know -- based on a book and a ride-around-some-cones skills class. Half the time, they don't even know the VC -- but they can tell you about "position one."

OK, Jay, you've attempted to raise a valid point: Almost everyone is
very confident that they know all that's necessary for competent
cycling. But yet, avid cyclists disagree strongly on certain points. So
how do we know who actually knows?

Perhaps we should consider an analogy. Employers have a big financial
interest in judging who is likely to be knowledgeable, or who will be
competent in a position. How do they judge?

For people just entering the workforce, they often look at education.
Law firms demand appropriate education, and passing appropriate tests.
So do engineering firms. So do machine shops, etc.

For people who have been at the job, they look at performance. Has the
guy succeeded at the job? Has the guy failed? What's his record?

They may check references. Are the guy's colleagues willing to say he's
good? Does he have a good reputation?

By analogy, perhaps we should give more credence to people who have
taken the cycling classes you disparage (and describe very badly). And
to people who have taught the classes, and contributed to the curricula.
People who have written or reviewed or helped edit books and articles on
the subject, and gotten good reviews as a result. And perhaps give bonus
points to people who have ridden avidly for many decades in many
environments but not had many crashes.

If those should not be the criteria, what should the criteria be? We
can't just ask people if they're competent or knowledgeable. Almost
everyone claims they are. Even those who complain about lots of close
calls, or confess to lots of crashes and injuries.

Neither riding a bike nor driving a car is rocket science. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs...ist-manual.pdf

:-) Funny that you disparage "a book and a ride-around-the-cones skills
class," then imply that all you need is a 20 page booklet to be an expert!


The silly notion is that any of the Officious Cycling crowd are experts.. Experts at what? Following the rules of the road? I know the Oregon UVC which is summarized nicely in the Oregon Bicyclist Manual, although there are some laws that are a bit more subtle. But really, what is the fully trained, black-belt, Operating Thetan Cyclecraft expert so good at? Taking the lane? Oooooooh. That is arcane knowledge. Wow. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...ident-cyclist/


Your response is proof that you have not taken their class, or any other
similar, legitimate cycling classes dealing with riding in traffic. You
have no idea what is covered in these courses.


I took a cycling course way before you did. I got a ticket riding my bike the wrong way on an empty street and had to go to cycling class when I was seven or eight years old. My mother drove me there and had to attend. I was mortified. My fifth grade teacher was the reigning national road champion, Bob Tetzlaff, and he took me and my classmates on training rides where we learned the rules of the road as they existed in the 1960s. I went to a bike skills fair at Stanford (stumbled across it on my way home from a ride in the '70s) and won a water bottle for track standing! It was awesome. I was coached for over ten years during my unillustrious twenty-some years as a bike racer, some of that on the track, which is probably the closest corollary to my morning commute.


I know cyclists who were commuters as consistent and dedicated as you,
who did lots of long-distance touring like you (including at least one
coast-to-coast) and who took such a course and praised it highly, saying
they learned a lot.

I know another individual who is a nationally recognized cycling expert,
who for years has had a regular column in a well known magazine, has
written at least one book on cycling and was certified as an instructor
in a national cycling education program. He took a Cycling Savvy class
and said it taught him a lot, including better techniques for teaching
others.


So share with us, oh Guru, what arcane knowledge he learned?

It's been said that without a structured class, just learning on ones
own, most cyclists can get decent at handling traffic within a few
years. But that doesn't mean they know everything that's being taught to
others. And as with Joerg's electronics knowledge, learning really does
happen much faster if a person receives the information in a properly
structured class - or failing that, a good book.

Of course, people who haven't learned from others always feel they know
enough. Isn't that true in every field?

And what does any of this have to do with riding on ice or in the dark in 6" of standing water or on slick steep aggregate, e.g., the places where I crashed. I'll put my bike handling skills up against any of the 12mph safety mavens.


Who was the dude who used to post here, who claimed that if you don't
crash a lot, you don't know much about bicycling?

It seems obvious to me that almost any time a cyclist has a solo crash,
he made a mistake.


Of course it would.

Perhaps he didn't anticipate ice forming in the
shade. Perhaps he misjudged the traction available in a gravelly turn.
Perhaps he didn't think a deep pothole would be under that 6" of water.
Whatever. But if someone else rode that and did not crash, it seems
obvious that's the better rider.


Or just luck or fortuitously taking a different line -- or simply different tires. Tire grip makes a huge amount of difference.

I've ridden through corners with experienced racers in rainy spring races who have crashed -- at the same speed and lean-angle as me, no braking and just whap! They go down -- and a few times, I got taken down too. I chalk that up to tires or very localized surface conditions. I don't sneer at the guy and think he's a dope because he went down, and I didn't. I just think I was lucky for not hitting the invisible snot patch or for having better tires.

I do think skill comes into play when it comes to recovering from traction loss, but most local racers also race CX and are good at recovering from traction loss. Sometimes, there is no recovering.


And it doesn't mean the one who didn't crash had better bike handling
skills. All the skill in the world won't protect against sufficiently
faulty judgment.


Maybe it comes down to some sort of ratio between the skills a rider has
and the risks that rider is willing to take. If your risk exceeds your
skill, you go down. And you don't get bonus points for having more
skill. You still screwed up.

I can't do what Danny MacAskill can do. But if I made it through a wet
corner at 15 mph and he crashed at 18 mph, it would mean I did better
than he did.


So your magical knowledge is "go slowly." Who would guess? That will certainly reduce the incidence of accidents, except when one crashes while going slowly -- which I've done on ice, and even on studded tires. I suppose I could have just stayed home or driven the car -- just to keep my no-crash stats up.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #436  
Old May 8th 19, 03:45 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/7/2019 6:58 PM, James wrote:
On 8/5/19 1:55 am, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:
On 6/5/19 5:20 pm, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:


Most roads I ride on have no shoulder at all, and many don't even have
fog lines. On some roads you might find a narrow shoulder (maybe 0.5m
wide if you're lucky).

Use them and you'll keep getting flats and keep bailing, like The Great
Joerg, into the ditch because motorists tend not to take standard
driver
action (brake or move to adjacent lane) if you ride outside of the
perceived
standard traffic position.


Along one major road there is a shoulder for quite a distance, and
though I ride just within the lane, I often move into the shoulder as
motor vehicles are driven past.

Along another road that has as much traffic but no shoulder, despite
riding in lane, I've had numerous close calls and feel far less
comfortable.


In lane like this guy?
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1124022735846486025
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1116590779986669570


Not really like that guy.* I guess everyone rides a little differently.
I would probably avoid riding on that road, or at least ride there at a
time of day when there was less motor traffic.

I rarely complain about close calls.* On the road I mentioned above with
no shoulder, that is similar to the one in the video, I recall hearing a
horn behind me, so I looked and the driver towing wide trailer was
driving at me at 100km/h while there was oncoming cars.* The oncoming
cars had just appeared around a bend, so it would have been futile to
move out to block the driver behind me.* Instead I avoided a collision
by riding just beyond the fog line in the gravel.* Yes I bailed.* I
didn't end up in a ditch or with a puncture, and I'm still here today
typing a reply.* YMMV.

I don't think Frank would even advocate moving out in front of a vehicle
being driven at 100km/h that obviously did not enough time or distance
to slow safely to 30km/h (my speed).

Should I have been lane centre?* Well, moments earlier there was no
reason to be.* Timing is everything.


Well, one of the things I was taught in the last cycling class I took
was the value of being out in the lane very early. John fusses over the
supposed impossibility of moving left. But these days I tend to agree a
lot more with John Franklin, and treat lane center as the normal place
to be.

The value is, in part, that motorists half a mile back can see you're
something they'll have to deal with. They slow much sooner when
necessary, they change lanes much sooner to pass. On four-lane roads,
they begin looking for opportunities to merge left a lot sooner, and
start negotiating with other motorists sooner in order to do that move.

And incidentally, this is something that has changed since my first
cycling class (in about 1980, IIRC). At that time, people were saying
the right tire track was far enough left. Decades of discussion, tests,
debate and analysis have taught people that further left is a better
default position.

To John and Jay, that's a bit of evidence that this material is not just
the product of one man's imagination.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #437  
Old May 8th 19, 03:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/7/2019 7:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:01:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2019 12:53 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2019 23:35:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 21:47:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/5/2019 6:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 5 May 2019 09:38:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

John, if you'd put as much effort into learning as you put into
misunderstanding, you'd have had this all figured out by now.

Ah but Frank. I simply listened to what you said and interpreted what
you said using common, garden verity, English.

In reality, you've MISinterpreted what I've said. Or at least,
misrepresented it. You've done this multiple times, so it seems deliberate.

You mean I misrepresented the word "Seize" or the word "Take"?

Don't pretend I've never said more than "take the lane." That's
deliberate misrepresentation.

Frank you have said a lot of things, some of which I agree with and
some of which I don't. I was commenting specifically on your Seize
the lane and take the lane advice.


I'll again recommend _Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin. Anyone who is really
into cycling should have read it long ago.

Why? Does he know some secret stuff that out weighs my lifelong
philosophy of "don't get hit by a car/truck"?

I am absolutely positive he knows much more than you do about cycling in
traffic.

And how did he learn, or was he blessed from birth with the knowledge?

The knowledge base that is distilled in _Cyclecraft_ has grown for
decades, mostly starting from seminal writings by John Forester, but
improved by contributions from many, many people who tested various
techniques and strategies. There is a good-sized community of people who
dedicate serious time to these topics. There are active discussions,
debates, writings, classes and more. This is the source of the courses
like Cycling Savvy in the U.S., Bikeability in Britain, Can-Bike in
Canada, etc.

John Franklin is not the type of person who just writes what pops into
his mind. That's much more likely to be a characteristic of those who
disparage the work of others.

Right Frank. Someone wrote a book and therefore they became all
knowing and wise beyond their years.

Rather like the Ptolemaic system (the Sun orbits the earth) , isn't
it. A guy "writes a book" and for 1500 years it is the truth, the
only truth and nothing but the truth. In fact it was so true that it
had become a Tenet of the Church. Then it was refuted.


So how did it get refuted?

It happened because other people constantly examined the theories and
the evidence. They discussed it among themselves. They traded ideas.
They learned from each other. Yes, there were flashes of brilliance; but
they didn't happen in isolation.


That isn't true at all. The Ptolemaic "theory" was refuted by,
primarily, Galileo Galilei who's arguments were not accepted during
his lifetime and he was even tried by the Inquisition, found
"vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant .


Sorry, John.

From Wikipedia - but verifiable in countless sources:

"Heliocentrism[a] is the astronomical model in which the Earth and
planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Solar System.
Historically, heliocentrism was opposed to geocentrism, which placed the
Earth at the center. The notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun
had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of
Samos,[1] but at least in the medieval world, Aristarchus's
heliocentrism attracted little attention—possibly because of the loss of
scientific works of the Hellenistic Era.[b]

"It was not until the 16th century that a mathematical model of a
heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician,
astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, leading to the
Copernican Revolution. In the following century, Johannes Kepler
introduced elliptical orbits, and Galileo Galilei presented supporting
observations made using a telescope."

Give Copernicus his due, please. And certainly don't portray it as a
single-handed (or single minded) triumph by Galileo acting alone. The
knowledge came gradually and many contributed.

IOW, you've given a fine example of the precise process I was describing.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #438  
Old May 8th 19, 04:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 5/7/2019 7:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The silly notion is that any of the Officious Cycling crowd are experts. Experts at what? Following the rules of the road? I know the Oregon UVC which is summarized nicely in the Oregon Bicyclist Manual, although there are some laws that are a bit more subtle. But really, what is the fully trained, black-belt, Operating Thetan Cyclecraft expert so good at? Taking the lane? Oooooooh. That is arcane knowledge. Wow. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...ident-cyclist/


Your response is proof that you have not taken their class, or any other
similar, legitimate cycling classes dealing with riding in traffic. You
have no idea what is covered in these courses.


I took a cycling course way before you did. I got a ticket riding my bike the wrong way on an empty street and had to go to cycling class when I was seven or eight years old. My mother drove me there and had to attend. I was mortified.


OK, I'll give you credit for a kindergarten class.

My fifth grade teacher was the reigning national road champion, Bob Tetzlaff, and he took me and my classmates on training rides where we learned the rules of the road as they existed in the 1960s.


Perhaps he did. But as I've written elsewhere, this knowledge is not
static. Since the 1960s, much has been learned and disseminated about
how best to ride in traffic.

Then there's your statement that you learned the rules of the road. One
of your repeated mistakes is pretending that the rules of the road are
all one needs. There's a lot more knowledge that's quite valuable.

I went to a bike skills fair at Stanford (stumbled across it on my way home from a ride in the '70s) and won a water bottle for track standing! It was awesome.


That's probably where you came up with your wisecrack about a class
teaching a cyclist to ride around cones, right? As if that's the entire
class. Sorry, it's not.

I was coached for over ten years during my unillustrious twenty-some years as a bike racer, some of that on the track, which is probably the closest corollary to my morning commute.


FWIW, the best bike racer I rode with was, to his dying day, terribly
afraid of riding in the middle of the lane. I watched him seriously
endanger himself because of that. And it's not uncommon for racers to
edge ride. I've encountered some who brag about their skill riding on
the white edge line no matter how close the cars are passing. (I don't
know if you're in that camp or not.)

And what does any of this have to do with riding on ice or in the dark in 6" of standing water or on slick steep aggregate, e.g., the places where I crashed. I'll put my bike handling skills up against any of the 12mph safety mavens.


Who was the dude who used to post here, who claimed that if you don't
crash a lot, you don't know much about bicycling?

It seems obvious to me that almost any time a cyclist has a solo crash,
he made a mistake.


Of course it would.

Perhaps he didn't anticipate ice forming in the
shade. Perhaps he misjudged the traction available in a gravelly turn.
Perhaps he didn't think a deep pothole would be under that 6" of water.
Whatever. But if someone else rode that and did not crash, it seems
obvious that's the better rider.


Or just luck or fortuitously taking a different line -- or simply different tires. Tire grip makes a huge amount of difference.


Whatever, Jay. It's still a mistake.

I've ridden through corners with experienced racers in rainy spring races who have crashed -- at the same speed and lean-angle as me, no braking and just whap! They go down -- and a few times, I got taken down too. I chalk that up to tires or very localized surface conditions. I don't sneer at the guy and think he's a dope because he went down, and I didn't. I just think I was lucky for not hitting the invisible snot patch or for having better tires.

I do think skill comes into play when it comes to recovering from traction loss, but most local racers also race CX and are good at recovering from traction loss. Sometimes, there is no recovering.


This discussion is not about racing, any more than NASCAR tactics are
about driving to work. When you race, you are expected to take risks.
The classes I'm discussing are about competent cycling in non-racing
situations.

But still, if you crash in a race for whatever reason, it almost always
means you're out of contention. That sure sounds like a mistake to me.

I did hardly any road racing. But I remember one time trial when, for
whatever reason, immediately after the start I wobbled toward a roadside
mailbox. I corrected and went on and did fairly well overall. But if I
had hit the mailbox, I wouldn't have put it off to bad luck or a gust of
wind or an evil curse. I'd have said I made a big mistake.

I can't do what Danny MacAskill can do. But if I made it through a wet
corner at 15 mph and he crashed at 18 mph, it would mean I did better
than he did.


So your magical knowledge is "go slowly." Who would guess? That will certainly reduce the incidence of accidents, except when one crashes while going slowly -- which I've done on ice, and even on studded tires. I suppose I could have just stayed home or driven the car -- just to keep my no-crash stats up.


I've crashed on ice mountain biking. I crashed on ice when I was a
teenager and described it here. In both cases, I figured I made a
mistake. I've never crashed on ice on the road.

But I have ridden on ice on the road, including this year, FWIW. If I
had crashed while doing it, I would have admitted my mistake. Perhaps it
would have been from going too fast. There _is_ such a thing as going
too fast for conditions. I think better riders avoid that mistake.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #439  
Old May 8th 19, 04:17 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On 8/5/19 12:45 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 6:58 PM, James wrote:
On 8/5/19 1:55 am, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:
On 6/5/19 5:20 pm, Sepp Ruf wrote:
James wrote:

Most roads I ride on have no shoulder at all, and many don't even
have
fog lines. On some roads you might find a narrow shoulder (maybe 0.5m
wide if you're lucky).

Use them and you'll keep getting flats and keep bailing, like The
Great
Joerg, into the ditch because motorists tend not to take standard
driver
action (brake or move to adjacent lane) if you ride outside of the
perceived
standard traffic position.


Along one major road there is a shoulder for quite a distance, and
though I ride just within the lane, I often move into the shoulder as
motor vehicles are driven past.

Along another road that has as much traffic but no shoulder, despite
riding in lane, I've had numerous close calls and feel far less
comfortable.

In lane like this guy?
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1124022735846486025
https://twitter.com/Natenom/status/1116590779986669570


Not really like that guy.* I guess everyone rides a little
differently. I would probably avoid riding on that road, or at least
ride there at a time of day when there was less motor traffic.

I rarely complain about close calls.* On the road I mentioned above
with no shoulder, that is similar to the one in the video, I recall
hearing a horn behind me, so I looked and the driver towing wide
trailer was driving at me at 100km/h while there was oncoming cars.
The oncoming cars had just appeared around a bend, so it would have
been futile to move out to block the driver behind me.* Instead I
avoided a collision by riding just beyond the fog line in the gravel.
Yes I bailed.* I didn't end up in a ditch or with a puncture, and I'm
still here today typing a reply.* YMMV.

I don't think Frank would even advocate moving out in front of a
vehicle being driven at 100km/h that obviously did not enough time or
distance to slow safely to 30km/h (my speed).

Should I have been lane centre?* Well, moments earlier there was no
reason to be.* Timing is everything.


Well, one of the things I was taught in the last cycling class I took
was the value of being out in the lane very early. John fusses over the
supposed impossibility of moving left. But these days I tend to agree a
lot more with John Franklin, and treat lane center as the normal place
to be.

The value is, in part, that motorists half a mile back can see you're
something they'll have to deal with. They slow much sooner when
necessary, they change lanes much sooner to pass. On four-lane roads,
they begin looking for opportunities to merge left a lot sooner, and
start negotiating with other motorists sooner in order to do that move.

And incidentally, this is something that has changed since my first
cycling class (in about 1980, IIRC). At that time, people were saying
the right tire track was far enough left. Decades of discussion, tests,
debate and analysis have taught people that further left is a better
default position.

To John and Jay, that's a bit of evidence that this material is not just
the product of one man's imagination.



I've tried riding closer to the middle of the lane. In some parts of
that particular road it is essential because the road surface is a mine
field if potholes in the left wheel track (right for you). But on the
whole it seems to elicit more aggro. Drivers don't understand why
you're "taking up the whole road" and not hugging the left edge. You
then tend to get very close high speed passes, with clear intent to
scare the **** out of you, along with abuse and verbal threats.

I tend to ride in a position where I hope they are aiming to pass
safely, but where I have adequate space to move further away if I sense
it is going to be tight.

--
JS
  #440  
Old May 8th 19, 04:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default IQ-X vs Edelux II

On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 8:12:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2019 7:57 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The silly notion is that any of the Officious Cycling crowd are experts. Experts at what? Following the rules of the road? I know the Oregon UVC which is summarized nicely in the Oregon Bicyclist Manual, although there are some laws that are a bit more subtle. But really, what is the fully trained, black-belt, Operating Thetan Cyclecraft expert so good at? Taking the lane? Oooooooh. That is arcane knowledge. Wow. http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/...ident-cyclist/

Your response is proof that you have not taken their class, or any other
similar, legitimate cycling classes dealing with riding in traffic. You
have no idea what is covered in these courses.


I took a cycling course way before you did. I got a ticket riding my bike the wrong way on an empty street and had to go to cycling class when I was seven or eight years old. My mother drove me there and had to attend. I was mortified.


OK, I'll give you credit for a kindergarten class.

My fifth grade teacher was the reigning national road champion, Bob Tetzlaff, and he took me and my classmates on training rides where we learned the rules of the road as they existed in the 1960s.


Perhaps he did. But as I've written elsewhere, this knowledge is not
static. Since the 1960s, much has been learned and disseminated about
how best to ride in traffic.

Then there's your statement that you learned the rules of the road. One
of your repeated mistakes is pretending that the rules of the road are
all one needs. There's a lot more knowledge that's quite valuable.

I went to a bike skills fair at Stanford (stumbled across it on my way home from a ride in the '70s) and won a water bottle for track standing! It was awesome.


That's probably where you came up with your wisecrack about a class
teaching a cyclist to ride around cones, right? As if that's the entire
class. Sorry, it's not.

I was coached for over ten years during my unillustrious twenty-some years as a bike racer, some of that on the track, which is probably the closest corollary to my morning commute.


FWIW, the best bike racer I rode with was, to his dying day, terribly
afraid of riding in the middle of the lane. I watched him seriously
endanger himself because of that. And it's not uncommon for racers to
edge ride. I've encountered some who brag about their skill riding on
the white edge line no matter how close the cars are passing. (I don't
know if you're in that camp or not.)

And what does any of this have to do with riding on ice or in the dark in 6" of standing water or on slick steep aggregate, e.g., the places where I crashed. I'll put my bike handling skills up against any of the 12mph safety mavens.

Who was the dude who used to post here, who claimed that if you don't
crash a lot, you don't know much about bicycling?

It seems obvious to me that almost any time a cyclist has a solo crash,
he made a mistake.


Of course it would.

Perhaps he didn't anticipate ice forming in the
shade. Perhaps he misjudged the traction available in a gravelly turn.
Perhaps he didn't think a deep pothole would be under that 6" of water..
Whatever. But if someone else rode that and did not crash, it seems
obvious that's the better rider.


Or just luck or fortuitously taking a different line -- or simply different tires. Tire grip makes a huge amount of difference.


Whatever, Jay. It's still a mistake.

I've ridden through corners with experienced racers in rainy spring races who have crashed -- at the same speed and lean-angle as me, no braking and just whap! They go down -- and a few times, I got taken down too. I chalk that up to tires or very localized surface conditions. I don't sneer at the guy and think he's a dope because he went down, and I didn't. I just think I was lucky for not hitting the invisible snot patch or for having better tires.

I do think skill comes into play when it comes to recovering from traction loss, but most local racers also race CX and are good at recovering from traction loss. Sometimes, there is no recovering.


This discussion is not about racing, any more than NASCAR tactics are
about driving to work. When you race, you are expected to take risks.
The classes I'm discussing are about competent cycling in non-racing
situations.

But still, if you crash in a race for whatever reason, it almost always
means you're out of contention. That sure sounds like a mistake to me.


Not true! I crashed at the Mt. Angel Octoberfest criterium one year and got a free lap and then finished top five. I don't remember if I were fourth or fifth. No groupies, but I did win some weird swag like a chit for the beer tent or something like that. Part of my semi-pro career. I got pushed to the outside of a turn and hit some leaves. I should have been riding lane center!




I did hardly any road racing. But I remember one time trial when, for
whatever reason, immediately after the start I wobbled toward a roadside
mailbox. I corrected and went on and did fairly well overall. But if I
had hit the mailbox, I wouldn't have put it off to bad luck or a gust of
wind or an evil curse. I'd have said I made a big mistake.

I can't do what Danny MacAskill can do. But if I made it through a wet
corner at 15 mph and he crashed at 18 mph, it would mean I did better
than he did.


So your magical knowledge is "go slowly." Who would guess? That will certainly reduce the incidence of accidents, except when one crashes while going slowly -- which I've done on ice, and even on studded tires. I suppose I could have just stayed home or driven the car -- just to keep my no-crash stats up.


I've crashed on ice mountain biking. I crashed on ice when I was a
teenager and described it here. In both cases, I figured I made a
mistake. I've never crashed on ice on the road.

But I have ridden on ice on the road, including this year, FWIW. If I
had crashed while doing it, I would have admitted my mistake. Perhaps it
would have been from going too fast. There _is_ such a thing as going
too fast for conditions. I think better riders avoid that mistake.


I've ridden on ice many, many times too, including legendary Oregon black ice. I've crashed very few times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoxOReXlHI Unlike your village, we have hills -- this one not too far from my office.

And don't tell me you ride in as much inclement weather as I do -- not based on what you have said about not riding in the rain. I would agree, however, that all crashes are the result of a mistake -- like deciding to ride in really ****ty weather in the first place. I was riding to work one day on ice expecting it to relent as I lost elevation. It didn't. I encountered the one other bicyclist riding into town, and he said "what the f*** are we doing?" That was a very good question. I did not crash.

-- Jay Beattie.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Edelux II at low speeds and walking. Lou Holtman[_7_] Techniques 10 December 24th 14 04:03 AM
Reduced rear standlight time with Edelux Danny Colyer UK 3 January 14th 09 07:21 PM
Edelux - Wow! Danny Colyer UK 10 November 25th 08 10:05 PM
Solidlight 1203D or Edelux? none UK 5 May 27th 08 06:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.