A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Age and Heart Rates



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 30th 16, 05:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2016-12-29 16:25, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 28 Dec 2016
07:47:21 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:



[...]


Maybe this works:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401

It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer
there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some
muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge.

Similar to the one under the A14 near Stow-cum-Quy, but ours doesn't
have lights - I can't remember if they are fitted but broken or simply
not there. You'd have to stand in there for a few minutes for your
eyes to adjust enough to be able to see broken light fittings, which
would be foolish at best, given the high level of cycle use and the
fact that most are riding blindly towards the light at the other end.



I never rely on road lighting, my bikes both have powerful headlights.
In our tunnel that can really save the day because rattlesnakes in
"cooling off mode" are often coiled up and they blend into the pavement
color. Coild up snakes can strike if you see them too late. So far I
only ran over one on a trail and it was stretched out where they'd have
a hard time striking.

But any decent cycle light will be pointing the light where you really
need it - which isn't the ceiling of the tunnel!



On high beam it should. On MTB it is even essential in a thick forest.
However, why would you want to see the ceiling of the tunnel?


[...]


There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit
your needs better than an MTB.


They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here.

They're designed for unsupported expedition touring around the world,
mostly on tracks and unsealed roads. They would survive even your
abuse, unless you set out to deliberately destroy them to prove a
point.



I never saw anything like that here. Or in Europe for that matter.

A good trail bike must survive undamaged when the whole enchilada
becomes airborne and lands hard. I never do that on purpose (except with
the front wheel, of course) but it happens.

If you are doing jumps on a normal utility ride, you need to do it
slower, but never mind, with the weight of bike you want, you will be
anyway. No wonder you find cycling so risky, if you ride as if you
were in a competitive MTB event on every ride.



It's par for the course on some singletrack routes here. Good bikes must
withstand that. Your can't pussyfoot over every rock or tree root.


They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny
market for them as the actual building cost.


I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji
Outland or similar.

Try looking at something like the ToutTerrain PanAmericana - you can
even have it with a generator and full wiring harness, with a power
take off for satnav or whatever.



http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/bicycl...ricana-xplore/

Probably very expensive.


But appears to fit your needs without even more expensive
modification.



Not really, I am sure I'd see frame damage quite soon and I can imagine
the price tag to be very high. What I need is almost the same structure
as on a GS1200 Dual-Sport which I soon will have.


I have seen this kind of classic construction, it was popular in the
90's even for forks. The suspension linkage at the axle is too weak.
Could be beefed up by a custom made part though. However, where it would
most likely fail first is where the upper welds to the seat tube are and
then the frame is toast.

The gearbox is cool though. Their are a bit skimpy on specs but it looks
like the front axle is the standard QR deal. Like on my bike. In
conjunction with a large diameter disc brake up front and lots of load
on the bike that would be a big design mistake. Well, maybe not, hard to
see. They should learn more about web site design.


The skills to design good web-sites and design good bicycles are
rather different, and rarely coincide - that, as they say, is life.



Smart business people know where to find help. In a business all aspects
must be taken care of, not just 80% of them.

[...]



Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.

Yeah, we know.
Danger, Danger!
As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous,
they'll use it as a reason not to ride.


We know better. The last rider here died a week ago.

We don't, because we don't know why.
If he was riding along at night without lights or even reflectors, you
can't claim it's any indication of a general level of danger - 9pm
wasn't it?



They get hit during day and during night. Typically a high speed impact
from behind.


Data from outside your head?



No, from news media.



With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you
prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade
of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before
you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for
an ambulance to get there?


It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know
perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my
control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly
drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him.

Those bollards are a hazard, and if you are following another rider (I
know that's very unlikely as long as you keep scaring them off, but
still, it is a slight possibility) who swerves at the last moment to
avoid it, your first sight will be too late to avoid it.



Seriously? You swerve Kamikaze-style where you can't see? Yikes!

An attentive cyclist won't without good reason, but not all cyclists
are attentive - and as cycling is far more popular, so the proportion
of poorly trained cyclists is larger.



They should switch to a car :-)


And paths are poorly swept compared to roads, so the need to make
sudden swerves is more frequent.



Huh?


We've had a few cyclists in this area quite badly injured from
striking such bollards, with the result that they are being replaced
with a more visible design. Those ones under the bridge in your video
would be re-sited out of the shadow and painted yellow with reflective
bands.



They can be painted and most of them out here are bright yellow. Again,
a participant in any sort of traffic shall ride in an attentive manner
and at speeds commensurate with the surroundings. I admit that I
sometimes push it a bit on singletrack but I have also learned how to
properly roll in a fall. Or not to fall in the first place, meaning
letting the bike careen a bit where possible.

[...]


Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.

And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the
"breathing room" part).
I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as
much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans.
There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the
other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and
from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet
speeds (which is a matter of physics).


You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to
be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For
example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it
does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll
instead of standing jam-packed in some subway.

Fine to work from home if you can, but not all work can be done that
way - in fact, only a tiny proportion can.



A lot of it can but not everyone understands. Engineering like I do can
almost always be done remotely to a large extent. People are leaving
money on the table hand over fist. For example, I can't find any
freelance tech who'd whip up prototypes at home. Many are unemployed yet
they don't do it. The investment on their part would be less than $1k.
Just one example of many.

Sure, but that is mainly knowledge based work ...



Not really. They are building something strictly per instructions
without a need to understand how the electronic circuitry works.
Prototypes, usually several.


... - if you are building
anything physical that involves more than one family, you need to have
a separate workplace. That is a high proportion of workers who will
never be able to telecommute.



This is what Fedex is for. I use them all the time.


... Increasingly, that is being
taken into account in people's home purchase decisions. You want fast
internet, you have to be close to a major exchange, because fast
digital signals don't get far on existing telco cabling, and running
fibre to your door is expensive, particularly if it's a long way from
the nearest concentrator.
It'll be a longer process in the US, as you have further to go, but
it'll happen.


Nope. We figured this out a long time ago. I have 6MB/sec and could have
a lot more. But since it's used mainly for biz I don't need more.

Unless you are using an unusual notation, you may mean 6Mbps - network
speeds are measured in bits (lower case b), not bytes (capital B).


Yes, sorry, 6Mbits/sec.


I get 55 Mbps down, and 12.5Mbps up - but I have teenagers in the
house!



I can have that from a cable company but then only in conjunction with
cable-TV. No way.


I get it on my telephone line, with fibre reaching to a few hundred
metres away. It's known here as Fibre To The Cabinet (FTTC) and uses
VDSL rather than the ADSL used on pure copper lines.
I'm able to limit the amount of the bandwidth the youngsters take, so
that my pet Network Time Protocol Stratum 1 server always has
bandwidth available - I see clients from all over Europe (although
mostly in the UK, and occasionally further afield than Europe) using
my GPS/PPS system to synchronise their computers (and whole networks)
to. I'm rarely outside the +/- 5µs range.
Note that the last minute (UTC) of this year will have 61 seconds, as
a leapsecond is occurring at that time.



Thanks, I'll start my next ride one second later then so I don't arrive
at the pub at 2:59:59 and find the door locked :-)


There is still a copper link back to the exchange for voice traffic,
so that phones work even in a power cut, when people are most likely
to need to contact emergency services.
The availability of fast (defined officially as 24Mbps+) internet has
become a major factor in house prices here in the UK.



Not here. We can always get Hughes Net via satellite. Most people around
here abhor living in a cramped city space.



... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.

You LIKE your cities choked with cars?


No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot
understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines.

What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I
cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel
pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly
terrain.

Well, it might take a few trips, but it worked for the NVA better than
the massive motorised effort put in by the US in that conflict.



What is the NVA? I suppose you don't mean the former East-German army.


North Vietnamese Army.
The ones who used bicycle transport to hand the highly motorised US
their asses on a plate a few decades back.



Yeah, at almost twice the number of deaths among their soldiers.
Communists typically have a low regard for individual human life.



... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".

Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands?
They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it!


Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's
and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes.

I know it's subtle, but then there are none so blind as those who
don't want to see. THey even have a minor industry selling their
expertise around the world, with study tours showing how motor traffic
is subtly discouraged in some areas and from some routes, and how it
all joins up to create people friendly cities.



I think you are seeing ghosts here :-)

I know, personally, a man who makes his living conducting such tours,
and does so for groups from all over the world.



There is always a microscopic niche market, for just about anything.



Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although
the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and
the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle
friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to
get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave
your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it.
Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as
much as in the US is it now?


Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the
US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower
gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If
people want a car they have one.

Plenty of people have cars, but they don't drive nearly as much, on
average, than anywhere else. Partly because parking is difficult when
you get there, partly because you have to use routes which are subtly
diverted so as to be longer, in both time and distance, than those you
could use on a bicycle. And of course, fuel is expensive. So it's
made shorter by bike, quicker by bike, and less expensive by bike.



Let's debunk that myth right he

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...ts ,_2013.png

NL has more cars per capita than the UK.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2012/1...lometres-a-day

Average 13300km per car in NL.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28546589

Average 12700km per car in UK.

I trust you can do the math.

[...]


All fairly old, and the dates don't even match, so apples and oranges,



Nonsense, it's all just a few years ago and the numbers surely will not
have jumped one year to the other.


particularly as the Dutch distance included foreign trips, but (due to
the greater barriers to motor travel to and from the UK) there is
almost none of that (in statistical terms) on UK average use patterns.



Driving is driving is driving. It pollutes the environment and clogs the
streets. It does not matter where. Maybe you should just admit that you
were wrong?

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #52  
Old December 30th 16, 05:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2016-12-29 16:29, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 29 Dec 2016
14:16:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-28 07:47, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:


[Clarks brake pads]


... Keep an eye on rim wear though -
hard blocks can rip through rims pretty fast.
Of course, they may have improved since my encounters with them, and
you may find they are fine.


A brief spin hinted that the performance is not as good as KoolStop but
I'll see on the next 45 miler into the valley. If the difference is
manageable by pulling harder on the levers it's ok, considering the huge
price difference.

Well, they may improve a bit as they bed in, and the blocks conform
better to the precise shape of the rim.


I shall hope so. We've got a lot of hills here where letting loose is
not an option because of intersections.


43 miles later I have to say the Clarks pads are almost on par with
KoolStop. Can't try them in wet weather for a while because no rain but
in wet weather rim brakes are the pits anyways.

So now my fairly international road bike also has UK parts. "Elite"
brake pads no less :-)


I'll reserve judgment until you find out what they are like in the wet
- I think that may be a higher proportion of the time here than there,
so it may be that what is ok there is less so for utility riding in
the UK (and now I can't ride myself, it's just parts for other bikes
I'm worrying about - principally my kids' bikes).


That'll be a while. The rims did become wet and muddy during a necessary
oddroad stretch and both KoolStop and Clarks reacted the same way, with
compromised braking power (about the same) and an awful grinding noise.
Which is why one requirement for any bike I might ever purchase in the
future is disc brakes front and back.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #53  
Old January 3rd 17, 08:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2017-01-02 17:33, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 30 Dec 2016
08:12:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-29 16:25, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 28 Dec 2016
07:47:21 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:



[...]


Maybe this works:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401

It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer
there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some
muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge.

Similar to the one under the A14 near Stow-cum-Quy, but ours doesn't
have lights - I can't remember if they are fitted but broken or simply
not there. You'd have to stand in there for a few minutes for your
eyes to adjust enough to be able to see broken light fittings, which
would be foolish at best, given the high level of cycle use and the
fact that most are riding blindly towards the light at the other end.


I never rely on road lighting, my bikes both have powerful headlights.
In our tunnel that can really save the day because rattlesnakes in
"cooling off mode" are often coiled up and they blend into the pavement
color. Coild up snakes can strike if you see them too late. So far I
only ran over one on a trail and it was stretched out where they'd have
a hard time striking.

But any decent cycle light will be pointing the light where you really
need it - which isn't the ceiling of the tunnel!



On high beam it should. On MTB it is even essential in a thick forest.
However, why would you want to see the ceiling of the tunnel?

I was merely pointing out why I have no idea if the tunnel ever has
been lit (but the lights are broken) or never been lit at all.
If it has broken lights, it would be possible to get them repaired
with a simple report to the local council.



Where it will be asssigned #150 or so on the priority list and be
performed several decade after you and I have left earth. Maybe. Or
maybe not.


If it never had any lights, getting them installed would be a bigger
problem.



They usually all have lights at least out here. Simple stuff with the
ambience of a Soviet hallway.



[...]


There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit
your needs better than an MTB.


They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here.

They're designed for unsupported expedition touring around the world,
mostly on tracks and unsealed roads. They would survive even your
abuse, unless you set out to deliberately destroy them to prove a
point.


I never saw anything like that here. Or in Europe for that matter.

A good trail bike must survive undamaged when the whole enchilada
becomes airborne and lands hard. I never do that on purpose (except with
the front wheel, of course) but it happens.

If you are doing jumps on a normal utility ride, you need to do it
slower, but never mind, with the weight of bike you want, you will be
anyway. No wonder you find cycling so risky, if you ride as if you
were in a competitive MTB event on every ride.



It's par for the course on some singletrack routes here. Good bikes must
withstand that. Your can't pussyfoot over every rock or tree root.

In most of the world outside Joergville, commuting and singletrack
which includes jumps are considered incompatible.



Huh? I thought you had lived in Namibia.

http://www.bikejuju.com/wp-content/u...Wood_child.jpg

A Namibian ambulance:

http://www.bikejuju.com/wp-content/u...bulance600.jpg


I mean, just because it's possible doesn't make it a good idea.
Someone once street legalised a genuine racing Suzuki RG500 GP bike.
It would be possible to commute on that, but would it be sensible?
What you are trying to do is similar.



I am not trying, I am living it. The El Dorado Trail singletrack is a
route I use regularly for fun and for errands. Also to get to the local
software engineer when we have to work together side by side.



They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny
market for them as the actual building cost.


I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji
Outland or similar.

Try looking at something like the ToutTerrain PanAmericana - you can
even have it with a generator and full wiring harness, with a power
take off for satnav or whatever.


http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/bicycl...ricana-xplore/

Probably very expensive.

But appears to fit your needs without even more expensive
modification.



Not really, I am sure I'd see frame damage quite soon and I can imagine
the price tag to be very high. What I need is almost the same structure
as on a GS1200 Dual-Sport which I soon will have.

And they weigh how much?
You'd need thighs like Chris Hoy and the endurance of Chris Froome to
make any real use of it, even if you can get gearing low enough (off
the shelf) to be able to move it uphill at all.

There's a hell of a difference in the power available between a
bicycle and a GS1200, in case you'd not noticed that little problem.
Maybe you also have the powered bionic exoskeleton to go with your
design!



Start thinking about scale and stuff. Of course I do not need a rack
where a 2nd person can sit on during rough rides. I need one that can
safely transport 20-40lbs. The structure my MTB will have in the back
will become very similar to the GS1200. Have to do that myself because
the bike manufacturers can't get it done. The machined parts are here by
now and partially installed. But need more time to adapt some stuff,
drill, get mounting hardware, and so on. Mainly because anything on an
MTB must be smooth enough not to cause unnecessary injury in a crash.

The MTB will now exceed 40lbs empty weight and that is perfectly ok with me.


I have seen this kind of classic construction, it was popular in the
90's even for forks. The suspension linkage at the axle is too weak.
Could be beefed up by a custom made part though. However, where it would
most likely fail first is where the upper welds to the seat tube are and
then the frame is toast.

The gearbox is cool though. Their are a bit skimpy on specs but it looks
like the front axle is the standard QR deal. Like on my bike. In
conjunction with a large diameter disc brake up front and lots of load
on the bike that would be a big design mistake. Well, maybe not, hard to
see. They should learn more about web site design.

The skills to design good web-sites and design good bicycles are
rather different, and rarely coincide - that, as they say, is life.



Smart business people know where to find help. In a business all aspects
must be taken care of, not just 80% of them.

If they are getting enough work to keep them busy (and even have a
waiting list), there is little point in enhancing their ability to
sell.
Smart business people spend whatever budget they have available on the
weakest links in the chain, not ones which perform adequately for the
current state of the other parts of the business.



Most such businesses I know or rather have known failed because they did
good engineering but completely blew the marketing or accounting. Or both.


[...]



Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.

Yeah, we know.
Danger, Danger!
As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous,
they'll use it as a reason not to ride.


We know better. The last rider here died a week ago.

We don't, because we don't know why.
If he was riding along at night without lights or even reflectors, you
can't claim it's any indication of a general level of danger - 9pm
wasn't it?


They get hit during day and during night. Typically a high speed impact
from behind.

Data from outside your head?



No, from news media.

So another example of data free scaremongering then.



No, real life. Stuff that happened and got reported. Sure enough the
next one was killed this very morning, hit from behind as usual:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124249469.html

Sticking the head in the sand about this is not helpful.



With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you
prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade
of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before
you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for
an ambulance to get there?


It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know
perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my
control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly
drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him.

Those bollards are a hazard, and if you are following another rider (I
know that's very unlikely as long as you keep scaring them off, but
still, it is a slight possibility) who swerves at the last moment to
avoid it, your first sight will be too late to avoid it.


Seriously? You swerve Kamikaze-style where you can't see? Yikes!

An attentive cyclist won't without good reason, but not all cyclists
are attentive - and as cycling is far more popular, so the proportion
of poorly trained cyclists is larger.



They should switch to a car :-)

If someone is inattentive, I'd far rather they were on a bicycle than
in a car - it does at least limit the amount of damage they can do,
and simple self-preservation will teach them some skills.



They'd endanger people on bike paths. Not a good thing.


And paths are poorly swept compared to roads, so the need to make
sudden swerves is more frequent.



Huh?


You've never seen any broken glass on such paths?

Oh, I forgot - you just expect the bike to take care of dealing with
your refusal to take simple riding precautions like looking where you
are going.
Most competent cyclists avoid obstacles - you, on the other hand, seem
to revel in them.



I make sure my bikes have adequate tires, liners and tubes so they can
take typical road litter. Or do you seriously think it would be a good
idea that a car driver swerves into oncoming traffic or cyclist rapidly
swerves into motor traffic every time he sees wood splinters in the lane?


We've had a few cyclists in this area quite badly injured from
striking such bollards, with the result that they are being replaced
with a more visible design. Those ones under the bridge in your video
would be re-sited out of the shadow and painted yellow with reflective
bands.



They can be painted and most of them out here are bright yellow. Again,
a participant in any sort of traffic shall ride in an attentive manner
and at speeds commensurate with the surroundings. I admit that I
sometimes push it a bit on singletrack but I have also learned how to
properly roll in a fall. Or not to fall in the first place, meaning
letting the bike careen a bit where possible.

Including careening off a concrete bollard?
Good luck with that.



No, good MTB riders know how to careen in a predictable fashion. Meaning
without hitting rocks, trees or bollards. On rainy days my MTB is going
partially sideway a lot of the ride. It's even fun.


[...]


Meanwhile, one census point in Cambridge (and not in one of the
busiest cycling areas - the site was chosen so that a linked display
counter would be highly visible to a very congested road, so that
motorists would be encouraged out of their cars, not because it
carried the most cycle traffic) was passed by over a million cyclists
this year, with only about 280,000 people living in what would
conventionally be called cycle commuting range, and around 130,000
actually in the city and it's semi-attached necklace of former
villages.
Your sprawling cities will need to collapse in on themselves and
become far more compact for anything like that level of popularity
there though.


Most American do not want that. They want space and breathing room.

And to be enslaved to the car (which makes a bit of a mockery of the
"breathing room" part).
I've also found that city centre gentrification is happening just as
much there as here, so clearly you aren't speaking for all Americans.
There are clear downsides to living a long way from work (and all the
other facilities) like wasting a lot of your life traveling to and
from work, stores, and other necessary facilities, and poor internet
speeds (which is a matter of physics).


You should come visit. Then you'd know that this isn't true. One has to
be smart and find the best way to handle any potential impact. For
example, my work today happens right here in this office, at home. As it
does every day. My commute is 10 seconds and it's a leisurely stroll
instead of standing jam-packed in some subway.

Fine to work from home if you can, but not all work can be done that
way - in fact, only a tiny proportion can.


A lot of it can but not everyone understands. Engineering like I do can
almost always be done remotely to a large extent. People are leaving
money on the table hand over fist. For example, I can't find any
freelance tech who'd whip up prototypes at home. Many are unemployed yet
they don't do it. The investment on their part would be less than $1k.
Just one example of many.

Sure, but that is mainly knowledge based work ...



Not really. They are building something strictly per instructions
without a need to understand how the electronic circuitry works.
Prototypes, usually several.

So nothing that's in actual series production.



Correct. I write very detailed documentation concurrently with
schematics and other project details and not as an afterthought. They
get that along with the materials. So does my layouter.


... - if you are building
anything physical that involves more than one family, you need to have
a separate workplace. That is a high proportion of workers who will
never be able to telecommute.



This is what Fedex is for. I use them all the time.


OK for single items on an occasional basis, but not for moving things
between stations on a production line.



Sure you can. This is how whole aircraft are built. The wings are made
here, the fuselage over there, the wiring over yonder, and so on.
Nowadays modern electronics are often built the same way except that the
stuff also crosses borders and oceans.

[...]


There is still a copper link back to the exchange for voice traffic,
so that phones work even in a power cut, when people are most likely
to need to contact emergency services.
The availability of fast (defined officially as 24Mbps+) internet has
become a major factor in house prices here in the UK.



Not here. We can always get Hughes Net via satellite. Most people around
here abhor living in a cramped city space.

Yet if you look at the demographics, the overwhelming majority DO live
in cities.
So your "here" must mean the dormitory community you choose to live in
- in other words, a cherry picked subset of the whole.



It is not an overwhelming majority and they often count suburbs and
small town as "non-urban". Yet those are the places where trails are
used. Example: There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.




... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.

You LIKE your cities choked with cars?


No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot
understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines.

What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I
cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel
pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly
terrain.

Well, it might take a few trips, but it worked for the NVA better than
the massive motorised effort put in by the US in that conflict.


What is the NVA? I suppose you don't mean the former East-German army.

North Vietnamese Army.
The ones who used bicycle transport to hand the highly motorised US
their asses on a plate a few decades back.



Yeah, at almost twice the number of deaths among their soldiers.
Communists typically have a low regard for individual human life.

I'm pretty sure that only a relatively small number of the deaths were
in the logistical train, and most were in the combat units.



Often where American soldiers would call a medic or perform heroic
rescue the North-Vietnamese solution was euthanasia by Kalashnikov.


They realised that the US didn't regard anything less than a truck as
a meaningful target worthy of "servicing", and took advantage of that
weakness.



Talk to people who were there instead of guessing.


... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".

Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands?
They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it!


Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's
and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes.

I know it's subtle, but then there are none so blind as those who
don't want to see. THey even have a minor industry selling their
expertise around the world, with study tours showing how motor traffic
is subtly discouraged in some areas and from some routes, and how it
all joins up to create people friendly cities.


I think you are seeing ghosts here :-)

I know, personally, a man who makes his living conducting such tours,
and does so for groups from all over the world.



There is always a microscopic niche market, for just about anything.

Like the bike design you are dreaming up?
How many people have actually expressed serious interest in it (when
in possession of the facts about weight and efficiency penalties),
apart from yourself?



Lots of people but they gave up because they don't want to spend tens of
hours building it.




Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although
the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and
the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle
friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to
get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave
your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it.
Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as
much as in the US is it now?


Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the
US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower
gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If
people want a car they have one.

Plenty of people have cars, but they don't drive nearly as much, on
average, than anywhere else. Partly because parking is difficult when
you get there, partly because you have to use routes which are subtly
diverted so as to be longer, in both time and distance, than those you
could use on a bicycle. And of course, fuel is expensive. So it's
made shorter by bike, quicker by bike, and less expensive by bike.


Let's debunk that myth right he

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...ts ,_2013.png

NL has more cars per capita than the UK.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2012/1...lometres-a-day

Average 13300km per car in NL.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28546589

Average 12700km per car in UK.

I trust you can do the math.

[...]

All fairly old, and the dates don't even match, so apples and oranges,



Nonsense, it's all just a few years ago and the numbers surely will not
have jumped one year to the other.

But there is no common methodology in gathering the data, meaning you
can't usefully compare them.



Right. It wasn't the same guys so you just claim it's all false. Phhht.



particularly as the Dutch distance included foreign trips, but (due to
the greater barriers to motor travel to and from the UK) there is
almost none of that (in statistical terms) on UK average use patterns.



Driving is driving is driving. It pollutes the environment and clogs the
streets. It does not matter where. Maybe you should just admit that you
were wrong?

Try finding out what proportion of trips under 10 miles are conducted
by motor vehicle in various places. Of course a car is going to be
the choice of most for international travel, and that skews the
figures, particularly when another country is so easy to reach that
many near the border select different counties for different parts of
their shopping list, depending on prices or quality.
The cost of crossing the English Channel makes that sort of travel
uneconomic from here. There is NO cost in simply shopping in a
different city that happens to be on the other side of a line drawn on
a map - and may even be closer than one on the same side of that line.


The numbers aren't much different in other European countries. The fact
is that driving a car in the Netherlands is just about as convenient as
it is in the UK, France, Spain, whatever.


A few years ago I was speaking at a meeting of a UN committee on
inclusion when they visited Cambridge for the launch of an initiative
to make cycling accessible to people with disabilities, and mentioned
that it was fitting that such an initiative be launched here in
Cambridge, as it was the only place in the UK which could come close
to matching Dutch levels of cycling, a fact which was acknowledged by
the Dutch representative on the committee.

But of course, you have to know better than the Dutch representative
to a UN committee, don't you?


Sometimes yes. England does not consist of just Cambridge. You have said
yourself that most of England has paltry to no cycling infrastructure.
The Netherlands does and it is pretty much covering the whole country.
Not just one college town.


I mean, you (and apparently Jute) are the worlds leading experts in
absolutely everything!



No. However, I do know when facts presented by others are wrong. Sorry
to say but in this case you are wrong and the data clearly bears that out.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #54  
Old January 4th 17, 06:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2017-01-03 18:52, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2017-01-02 17:33, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 30 Dec 2016
08:12:20 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-29 16:25, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 28 Dec 2016
07:47:21 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-27 13:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 27 Dec 2016
08:03:05 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-26 13:10, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
09:01:18 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-25 01:15, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
12:56:32 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-23 10:24, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Wed, 21 Dec 2016
14:19:25 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-21 13:11, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 20 Dec 2016
13:27:04 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-19 18:59, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Mon, 19 Dec 2016
13:57:12 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-12-17 21:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/17/2016 5:22 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-12-17 14:05, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Fri, 16 Dec 2016
13:51:14 -0800 the perfect time to write:



[...]


Maybe this works:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...026ed2d5844401

It's the tunnel underneath Highway 50. Quite spooky because in summer
there can be rattlesnakes in there that want to cool off. Or some
muggers with knives jump into the path when you emerge.

Similar to the one under the A14 near Stow-cum-Quy, but ours doesn't
have lights - I can't remember if they are fitted but broken or simply
not there. You'd have to stand in there for a few minutes for your
eyes to adjust enough to be able to see broken light fittings, which
would be foolish at best, given the high level of cycle use and the
fact that most are riding blindly towards the light at the other end.


I never rely on road lighting, my bikes both have powerful headlights.
In our tunnel that can really save the day because rattlesnakes in
"cooling off mode" are often coiled up and they blend into the pavement
color. Coild up snakes can strike if you see them too late. So far I
only ran over one on a trail and it was stretched out where they'd have
a hard time striking.

But any decent cycle light will be pointing the light where you really
need it - which isn't the ceiling of the tunnel!


On high beam it should. On MTB it is even essential in a thick forest.
However, why would you want to see the ceiling of the tunnel?

I was merely pointing out why I have no idea if the tunnel ever has
been lit (but the lights are broken) or never been lit at all.
If it has broken lights, it would be possible to get them repaired
with a simple report to the local council.



Where it will be asssigned #150 or so on the priority list and be
performed several decade after you and I have left earth. Maybe. Or
maybe not.

Or it could be fixed the next day. Certainly here, once that kind of
thing is reported, the council is liable for any damage or injury in
which the failed infrastructure plays any part. This is a great
incentive to them in fixing things which are broken.



In the US they've weaseled themselves out of that. As evidenced by the
Oakland warehouse fire that killed dozens. Despite numerous filed
complaints the city hadn't inspected the place for 30 (!) years. In one
interview it was mentioned that city governments have "immunity". It's
wrong.

Some people (rightfully) sued the city anyhow. Let's see what results. I
hope that some government employees there get fired, and soon.


If it never had any lights, getting them installed would be a bigger
problem.



They usually all have lights at least out here. Simple stuff with the
ambience of a Soviet hallway.

Depends where it is - the one I describe is in a place where
electrical power would not be easy to supply.
That doesn't mean that they haven't, but is a possible reason why they
may not have - the tunnel is completely straight, so just aiming for
the light at the end is feasible, and they may not have thought it
worthwhile.



Here they use solar in such places except for short tunnels. Keeping
long tunnels dark is not smart. They are also used by pedestrians who
typically do not carry headlights and taillights.


[...]


There are a few fully suspended touring bikes, which would seem to fit
your needs better than an MTB.


They'd break on the trails. Trail riding is a necessity out here.

They're designed for unsupported expedition touring around the world,
mostly on tracks and unsealed roads. They would survive even your
abuse, unless you set out to deliberately destroy them to prove a
point.


I never saw anything like that here. Or in Europe for that matter.

A good trail bike must survive undamaged when the whole enchilada
becomes airborne and lands hard. I never do that on purpose (except with
the front wheel, of course) but it happens.

If you are doing jumps on a normal utility ride, you need to do it
slower, but never mind, with the weight of bike you want, you will be
anyway. No wonder you find cycling so risky, if you ride as if you
were in a competitive MTB event on every ride.


It's par for the course on some singletrack routes here. Good bikes must
withstand that. Your can't pussyfoot over every rock or tree root.

In most of the world outside Joergville, commuting and singletrack
which includes jumps are considered incompatible.



Huh? I thought you had lived in Namibia.


I've visited. I've never claimed to have lived there, and I don't
know how you got that idea.



You claimed you rode a normal bicycle over deeply rutted roads there.

Anyway, the world is larger than your big island and there are many
places where dirt tracks are used as regular routes. Check out the Intel
bicycle parking lots in Folsom. There is a reason why the majority of
bikes are MTB. In the Bay Area it is different.


http://www.bikejuju.com/wp-content/u...Wood_child.jpg

A completely standard bicycle with no suspension beyond that provided
by the tyres.

A Namibian ambulance:

http://www.bikejuju.com/wp-content/u...bulance600.jpg

Still no suspension other than the tyres, on either the bicycle or
trailer.



Because they can't afford that.


I mean, just because it's possible doesn't make it a good idea.
Someone once street legalised a genuine racing Suzuki RG500 GP bike.
It would be possible to commute on that, but would it be sensible?
What you are trying to do is similar.



I am not trying, I am living it. The El Dorado Trail singletrack is a
route I use regularly for fun and for errands. Also to get to the local
software engineer when we have to work together side by side.

If it's subject to that much use, it needs to be improved so that
jumps are smoothed out and super-strong bicycles aren't necessary to
ride it. The target should be a track that's usable by the bikes (and
trailers) you showed links to in Namibia.



Nah, people out here know how to ride those. Many are capable of keeping
a good clip like on this route from Lotus to Folsom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cjAW_nrl4


They aren't cheap mind you, but that is as much because of the tiny
market for them as the actual building cost.


I have not seen anything with the robust trail performance of a Fuji
Outland or similar.

Try looking at something like the ToutTerrain PanAmericana - you can
even have it with a generator and full wiring harness, with a power
take off for satnav or whatever.


http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/bicycl...ricana-xplore/

Probably very expensive.

But appears to fit your needs without even more expensive
modification.


Not really, I am sure I'd see frame damage quite soon and I can imagine
the price tag to be very high. What I need is almost the same structure
as on a GS1200 Dual-Sport which I soon will have.

And they weigh how much?
You'd need thighs like Chris Hoy and the endurance of Chris Froome to
make any real use of it, even if you can get gearing low enough (off
the shelf) to be able to move it uphill at all.

There's a hell of a difference in the power available between a
bicycle and a GS1200, in case you'd not noticed that little problem.
Maybe you also have the powered bionic exoskeleton to go with your
design!



Start thinking about scale and stuff. Of course I do not need a rack
where a 2nd person can sit on during rough rides. I need one that can
safely transport 20-40lbs. The structure my MTB will have in the back
will become very similar to the GS1200. Have to do that myself because
the bike manufacturers can't get it done. The machined parts are here by
now and partially installed. But need more time to adapt some stuff,
drill, get mounting hardware, and so on. Mainly because anything on an
MTB must be smooth enough not to cause unnecessary injury in a crash.

The MTB will now exceed 40lbs empty weight and that is perfectly ok with me.

Plus your gallons of water (or beer) for coping with the punishing
terrain and climate (which doesn't seem to be regarded as necessary in
Namibia, despite the even harsher climate).



As I said before, it is not wise to constantly ignore the longterm
effects of dehydration. Once ailments from that set it it is too late.

Going 3-4h full bore on a 105F day without a gallon of fluid is foolish.
Yet people out here do that. More than once have I given a 16.9oz bottle
to someone who was totally parched. One we had to almost revive and we
thought he wouldn't make it.


I have seen this kind of classic construction, it was popular in the
90's even for forks. The suspension linkage at the axle is too weak.
Could be beefed up by a custom made part though. However, where it would
most likely fail first is where the upper welds to the seat tube are and
then the frame is toast.

The gearbox is cool though. Their are a bit skimpy on specs but it looks
like the front axle is the standard QR deal. Like on my bike. In
conjunction with a large diameter disc brake up front and lots of load
on the bike that would be a big design mistake. Well, maybe not, hard to
see. They should learn more about web site design.

The skills to design good web-sites and design good bicycles are
rather different, and rarely coincide - that, as they say, is life.


Smart business people know where to find help. In a business all aspects
must be taken care of, not just 80% of them.

If they are getting enough work to keep them busy (and even have a
waiting list), there is little point in enhancing their ability to
sell.
Smart business people spend whatever budget they have available on the
weakest links in the chain, not ones which perform adequately for the
current state of the other parts of the business.



Most such businesses I know or rather have known failed because they did
good engineering but completely blew the marketing or accounting. Or both.

If they can sell every bike they make, and at a profit, they are
successful by any normal definition.



Do they? AFAIK it is a small company in Gundelfingen, formed in 2006.
Not something like Specialized or Giant which really grew fast.


[...]



Right now I am building a strut system that allows a more safe carrying
of luggage on a full suspension bike that the simmple seat tube rack
that will (and has) failed over time. Has it really never occurred to
bicycle design engineers that trail riders need ... water? And clothes,
and tools, and food, and ...


When you can get a drivers permit at so young an age and so easily as
in all the states I know about, ....


It's changing. The recent generation is know for a serious lack of
interest in obtaining a driver's license. They are happy in their little
virtual cyber world. Sad.

Maybe - but if their lack of interest in travel leads to fewer of them
gaining driving permits, they are more likely to cycle when they do
need to travel, particularly for local trips.


Not at all. They generally do not even own a bicycle and don't want one.
They simply do not travel. Until some day ... oh dang ... they can't get
a job.

Many of them look like a blimp by the time they are past 20.

That's where policies like promoting active travel to schools help.
Although we do have that problem here, it is not as prevalent as
there, because the UK is a pretty compact place generally, and as long
as you don't live a long way out in the county, the chances are you
will be in cycle commuting range of some kind of job, even if you are
unfit.


Here they often don't even have bike racks at school. Our local high
school (Ponderosa High, Cameron Park, CA) can only be reached by narrow
2-lane fast roads. Nobody in their right mind cycles there regularly.

So rather similar to the narrow 2-lane roads that nearly all cycling
in the UK takes place on, except for ours being generally more
twisting, narrower and with a higher speed limit!


People die on those out here and many more are hurt so bad that there
are nasty consequences for them. I and nearly all my cycling friends
will not ride there. They certainly won't let their kids cycle there.

Yeah, we know.
Danger, Danger!
As long as you and your friends keep telling people it's dangerous,
they'll use it as a reason not to ride.


We know better. The last rider here died a week ago.

We don't, because we don't know why.
If he was riding along at night without lights or even reflectors, you
can't claim it's any indication of a general level of danger - 9pm
wasn't it?


They get hit during day and during night. Typically a high speed impact
from behind.

Data from outside your head?


No, from news media.

So another example of data free scaremongering then.



No, real life. Stuff that happened and got reported. Sure enough the
next one was killed this very morning, hit from behind as usual:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124249469.html

Sticking the head in the sand about this is not helpful.

Leaving out any details which would allow other cyclists to avoid such
a collision is even less so.
Were there any turnings nearby? Could the cyclist have been
attempting to turn left and moved into the stream of motor traffic
(relying on his blinky and helmet to preserve his life) without making
a shoulder check?
Have the cellphone records of both drivers been checked to see if they
were distracting themselves in that way?
Too many unanswered questions, and not enough to reach any conclusion.



The pattern is very clear. We have about one such accident every month.
The conclusion for most cyclists including myself is to use the car on
such routes and not the bicycle.




With the right training, they are as safe or safer than the routes you
prefer (I noticed the very solid bollards hidden nicely in the shade
of the bridge over that route you posted the link to - how long before
you were even found after hitting one of them, never mind how long for
an ambulance to get there?


It's about car drivers, not cyclist. Hence no training effect. I know
perfectly well not to careen into a bollard and this is fully under my
control. However, I cannot control the driver coming from behind, slowly
drifting because he is looking at who may have just text-messaged him.

Those bollards are a hazard, and if you are following another rider (I
know that's very unlikely as long as you keep scaring them off, but
still, it is a slight possibility) who swerves at the last moment to
avoid it, your first sight will be too late to avoid it.


Seriously? You swerve Kamikaze-style where you can't see? Yikes!

An attentive cyclist won't without good reason, but not all cyclists
are attentive - and as cycling is far more popular, so the proportion
of poorly trained cyclists is larger.


They should switch to a car :-)

If someone is inattentive, I'd far rather they were on a bicycle than
in a car - it does at least limit the amount of damage they can do,
and simple self-preservation will teach them some skills.



They'd endanger people on bike paths. Not a good thing.

They'd endanger even more people with a couple of tons of steel around
them, which is an even worse thing.
Freedom to travel is a right, using a motor vehicle to do so is a
privilege, for which permission can (and should) be withheld if there
is any question over the person's ability to do so safely.



A judge can also take away the right to ride a bicycle if someone is
proven to be a danger and won't correct.


And paths are poorly swept compared to roads, so the need to make
sudden swerves is more frequent.


Huh?

You've never seen any broken glass on such paths?

Oh, I forgot - you just expect the bike to take care of dealing with
your refusal to take simple riding precautions like looking where you
are going.
Most competent cyclists avoid obstacles - you, on the other hand, seem
to revel in them.



I make sure my bikes have adequate tires, liners and tubes so they can
take typical road litter. Or do you seriously think it would be a good
idea that a car driver swerves into oncoming traffic or cyclist rapidly
swerves into motor traffic every time he sees wood splinters in the lane?

Any decent cyclist avoids running over such hazards whenever possible.
If you can't stop before running over it, you are exceeding your
ability to ride safely and competently. And you are trying to evade
your responsibility to ride safely by making your machine proof to
your own misbehaviour.



Wrong. A machine that is made tough enough can safely be ridden across
such obstacles. That is the whole concept of mountain bikes.


We've had a few cyclists in this area quite badly injured from
striking such bollards, with the result that they are being replaced
with a more visible design. Those ones under the bridge in your video
would be re-sited out of the shadow and painted yellow with reflective
bands.


They can be painted and most of them out here are bright yellow. Again,
a participant in any sort of traffic shall ride in an attentive manner
and at speeds commensurate with the surroundings. I admit that I
sometimes push it a bit on singletrack but I have also learned how to
properly roll in a fall. Or not to fall in the first place, meaning
letting the bike careen a bit where possible.

Including careening off a concrete bollard?
Good luck with that.



No, good MTB riders know how to careen in a predictable fashion. Meaning
without hitting rocks, trees or bollards. On rainy days my MTB is going
partially sideway a lot of the ride. It's even fun.

But you admit to not making any attempt to avoid other hazards, like
glass.



Because I don't have to.


You really need to take some lessons in safe riding - my youngest
child (still at primary school) knows better than you do.



Nonsense.

[...]

... - if you are building
anything physical that involves more than one family, you need to have
a separate workplace. That is a high proportion of workers who will
never be able to telecommute.


This is what Fedex is for. I use them all the time.

OK for single items on an occasional basis, but not for moving things
between stations on a production line.



Sure you can. This is how whole aircraft are built. The wings are made
here, the fuselage over there, the wiring over yonder, and so on.
Nowadays modern electronics are often built the same way except that the
stuff also crosses borders and oceans.

Not by fedex!



You'd be surprised what they can do. They even have a spacecraft desk.

http://www.fedex.com/us/space-solutions/index.html


And the factories aren't spare bedrooms of the employees, either.
Believe it or not, they have to travel to their place of work.



That can very often be avoided. If people are smart.


[...]


There is still a copper link back to the exchange for voice traffic,
so that phones work even in a power cut, when people are most likely
to need to contact emergency services.
The availability of fast (defined officially as 24Mbps+) internet has
become a major factor in house prices here in the UK.


Not here. We can always get Hughes Net via satellite. Most people around
here abhor living in a cramped city space.

Yet if you look at the demographics, the overwhelming majority DO live
in cities.
So your "here" must mean the dormitory community you choose to live in
- in other words, a cherry picked subset of the whole.



It is not an overwhelming majority and they often count suburbs and
small town as "non-urban". Yet those are the places where trails are
used. Example: There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?



The way it happens in all countries. Automotive won that competition. A
new tehcnology comes in and crowds out the old one. Just like it
happened when cellular phon technology began eating into the market of
landline services.


... The areas with the most cycle traffic are right in the
old city centre, which is (with a few exceptions) a car-free zone.
A similar counter next to great St Mary's church would probably run at
about twice the rate, since nearly all the traffic is cycles, and it's
crossed by a number of routes between colleges and university
departments so there is a lot of student traffic, very nearly all on
cycles (you have to be disabled or have some other special need to be
allowed to bring of keep a car anywhere near the University of
Cambridge as an undergraduate), and similar rules are in place for
Anglia Ruskin University - so strict that my wife will need special
dispensation when she starts her degree there, despite our being local
residents. She certainly won't be allowed to drive there, in any
case, and there isn't any parking for cars at all.
Eliminating the space allocated to the idle storage of motor vehicles
goes a long way towards making cities more compact, while
simultaneously making them more cycle friendly.


That's not how America tends to solve the problem and I am grateful that
it isn't done.

You LIKE your cities choked with cars?


No, I do not like cities at all. I have lived in them and cannot
understand why anyone would lile to like like in a can of sardines.

What I certainly do not want is some government entity telling me that I
cannot drive to and from my house. Like today where I need to buy fuel
pellets. It is a wee problem to haul half a ton on a bicycle in hilly
terrain.

Well, it might take a few trips, but it worked for the NVA better than
the massive motorised effort put in by the US in that conflict.


What is the NVA? I suppose you don't mean the former East-German army.

North Vietnamese Army.
The ones who used bicycle transport to hand the highly motorised US
their asses on a plate a few decades back.


Yeah, at almost twice the number of deaths among their soldiers.
Communists typically have a low regard for individual human life.

I'm pretty sure that only a relatively small number of the deaths were
in the logistical train, and most were in the combat units.



Often where American soldiers would call a medic or perform heroic
rescue the North-Vietnamese solution was euthanasia by Kalashnikov.

What bearing does that have on their use of bicycles?



I was referring to your illusion that their army is better, not to bicycles.



They realised that the US didn't regard anything less than a truck as
a meaningful target worthy of "servicing", and took advantage of that
weakness.



Talk to people who were there instead of guessing.


I have spoken to people who were there, and that is plain, unvarnished
fact!



So have I and they all told a very different story.




... There's little that
encourages motorists out of their cars more readily than sitting in
stationary motor traffic while a steady stream of cyclists passes
them, but of course if you move all that cycle traffic onto separated
facilities, they are out of sight and mind of the drivers.


I believe in the more positive encouragements to cycling. Like people
experience it in the Netherlands. Car use is not discouraged there, at
least it was not in the 80's when I lived there. However, they have a
near perfect cycling infrastructure and the mindset of the population is
such that if someone would suggest going to a nearby restaurant by car
people would squint their eyes "You've got to be kidding, right?".

Car use is not discouraged in the Netherlands?
They TAUGHT the rest of the world how to do it!


Nope. Unless it has changed. I lived there for many years in the 80's
and car use was easy. We just _chose_ to take the bikes.

I know it's subtle, but then there are none so blind as those who
don't want to see. THey even have a minor industry selling their
expertise around the world, with study tours showing how motor traffic
is subtly discouraged in some areas and from some routes, and how it
all joins up to create people friendly cities.


I think you are seeing ghosts here :-)

I know, personally, a man who makes his living conducting such tours,
and does so for groups from all over the world.


There is always a microscopic niche market, for just about anything.

Like the bike design you are dreaming up?
How many people have actually expressed serious interest in it (when
in possession of the facts about weight and efficiency penalties),
apart from yourself?



Lots of people but they gave up because they don't want to spend tens of
hours building it.

So set up a shop, employ someone with suitable skills, and make them
available - according to you, demand would be high enough to make it
worthwhile.



As I said many times man can only do so much in 24 hours. I am already
busy developing and inventing electronics for medical, aerospace,
oil/gas, agriculture, automotive and some other field. I'd love to get
my hands on other technology such pellet stoves where one really feels
like stepping into the age of the Flintstones. However, there is no time
for more. Also, at some point in life most people want to throttle back
towards gradual retirement and I am now at that point.



Sure, you can get most places by car if you really need to, although
the entry cost is high compared to most places (both for the car and
the driver testing and licensing) but with very low (i.e cycle
friendly) speed limits in cities, and often very convoluted routes to
get from one part of a city or town to another. And nowhere to leave
your motor vehicle except briefly as you load or unload it.
Not to mention the cost of running a car in the NL - how many times as
much as in the US is it now?


Slightly higher than in Germany. No big deal for regular people. In the
US it is cheaper than probably most of Europe mainly because of lower
gasoline taxes but that's got almost nothing to do with car use. If
people want a car they have one.

Plenty of people have cars, but they don't drive nearly as much, on
average, than anywhere else. Partly because parking is difficult when
you get there, partly because you have to use routes which are subtly
diverted so as to be longer, in both time and distance, than those you
could use on a bicycle. And of course, fuel is expensive. So it's
made shorter by bike, quicker by bike, and less expensive by bike.


Let's debunk that myth right he

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...ts ,_2013.png

NL has more cars per capita than the UK.

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2012/1...lometres-a-day

Average 13300km per car in NL.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-28546589

Average 12700km per car in UK.

I trust you can do the math.

[...]

All fairly old, and the dates don't even match, so apples and oranges,


Nonsense, it's all just a few years ago and the numbers surely will not
have jumped one year to the other.

But there is no common methodology in gathering the data, meaning you
can't usefully compare them.



Right. It wasn't the same guys so you just claim it's all false. Phhht.

It's not false, but it is also not comparable.
It is perfectly possible for different groups to use a common
methodology to ensure their data is comparable, but what you linked to
has made no attempt to do that. The only thing it may be useful for
is to compare year on year comparisons in the same place, to see how
use is changing, and I would suggest that was probably the purpose and
intent of the researchers.



Nit-picking. The data bears out the facts.



particularly as the Dutch distance included foreign trips, but (due to
the greater barriers to motor travel to and from the UK) there is
almost none of that (in statistical terms) on UK average use patterns.


Driving is driving is driving. It pollutes the environment and clogs the
streets. It does not matter where. Maybe you should just admit that you
were wrong?

Try finding out what proportion of trips under 10 miles are conducted
by motor vehicle in various places. Of course a car is going to be
the choice of most for international travel, and that skews the
figures, particularly when another country is so easy to reach that
many near the border select different counties for different parts of
their shopping list, depending on prices or quality.
The cost of crossing the English Channel makes that sort of travel
uneconomic from here. There is NO cost in simply shopping in a
different city that happens to be on the other side of a line drawn on
a map - and may even be closer than one on the same side of that line.


The numbers aren't much different in other European countries. The fact
is that driving a car in the Netherlands is just about as convenient as
it is in the UK, France, Spain, whatever.

From town to town, yes, but not within one town or city.



Sure it is. I lived there. I also drove around with my car a lot in
places like Rotterdam because I had to carry a lot of gear and stuff.
Big deal. It was easy.


A few years ago I was speaking at a meeting of a UN committee on
inclusion when they visited Cambridge for the launch of an initiative
to make cycling accessible to people with disabilities, and mentioned
that it was fitting that such an initiative be launched here in
Cambridge, as it was the only place in the UK which could come close
to matching Dutch levels of cycling, a fact which was acknowledged by
the Dutch representative on the committee.

But of course, you have to know better than the Dutch representative
to a UN committee, don't you?


Sometimes yes. England does not consist of just Cambridge. You have said
yourself that most of England has paltry to no cycling infrastructure.
The Netherlands does and it is pretty much covering the whole country.
Not just one college town.

The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.



One lone example does not prove anything.


Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!



Milton Keynes bungled lots of it and everyone knows that. Except for
those with the heads in the sand.


Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!



Because people could not afford cars. Once they could it changed in just
about all countries with paltry or wrongly built cycling infrastructure.
Yet not in the Nethelands because they built cycling infrastructure
correctly. So people largely kept that mode of transportation.

I lived close to the German and Belgium borders and the difference in
cycle use on either side versus NL could not have been more extreme. The
reasons are very clear.


Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.



It is not.

http://investinholland.com/infrastructure/road-rail/



I mean, you (and apparently Jute) are the worlds leading experts in
absolutely everything!



No. However, I do know when facts presented by others are wrong. Sorry
to say but in this case you are wrong and the data clearly bears that out.


You haven't provided any real data.


I did. Well, doesn't matter, keep the head in the sand about it like
some others do.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #55  
Old January 4th 17, 08:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 1/3/2017 9:52 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:
There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?


The situation Joerg describes can be a problem. I heard about a similar
thing occurring in southern Ohio, where what had been a two lane highway
was converted to a freeway, and bicyclists were prohibited. The state
bike advocacy organization tried to get the prohibition overturned, but
the state department of transportation (which is frequently not
cooperative) said that too few cyclists used that road and that parallel
routes were available. They were probably right on the low bike usage,
but the parallel routes are so hilly that they're prohibitive.

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've
seen indicates no real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put
up with the bad aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough
to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right
of way, and afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the
crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be the big problem with
most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And providing some extra
separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the
noise level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.


The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.
Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!
Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!
Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.


I agree that discouragement of motor vehicles is necessary to achieve
high bike mode share. Unfortunately, I don't see that discouragement
happening to any notable degree in the U.S. That's why I think our bike
mode share will never exceed a percent or two, despite the daydreamer's
fantasies.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #56  
Old January 4th 17, 09:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Stephen Harding[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 01/04/2017 02:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in cities, I don't
think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've seen indicates no real safety
problem; and most cyclists willing to put up with the bad aesthetics of those roads
are probably dedicated enough to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments should build (and
later maintain) a separate bike path within that right of way, and afterward maintain
it properly. In rural areas, the crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be
the big problem with most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And providing some
extra separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the noise
level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's costs would be small.


I've biked divided highways during some of my bike touring and while I always felt
safe on the roads, the noise was really annoying over a period of hours.

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that constant noise
from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of generally easy riding.

Technically, on many of these Interstates and other divided highways that allow
bicycles (mostly in western states), riders are supposed to exit each off-ramp, then
return on the corresponding on-ramp.

While I understand the safety reasons for requiring that, I never actually did that.
But if I were on a heavily trafficked highway like I-95, etc., I think I'd use the ramps.

I was always quite happy to return to regular roads after riding a divided highway
for a few hours or day!


SMH

  #57  
Old January 4th 17, 09:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 2017-01-04 11:26, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2017 9:52 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Tue, 03 Jan 2017
11:57:40 -0800 the perfect time to write:
There is no safe way to get to Placerville by bicycle
other than singletrack. Placerville is a city. Riding on Highway 50 is
prohibited.

Yes, we know you don't live in a civilised country (where bicycles
have the right to use public highways) but in a barbarian backwater
where any cyclist on a road is considered fair game and potential
roadkill. What is so special about Highway 50, and how was the
right-of-way for non-motorised traffic lost?


The situation Joerg describes can be a problem. I heard about a similar
thing occurring in southern Ohio, where what had been a two lane highway
was converted to a freeway, and bicyclists were prohibited. The state
bike advocacy organization tried to get the prohibition overturned, but
the state department of transportation (which is frequently not
cooperative) said that too few cyclists used that road and that parallel
routes were available.



The latter is often a plain lie.


... They were probably right on the low bike usage,
but the parallel routes are so hilly that they're prohibitive.

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've
seen indicates no real safety problem; and most cyclists willing to put
up with the bad aesthetics of those roads are probably dedicated enough
to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and later maintain) a separate bike path within that right
of way, and afterward maintain it properly. In rural areas, the
crossing conflicts are few, and those tend to be the big problem with
most bike lanes, even "protected" ones.



Not in Folsom, they were smarter. Often you can even pick between a
tunnel and an overpass. I can leave here in the middle of rush hour yet
I can predict to within a few minutes when I will be at a destination 20
miles away. No chance in a car.

Sometimes they went a bit over the top in fanciness:

http://chrachel.com/wp-content/uploa...5-1024x683.jpg

On freeways there is a way to do this on the cheap but it's not a scenic
ride and it's noisy: Use the median for a bike path, with hard-turn
ramps at exits.

From Sacramento to Davis they provide a bike path next to the freeway
but I prefer riding on dirt sans noise, Diesel smell and all that.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._bike_path.jpg


... And providing some extra
separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce the
noise level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.



However, the planners and decision makers don't get it. Instead, they
equip some non-essential roads with bike infrastructure as show-off
projects. The result is that us cyclists regularly have to travel the
dirt paths seen here, past where the road ends:

https://goo.gl/maps/Z4PM2YyLbyL2

This is real fun on a road bike after it has rained. Even more so while
it is raining.


The parts of the UK with cycling infrastructure have almost no
cycling, whereas Cambridge, with almost no dedicated infrastructure,
leads the country in cycle use. Because it's the only place that
discourages car use.
Basingstoke, Stevenage, Milton Keynes, Harlow, and others were new
towns built with excellent cycling infrastructure, but almost no
cycling at all. Build it and they will drive instead, as long as you
don't discourage them!
Mass use of cycles in The Netherlands preceded the dedicated
infrastructure by decades!
Discouragement is pretty subtle in The Netherlands, mostly consisting
of NOT providing huge multi-lane highways into town and city centres
or allowing motor vehicles to dominate the urban environment.


I agree that discouragement of motor vehicles is necessary to achieve
high bike mode share. Unfortunately, I don't see that discouragement
happening to any notable degree in the U.S. That's why I think our bike
mode share will never exceed a percent or two, despite the daydreamer's
fantasies.


Which is good enough for the US. It means zero in some rural areas
without bike paths but 5% or more in some urban areas such as Portland
with good cycling infrastructure. The health effect of 1-2% country-wide
versus zero is tremendous. Those people usually remain net contributors
to a health care system instead of net loads. Also to the economy
because the get sick less often. Ever since I started serious riding
against I never had more than a few days of sniffles or sneezing, and
even that only once (while nearly everyone around me came down hard with
some flu bug).

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #58  
Old January 4th 17, 09:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Ambulance: was: Age and Heart Rates

On Wed, 04 Jan 2017 02:52:42 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote:

http://www.bikejuju.com/wp-content/u...bulance600.jpg


I love the sunshade on the trailer -- the passenger looks quite
comfortable.

It might be perspective, but the tires on the trailer appear to be
significantly fatter than the tires on the bike. The cot appears to
be supported by the axles indirectly, by way of long tubes that can
bend a little, and the fabric supporting the patient is also connected
indirectly, by lacing that serves as "rope springs". I'd still hate
to ride in it with a broken bone.

I'm not terribly fond of riding in *anything* with a broken bone!

I'd hoped for other views, but the link to Namibia on Bike Juju's home
page led to an attack page that Pale Moon refused to open without
permission that I didn't feel like giving.

So I DuckDucked "rope spring" and learned that the right name for what
the passenger is lying on is "sacking bottom". At least when it's
part of an antique bed.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/



  #59  
Old January 5th 17, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Age and Heart Rates

On 1/4/2017 3:40 PM, Stephen Harding wrote:
On 01/04/2017 02:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've biked many, many miles on limited access roads, and except in
cities, I don't
think bikes should be generally prohibited. Data I've seen indicates
no real safety
problem; and most cyclists willing to put up with the bad aesthetics
of those roads
are probably dedicated enough to be reasonably competent.

But I do think that when such a road is built, highway departments
should build (and
later maintain) a separate bike path within that right of way, and
afterward maintain
it properly. In rural areas, the crossing conflicts are few, and
those tend to be
the big problem with most bike lanes, even "protected" ones. And
providing some
extra separation from parallel traffic would at least slightly reduce
the noise
level. The percentage increase of the road construction project's
costs would be small.


I've biked divided highways during some of my bike touring and while I
always felt safe on the roads, the noise was really annoying over a
period of hours.

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that
constant noise from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of
generally easy riding.

Technically, on many of these Interstates and other divided highways
that allow bicycles (mostly in western states), riders are supposed to
exit each off-ramp, then return on the corresponding on-ramp.

While I understand the safety reasons for requiring that, I never
actually did that. But if I were on a heavily trafficked highway like
I-95, etc., I think I'd use the ramps.

I was always quite happy to return to regular roads after riding a
divided highway for a few hours or day!


I agree with all that. I'll just note that on our coast-to-coast tour,
there were times I wanted to choose a route that used side roads. I was
amazed that I was outvoted by my wife and daughter, who preferred the
interstates.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #60  
Old January 5th 17, 12:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Highways: was: Age and Heart Rates

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:40:52 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

The breakdown lanes kept 70+ mph cars at a safe distance, but that constant noise
from tires especially really degraded any enjoyment of generally easy riding.


The noise didn't bother me until I had to call for a ride after
flatting on the sharp debris that gets swept into the breakdown lane
and then sits there until it dissolves in the rain.

I managed to get enough between-semi time to communicate my location,
and gave up using US 30. Except when I'm strong enough to go to
Spring Creek; between Larwill and Spring Creek, there are no alternate
routes. But the rumble strip is (or was; I wasn't strong enough last
summer) non-lethal.

And if I want to get from the bread outlet to Aldi, I have to use 30,
but this is a very short distance, and most of the breakdown lane
doubles as right-turn lane, so debris isn't a problem.

Riprap, on the other hand:
http://www.wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/CENT2016/riprap53.jpg
that slope begins exactly at the edge of the pavement. I measured the
distance between the *not*-non-lethal rumble strip and the edge of the
pavement once, and found it wider than expected -- I think I'd thought
it was eighteen inches and found it to be two feet, but I can't find
my note. Kinder hair raising if I'm tired and have a lot of weight in
my panniers.

I think I prefer the other direction even though it means crossing 30
twice, and both intersections have stop lights.

(30 is much easier to cross out in the country, as one can cross to
the median and wait there for another hole, instead of madly dashing
across six lanes and a median.)

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/


 




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
Max heart rates and age Choppy Warburton Racing 30 June 13th 11 09:12 PM
Max heart rates and age Fredmaster of Brainerd Racing 1 June 10th 11 09:53 AM
Tdf 'live' Heart rates cupra UK 2 July 18th 07 12:55 AM
decrease of heart rates le-sheq Techniques 4 March 1st 06 12:33 AM
Heart rates. Simon Mason UK 0 January 21st 06 08:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 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.