|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:48:45 -0800 (PST), Oculus Lights
wrote: Wow, what huge response. Plaid flannel shirt, cuffed chinos, black thin belt, and a brimmed beret (not what its called but never got to learn what that kind of hat is) It's not a beret. More like an "ivy newsboy cap": https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=ivy+newsboy+cap However, if you want to look like the drawing instead of the photo, maybe a multi-colored propeller hat: https://www.google.com/search?q=propeller+hat&tbm=isch Black Converse sneakers with ?? what kind of sox? I still have a pair of such "tennis shoes". Center row, right side at the end: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/shoes.html Socks were either white cotton or wool in assorted drab colors (brown, gray, tan). Welcome to retrocycling. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
Oculus Lights wrote:
On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 3:41:11 PM UTC-8, Oculus Lights wrote: Anyone have pictures or know of vintage 40's clothing sources? Wow, what huge response. Plaid flannel shirt, cuffed chinos, black thin belt, and a brimmed beret (not what its called but never got to learn what that kind of hat is) Black Converse sneakers with ?? what kind of sox? Also love the Phil Rizzuto MVP Rolfast and Mickey Mantle glove promo ads. Thx all, Barry Glad you realized that your life is more than that light you build. BTW, look who else is starting(?) to use diffuse reflection: http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:39:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: Turned up cuffs on jeans were common. We rolled up our jeans because they were too long. Don't roll up jeans that are already the correct length. Nothing should be shorter than mid-shin. Exposed knees were indecent. Most pants, particularly children's pants and everyday pants, were too long so that one leg-length could be sold to everybody. The farm-wife magazines urged women to cut off their husband's overalls, and not let them fold up cuffs -- cuffs were dangerous around farm machinery. Cuffs on girl's pants were not a problem -- if we wanted to play on the machinery, we would be wearing play suits. (Matching shirt and shorts made from chicken-feed sacks.) Jeans were for weenie roasts and hikes. The *younger* girls wore play suits. The two older wore bathing suits because they wanted a tan, and traffic on our road increased considerably when one of them was plowing. I can't remember what I wore between play suits and house dresses. We moved to Florida just then, so it was probably jeans for play. Definitely dresses for school. Women's jeans have long been extinct, replaced by "designer jeans" of no use for riding bikes or picking strawberries. Women's bikes were designed to accommodate skirts. When my older sisters got bikes, Dad wouldn't let them get that kind because stuff marketed to women isn't built properly. (This is still true today.) When I grew old enough to ride, my uncle made me a bike out of the good parts of the older girl's bikes. I like to never learned how to ride, because I'm a good deal shorter than them, and it took me longer to grow into it. I'd never heard of bike fit, and assumed that I was a slow learner. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On 1/21/2018 12:15 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:39:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Turned up cuffs on jeans were common. We rolled up our jeans because they were too long. Don't roll up jeans that are already the correct length. Nothing should be shorter than mid-shin. Exposed knees were indecent. Most pants, particularly children's pants and everyday pants, were too long so that one leg-length could be sold to everybody. The farm-wife magazines urged women to cut off their husband's overalls, and not let them fold up cuffs -- cuffs were dangerous around farm machinery. Cuffs on girl's pants were not a problem -- if we wanted to play on the machinery, we would be wearing play suits. (Matching shirt and shorts made from chicken-feed sacks.) Jeans were for weenie roasts and hikes. The *younger* girls wore play suits. The two older wore bathing suits because they wanted a tan, and traffic on our road increased considerably when one of them was plowing. I can't remember what I wore between play suits and house dresses. We moved to Florida just then, so it was probably jeans for play. Definitely dresses for school. Women's jeans have long been extinct, replaced by "designer jeans" of no use for riding bikes or picking strawberries. Women's bikes were designed to accommodate skirts. When my older sisters got bikes, Dad wouldn't let them get that kind because stuff marketed to women isn't built properly. (This is still true today.) When I grew old enough to ride, my uncle made me a bike out of the good parts of the older girl's bikes. I like to never learned how to ride, because I'm a good deal shorter than them, and it took me longer to grow into it. I'd never heard of bike fit, and assumed that I was a slow learner. In those days, women's jeans had a side zipper or buttons besides the pattern differences. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 16:42:42 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2018 12:15 PM, Joy Beeson wrote: On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:39:58 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Turned up cuffs on jeans were common. We rolled up our jeans because they were too long. Don't roll up jeans that are already the correct length. Nothing should be shorter than mid-shin. Exposed knees were indecent. Most pants, particularly children's pants and everyday pants, were too long so that one leg-length could be sold to everybody. The farm-wife magazines urged women to cut off their husband's overalls, and not let them fold up cuffs -- cuffs were dangerous around farm machinery. Cuffs on girl's pants were not a problem -- if we wanted to play on the machinery, we would be wearing play suits. (Matching shirt and shorts made from chicken-feed sacks.) Jeans were for weenie roasts and hikes. The *younger* girls wore play suits. The two older wore bathing suits because they wanted a tan, and traffic on our road increased considerably when one of them was plowing. I can't remember what I wore between play suits and house dresses. We moved to Florida just then, so it was probably jeans for play. Definitely dresses for school. Women's jeans have long been extinct, replaced by "designer jeans" of no use for riding bikes or picking strawberries. Women's bikes were designed to accommodate skirts. When my older sisters got bikes, Dad wouldn't let them get that kind because stuff marketed to women isn't built properly. (This is still true today.) When I grew old enough to ride, my uncle made me a bike out of the good parts of the older girl's bikes. I like to never learned how to ride, because I'm a good deal shorter than them, and it took me longer to grow into it. I'd never heard of bike fit, and assumed that I was a slow learner. In those days, women's jeans had a side zipper or buttons besides the pattern differences. You wouldn't care to replace your Signature block with the Title "The Old Sage" would you? When I was a wee little fellow we were still on the farm and my mother had, till she died, a photograph in the "picture album" of herself and two filthy little creatures barefoot and clad in shorts. It turned out that the before bedtime clean up consisted of being marched out to the pump - mother's thumb and forefinger clenching the ear - and a good scrub down with a bristle brush (while the brother pumped). -- Cheers, John B. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:20:02 +0100, Sepp Ruf
wrote: BTW, look who else is starting(?) to use diffuse reflection: http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg Well, let's grind the numbers. http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ABOUT/LATESTRELEASE/20180110/ http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ILLUMINATION/BL/BR35/ The basic specs a 2x XM_L2(U2) LED's 1800 lumens total 7750 candelas 170 meters throw 6800 ma-hr battery 17 hrs runtime. Data sheet: http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXML2.pdf The XM_L2(U2) at 3700-5000K, 2 Amps, and 85C delivers 728 lumens (see Pg 3). At 2 amps, the voltage across the LED is 3.1 volts (see Pg 6) for a power dissipation of: 2A * 3.1v = 6.2 watts per LED There are two LED's and some loss from the reflector and lens. My guess is about 15% loss for the tiny reflectors for: 728 * 0.85 = 619 lumens per LED There are two LED's yielding 1240 lumens and 12.4 watts dissipation. Efficacy for the XM_L2(U2) is therefo 1240 lumens / 12.4 watts = 100 lumens/watt which is about right. (Without the lens and reflector, efficacy would be 117 lumens/watt which is about what I would expect). Assuming they run the battery down to 10% capacity before pulling the plug to save the battery, that would give: 6800 * 0.90 = 6120 ma-hr available In terms of watt-hrs, that's 6.120 Amp-hrs * 3.6V(avg) = 22 watt-hrs The LED's present a load of 12.4 watts resulting in a runtime of: 22 watt-hrs / 12.4 = 1.8 hrs at full brightness. So, the real output is 1240 lumens, not 1800 lumens and the real max brightness runtime is 1.8 hrs, not 17 hrs. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 8:34:37 AM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 14:20:02 +0100, Sepp Ruf wrote: BTW, look who else is starting(?) to use diffuse reflection: http://flashlight.nitecore.com/render/w1280-q90/12.ILLUMINATION/18.BL/1.BR35/BR35_EN_15.jpg Well, let's grind the numbers. http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ABOUT/LATESTRELEASE/20180110/ http://flashlight.nitecore.com/ILLUMINATION/BL/BR35/ The basic specs a 2x XM_L2(U2) LED's 1800 lumens total 7750 candelas 170 meters throw 6800 ma-hr battery 17 hrs runtime. Data sheet: http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXML2.pdf The XM_L2(U2) at 3700-5000K, 2 Amps, and 85C delivers 728 lumens (see Pg 3). At 2 amps, the voltage across the LED is 3.1 volts (see Pg 6) for a power dissipation of: 2A * 3.1v = 6.2 watts per LED There are two LED's and some loss from the reflector and lens. My guess is about 15% loss for the tiny reflectors for: 728 * 0.85 = 619 lumens per LED There are two LED's yielding 1240 lumens and 12.4 watts dissipation. Efficacy for the XM_L2(U2) is therefo 1240 lumens / 12.4 watts = 100 lumens/watt which is about right. (Without the lens and reflector, efficacy would be 117 lumens/watt which is about what I would expect). Assuming they run the battery down to 10% capacity before pulling the plug to save the battery, that would give: 6800 * 0.90 = 6120 ma-hr available In terms of watt-hrs, that's 6.120 Amp-hrs * 3.6V(avg) = 22 watt-hrs The LED's present a load of 12.4 watts resulting in a runtime of: 22 watt-hrs / 12.4 = 1.8 hrs at full brightness. So, the real output is 1240 lumens, not 1800 lumens and the real max brightness runtime is 1.8 hrs, not 17 hrs. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 I don't believe anyone who claims that a battery powered light that runs on 4 AA batteries have more effective light output after 1-2 hours than my dynohub powered Edelux II light from 10-15 km/hr and up. Lou |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens would you estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver? (Yes, I know that the brightest light is not always the best light). The hub nominally produces about 3 watts of power: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to whatever current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100 lumens/watt LED efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most that could be delivered is: 100 lumens/watt * 3 watts = 300 lumens I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to have some more lumens even if I don't use them. Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology? "I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I never need them." Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE! Just like lumens. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
1940's bicycle clothing
On 1/22/2018 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/22/2018 12:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Since you mention hub powered lights, how many lumens would you estimate (or calculate) that your dynohub can deliver? (Yes, I know that the brightest light is not always the best light). The hub nominally produces about 3 watts of power: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/Shimano3N70.php Assuming 100% conversion efficiency from hubs AC output to whatever current source powers the LED(s), and assuming 100 lumens/watt LED efficacy including the lens and reflector losses, the most that could be delivered is: 100 lumens/watt * 3 watts = 300 lumens I won't pass judgement on whether 300 lumens is adequate for every possible style of night time cycling, but personally, I would like to have some more lumens even if I don't use them. Does that apply to other aspects of bicycle technology? "I don't know if 48 spokes are adequate for every bicycle wheel, but personally, I would like to have more than 48 spokes per wheel even if I never need them." Most high-end bike headlights are like 62 spoke wheels. How do you fit 62 spokes into a wheel? Well, you run a bunch of extra spokes from one spot on the rim to another spot on the rim. Sure, they're going in a direction that's totally useless, but it's still better, because, like, it's MORE! Just like lumens. 72 spoked wheel is a product: http://www.statussuspension.com/lowr...h-76-35-1.html -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | May 14th 08 09:58 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Social Issues | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |