A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

I am that out of date



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old April 24th 21, 03:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default I am that out of date

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 8:59:48 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/22/2021 10:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 10:33 PM, wrote:

I somehow forgot about clipless pedals. They are a HUGE
improvement. I started with Time Equipe road pedals back
in the late 1980s, early 1990s. Same ones Lemond used.

Interestingly, the guy who set our club's record for club
mileage (11,000+ miles of club rides, not counting his
individual rides) just got a new pair of shoes for riding.
They're ordinary New Balance sneakers. He rides using toe
clips.

There are also the occasional barefoot marathon runner and
US football kicker. They are outliers.


One of our club riders mentioned that most falls on bicycles stems from
people not getting their feet out of clips rapidly enough. So he reverted
to flat pedals. Now he cannot keep up on any climbs. And people with
training can get out of pedals just as fast as he can step off of a flat
pedal since they are ready to clip out when the conditions warrant care.

Can’t say I have found any performance difference at all, I used clipless
for a few years on my first road bike, was fine, never struggled to clip in
or out or had a clip less moment but I never loved them.

Few years back bought a CX bike for hacking about the woods plus road and
put some MTB flats on, and used my MTB flat shoes, ie pedals with pins in,
plus shoes with soft tacky tread.

In short with proper flats you can’t slide the shoe but have to lift to
reposition, unlike the road flats which are frankly terrifying slippy.

I’ve done 100+ miles on them, climbed up big mountains, tackled seriously
steep climbs etc.

I’ve seen opinions dressed as science with huge gains for clipless but
proper stuff the gains is marginal, apparently. Which certainly echoes my
experience.

Interesting the pulling up, gain is very difficult to prove.

Roger Merriman

Ads
  #92  
Old April 24th 21, 05:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default I am that out of date

On 4/24/2021 10:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

One of our club riders mentioned that most falls on bicycles stems from
people not getting their feet out of clips rapidly enough. So he reverted
to flat pedals. Now he cannot keep up on any climbs. And people with
training can get out of pedals just as fast as he can step off of a flat
pedal since they are ready to clip out when the conditions warrant care.

Can’t say I have found any performance difference at all, I used clipless
for a few years on my first road bike, was fine, never struggled to clip in
or out or had a clip less moment but I never loved them.


I've never used clipless, but long ago I sometimes used classic cleats
with toe clips and straps for time trials. I can't say they made a
noticeable difference compared to flat touring shoes with clips and
straps. And when our kid was riding a lot with us, she changed to
clipless. There was no notable change in her power.

I know a lot of people claim their power output increased tremendously
with foot retention schemes. But I think it's impossible to avoid a
placebo effect with something so obvious.


Few years back bought a CX bike for hacking about the woods plus road and
put some MTB flats on, and used my MTB flat shoes, ie pedals with pins in,
plus shoes with soft tacky tread.

In short with proper flats you can’t slide the shoe but have to lift to
reposition, unlike the road flats which are frankly terrifying slippy.

I’ve done 100+ miles on them, climbed up big mountains, tackled seriously
steep climbs etc.

I’ve seen opinions dressed as science with huge gains for clipless but
proper stuff the gains is marginal, apparently. Which certainly echoes my
experience.

Interesting the pulling up, gain is very difficult to prove.


I've seen studies measuring pedal force during crank rotation. I've
never seen one confirm an upward force on the rear pedal. If it happens,
it must be very rare or temporary, like perhaps pulling hard from a
standing stop.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #93  
Old April 24th 21, 06:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default I am that out of date

wrote:
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 11:25:17 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 9:22:00 PM UTC-5, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 14:33:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I remember the arguments of yore in this forum, about who could be
called a "real cyclist." IIRC, many posters thought the "real cyclists"
were the ones who used the posters' equipment choice.
And I say that you aren't a serious cyclist if you can't carry two
gallons of milk, or at least an attaché case.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Two gallons of milk? Now disregarding the idea that I would ever ever
ever buy two gallons of milk at once, I don't need to have a full spare
gallon when I am using the first half of the first gallon. Carrying two
gallons is hard. One gallon is easy. I can easily ride one handed and
carry the gallon milk in the other. But trying to carry two gallons at
once? I can and do occasionally ride no handed. But that is only once I
get up to speed. I never start no handed riding from a stand still. And
carrying two gallons in one hand, that might be really hard. About 17
pounds of weight and grabbing both of the handles in a gallon jug at
once. I'm going to stick with riding with one gallon milk at a time.
Carrying an attache case and a gallon of milk both in the same hand would be hard too.

With the right hardware, 2 gallons of milk is a breeze. I’ve done tours
where the bike plus four loaded panniers weighed 75 pounds.


Thankfully I never tried to carry that much weight on my loaded tours
with four panniers. If I went to the grocery store with a touring bike
and panniers, I could easily carry 2 or 4 gallons of milk. But I am not
sure riding a loaded touring bike with panniers would officially qualify
me as a "real cyclist".


The entire “real cyclist” thing is a red herring. All that riding a fully
loaded touring bike does is establish me as a member of a niche
demographic. I used to go to the Vancouver bike show every year and it used
to be packed with either carbon fibre skinny-tired road bikes or full
suspension downhill mountain bikes. Recently e-bikes were added to the mix.
In an entire convention centre full of stuff, I would typically see one
bike I would consider buying.

  #94  
Old April 24th 21, 07:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default I am that out of date

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 16:03:16 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:


Incidentally, if you need a good laugh, look at what's being offered
by the industry as the next big thing in fashion:
https://wwd.com
https://wwd.com/wwd-publications/digital-daily/thursdays-digital-daily-april-22-2021/
Hint: The next big thing in fashion is usually what the fringe
elements of society are currently wearing.


Have you seen any internet stories about what Hollywood people are wearing?
I think I have seen them wearing G string bikini things where their whole butt
is visible and some with little pieces of metal the size of quarters covering
their breasts. And things on their heads that would make a peacock envious.
I'm not exactly sure the word "conservative" is applicable.


I don't have any inside information on what Hollyweird or the fashion
industry is offering. It's not difficult to guess what it might be.
Just look at what the counter-culture or anti-social groups are
wearing. For example, tattoos have been rather fashionable for years.
The more elaborate the design, the better. So, the fashion industry
offers clothes with computer generated designs vaguely resembling
tattoos. Fortunately, I don't think that tattoo style clothing is
going to sell very well. For a while, it was fashionable for men to
dress as they had just been released from jail. During the first and
2nd gulf wars, there were some short lived promotions of military
style clothing. Work clothes are always interesting in that they sell
best to those who have performed very little physical labor in their
lives. I'm sure if I could recall some more examples if I had a few
more hours of sleep.

Hollywood is well positioned to contrive and maintain a fashion trend.
When Disney bought most of the entertainment industry, they
immediately turned product branding into a major money maker:
https://blog.hollywoodbranded.com/real-world-brands-through-product-placement-in-zootopia-infographic
Clothing is a big part of product placement, where the wardrobe of the
major starts were expected to create a fashion trend and bring huge
sales to the sponsors. For example, the Dr Strange movie had many
references and plugs for wrist watches, which was losing sales to
smartphones. It was almost as if Benedict Cumberbatch was there
solely to display his wrist watch and drawer full of watches, to the
audience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDmjjrP-ofY
However, Marvel screwed up by featuring ultra-expensive wrist watches
that the viewing public was unlikely to buy. Oh well.

As for some of the weird clothing appearing in movies and WWD, they're
most something for clothing designers and fashion makers to stay busy
between fads, mostly showcasing the abilities of the designers rather
than producing anything worth buying. Creativity for hire or
something similar.

The bicycling industry is far from immune to chronic overdoses of
creativity. We have "concept designs" which are futuristic bicycles
that are often barely rideable, difficult to manufacture, impossible
to ship, and usually end up costing too much. Never mind
repairability as they typically are not ridden long enough to need
repair.
https://www.google.com/search?q=concept+bicycle&tbm=isch
https://www.thecoolist.com/custom-bicycle-concepts-10-amazing-bikes-of-the-future/
https://www.yankodesign.com/tag/bicycle/ (27 pages)
https://www.pinterest.com/muskegmike/bicycles-of-concept/
Mo
https://www.google.com/search?q=concept+bicycle&hl=en
So, why bother with concept bicycles? While none of the concept
designs are ready to sell and ride, they all have ideas that can be
borrowed and grafted onto mainstream bicycles. New ideas also need to
be tested. Many times, experiments in new materials, geometry, and
technology result in something unexpected and useful. If a concept
geometry doesn't fit neatly into the various cycling sub-activities,
it doesn't take much to invent a new activity to fit. For example,
gravel bicycles.

I could go on forever with such rants, but I'll be merciful and stop
here.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #95  
Old April 24th 21, 08:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default I am that out of date

On 4/24/2021 1:22 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:

The entire “real cyclist” thing is a red herring. All that riding a fully
loaded touring bike does is establish me as a member of a niche
demographic. I used to go to the Vancouver bike show every year and it used
to be packed with either carbon fibre skinny-tired road bikes or full
suspension downhill mountain bikes. Recently e-bikes were added to the mix.
In an entire convention centre full of stuff, I would typically see one
bike I would consider buying.


When I was a newly minted avid adult cyclist, I was charmed by naked
racing bikes - so light, so slim, not a single extra gram! I even spent
a brief time drooling over drillium.

I'm at another end of the spectrum now. At a bike show, I'd probably
spend more time looking at details of fenders, how a rack is attached or
some better way of carrying a practical load.

I went the same way with motorcycles. Perfectly sanitary crotch rockets
no longer interest me. I like to see a bike that looks like it has been
traveling around the world for a few decades.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #96  
Old April 24th 21, 08:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default I am that out of date

On 4/24/2021 2:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The bicycling industry is far from immune to chronic overdoses of
creativity. We have "concept designs" which are futuristic bicycles
that are often barely rideable, difficult to manufacture, impossible
to ship, and usually end up costing too much. Never mind
repairability as they typically are not ridden long enough to need...

So, why bother with concept bicycles? While none of the concept
designs are ready to sell and ride, they all have ideas that can be
borrowed and grafted onto mainstream bicycles. New ideas also need to
be tested.


I suspect people bother with "bold, innovative concept" bicycles because
they just got out of some Industrial Design degree program and want to
show they can think "out of the box" better than the next guy with an
Industrial Design degree. I doubt more than 1% of those designs or their
features are ever seriously considered for production.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #97  
Old April 25th 21, 01:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default I am that out of date

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:42:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

But I am not sure riding a loaded touring bike with panniers would officially qualify me as a "real cyclist".



I said "serious", not "real".

The toddler paddling back and forth on the front porch is just as real
as the racer halfway across America and the subsistance farmer hauling
a live pig to market.

On the other hand, the bike-balancer blindly blasting through a stop
sign on the wrong side of the road isn't a cyclist at all.

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



  #98  
Old April 25th 21, 02:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default I am that out of date

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:31:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/24/2021 2:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The bicycling industry is far from immune to chronic overdoses of
creativity. We have "concept designs" which are futuristic bicycles
that are often barely rideable, difficult to manufacture, impossible
to ship, and usually end up costing too much. Never mind
repairability as they typically are not ridden long enough to need...

So, why bother with concept bicycles? While none of the concept
designs are ready to sell and ride, they all have ideas that can be
borrowed and grafted onto mainstream bicycles. New ideas also need to
be tested.


I suspect people bother with "bold, innovative concept" bicycles because
they just got out of some Industrial Design degree program and want to
show they can think "out of the box" better than the next guy with an
Industrial Design degree. I doubt more than 1% of those designs or their
features are ever seriously considered for production.


It's probably much less than 1%. It's like email spam. The rate of
successful sales is probably 1 in 100,000 spam messages. But, when
the cost of sending 100,000 spam messages is nearly zero, that one
sale makes the effort worthwhile. Over the years, I've learned that
innovation comes in two flavors. One is intentional innovation, also
known as development. One starts with a problem and a collection of
known limitations. One then pounds on the problems with all the tools
available to engineers, in a manner similar to from existing designs,
and eventually produce a tiny incremental product improvement. The
other flavor comes from out of self field, doesn't solve any known
problems and creates a new market. Often, the first attempt is a
hopeless disaster, obviously incapable of doing anything useful, and
denounced by all the experts as impractical, useless, unsellable, etc.
However, if the those in charge of funding can recognize the promise
and are willing to gamble that the experts are wrong, then the idea
will eventually be developed, tested, certified safe, and sold to the
public.

Hint: If all the experts say something won't work, won't sell or
won't be worth the time and money, take another look. That's usually
an indication of a good idea:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #99  
Old April 25th 21, 03:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default I am that out of date

On 4/24/2021 9:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:31:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/24/2021 2:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The bicycling industry is far from immune to chronic overdoses of
creativity. We have "concept designs" which are futuristic bicycles
that are often barely rideable, difficult to manufacture, impossible
to ship, and usually end up costing too much. Never mind
repairability as they typically are not ridden long enough to need...

So, why bother with concept bicycles? While none of the concept
designs are ready to sell and ride, they all have ideas that can be
borrowed and grafted onto mainstream bicycles. New ideas also need to
be tested.


I suspect people bother with "bold, innovative concept" bicycles because
they just got out of some Industrial Design degree program and want to
show they can think "out of the box" better than the next guy with an
Industrial Design degree. I doubt more than 1% of those designs or their
features are ever seriously considered for production.


It's probably much less than 1%. It's like email spam. The rate of
successful sales is probably 1 in 100,000 spam messages. But, when
the cost of sending 100,000 spam messages is nearly zero, that one
sale makes the effort worthwhile. Over the years, I've learned that
innovation comes in two flavors. One is intentional innovation, also
known as development. One starts with a problem and a collection of
known limitations. One then pounds on the problems with all the tools
available to engineers, in a manner similar to from existing designs,
and eventually produce a tiny incremental product improvement. The
other flavor comes from out of self field, doesn't solve any known
problems and creates a new market. Often, the first attempt is a
hopeless disaster, obviously incapable of doing anything useful, and
denounced by all the experts as impractical, useless, unsellable, etc.
However, if the those in charge of funding can recognize the promise
and are willing to gamble that the experts are wrong, then the idea
will eventually be developed, tested, certified safe, and sold to the
public.

Hint: If all the experts say something won't work, won't sell or
won't be worth the time and money, take another look. That's usually
an indication of a good idea:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt


I like the fact that nuclear fusion is (what was it?) 15 years away. And
has been forever.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #100  
Old April 25th 21, 05:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default I am that out of date

On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 22:52:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/24/2021 9:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:31:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/24/2021 2:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The bicycling industry is far from immune to chronic overdoses of
creativity. We have "concept designs" which are futuristic bicycles
that are often barely rideable, difficult to manufacture, impossible
to ship, and usually end up costing too much. Never mind
repairability as they typically are not ridden long enough to need...

So, why bother with concept bicycles? While none of the concept
designs are ready to sell and ride, they all have ideas that can be
borrowed and grafted onto mainstream bicycles. New ideas also need to
be tested.


I suspect people bother with "bold, innovative concept" bicycles because
they just got out of some Industrial Design degree program and want to
show they can think "out of the box" better than the next guy with an
Industrial Design degree. I doubt more than 1% of those designs or their
features are ever seriously considered for production.


It's probably much less than 1%. It's like email spam. The rate of
successful sales is probably 1 in 100,000 spam messages. But, when
the cost of sending 100,000 spam messages is nearly zero, that one
sale makes the effort worthwhile. Over the years, I've learned that
innovation comes in two flavors. One is intentional innovation, also
known as development. One starts with a problem and a collection of
known limitations. One then pounds on the problems with all the tools
available to engineers, in a manner similar to from existing designs,
and eventually produce a tiny incremental product improvement. The
other flavor comes from out of self field, doesn't solve any known
problems and creates a new market. Often, the first attempt is a
hopeless disaster, obviously incapable of doing anything useful, and
denounced by all the experts as impractical, useless, unsellable, etc.
However, if the those in charge of funding can recognize the promise
and are willing to gamble that the experts are wrong, then the idea
will eventually be developed, tested, certified safe, and sold to the
public.

Hint: If all the experts say something won't work, won't sell or
won't be worth the time and money, take another look. That's usually
an indication of a good idea:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Premature-Judgement.txt


I like the fact that nuclear fusion is (what was it?) 15 years away. And
has been forever.


Grumble. That has nothing to do with anything I mentioned. Just
because it's a good idea (i.e. fusion power) doesn't mean that it will
be functional, practical, profitable, or safe. Some things are just
plain difficult.

How about a cure for ALL cancers?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-V_MDVgISo
It too will probably take 10 to 15 years to obtain research funding
and for all the agencies and departments to sign off on a treatment:
"Vaccine Development, Testing, and Regulation"
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation
With government help, add an additional 10 to 15 years. I'll probably
be dead before that makes it out of the lab. A friend is currently
being treated with an early version of this treatment, which teaches
his immune system to fight the cancer. It's working better than
expected.

Waiting for advanced Lithium batteries to appear on the market? While
Li-Ion cells can do about 250 watt-hrs/liter, solid state Lithium
batteries can probably do up to 700 watt-hrs/liter and Lithium-Air can
probably do 1000 watt-hrs/liter. More energy in a smaller package
would be great for electric bicycles. You'll have to wait until
Li-Ion has become a low profit commodity for a new technology to
replace it. The major producers have quite a bit invested in today's
technology and are unlikely to move forward until the returns on those
investments decrease.

It's not enough to design something, make it work, fund development,
obtain approvals, and show off prototypes. The timing has to be
right, the market needs to be there, and the resulting design had
better not kill profits on the patent holders existing products.

Some day, we'll all be riding around on fusion powered, electric motor
driven eBikes.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
 




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
What date is it? lardyninja UK 5 April 3rd 09 06:46 PM
need a date look here Donald Munro Racing 0 May 27th 06 11:21 AM
need a date look here Donald Munro Racing 0 May 27th 06 11:16 AM
need a date look here Donald Munro Racing 0 May 27th 06 11:15 AM
Perfect date Claire Petersky General 19 April 15th 05 03:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.