Some Old Tech ideas that seem weird

Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

Cheers

On 10/11/15 09:51, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

http://www.shop.view-speed.com/View-...0098715948.htm

"Sir Ridesalot" wrote in message
...
Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came
across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could
pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the
handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look
up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and
not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

A few decades ago there was a craze for large plastic disks that clipped to
the spokes for the appearance of a solid wheel - handy if you want your kids
blown under a truck by a gust of wind.

On 11/10/2015 2:51 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

Cheers

While we are mocking the advanced works of others, may I remind you sir
that you that you are *still* not DOING AWAY WITH ALL FRICTION

http://www.norcom2000.com/users/dcim...rockets_01.png
---tiny---
http://tinyurl.com/nn6h2rn

While researching the bicycles of the ancients I found a lot of items of
what I would politely term "questionable usefulness". This one I saved
because it was WAY out there....

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:52:00 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

Cheers

Top notch racers can ride totally on the drops so the exact angle becomes important to them. Through practice they set the bar angle by rolling it in the stem. These adjustable bars sort of played to the amateur who had been informed of this. But I could NEVER ride on the drops for very far.

The mirror again played to the amateur racer who was not flexible enough to twist his head all the way back while on the drops. You'd see these sorts of things on Categorized racers back in the 80's and it slowly died down in the 90's.

The weird things we have today is a completely meaningless grasping for the lightest bikes possible no matter how dangerous they become. The "flaky" looking carbon fiber that you see with some equipment like Campy is actually graphine which is manufactured in those chips. Although graphine is a single molecule thick and has the highest known tensile strength because it can only be manufactured in those relatively small flakes about the only use on a bike is for looks. They do not increase the strength of the layups. These are mostly heavy carbon cords with a finish coat of carbon cloth or graphine flakes.

And the increasing number of speeds which really only makes sense on mountain bikes with VERY wide ratios. If you are running a 12-25, 11 speeds is meaningless. The lower ratios do not get closer together - that is the jump between a 52/12 and 52/13 remains the same no matter how many ratios you have.

This is why I have contended that for the average cyclist 8 speeds were optimal. The chains, sprockets and cogs were wide enough to wear really well and still offer enough ratios so that you always had the proper gear for the proper conditions. Today's 11 speeds and the soon to be released 12 speeds wear so fast that you will be replacing chains and gears every year.

But as they say, there's one born every minute.

On 11/18/2015 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 12:52:00 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Whilst looking through some 1981 and 1982 BICYCLING magazines I came across some ads for some what i thought of as weird stuff.

One was for an adjustable drop handlebar. The hooks of the bars could pivot.

Another was for a mirror that mounted in front of and below the handlebar/stem so that you could see ahead of you without having to look up. That mirro was aparently made so that the view was 'Real life' and not a mirror image.

I thought both things were weird.

Cheers

Top notch racers can ride totally on the drops so the exact angle becomes important to them. Through practice they set the bar angle by rolling it in the stem. These adjustable bars sort of played to the amateur who had been informed of this. But I could NEVER ride on the drops for very far.

The mirror again played to the amateur racer who was not flexible enough to twist his head all the way back while on the drops. You'd see these sorts of things on Categorized racers back in the 80's and it slowly died down in the 90's.

The weird things we have today is a completely meaningless grasping for the lightest bikes possible no matter how dangerous they become. The "flaky" looking carbon fiber that you see with some equipment like Campy is actually graphine which is manufactured in those chips. Although graphine is a single molecule thick and has the highest known tensile strength because it can only be manufactured in those relatively small flakes about the only use on a bike is for looks. They do not increase the strength of the layups. These are mostly heavy carbon cords with a finish coat of carbon cloth or graphine flakes.

And the increasing number of speeds which really only makes sense on mountain bikes with VERY wide ratios. If you are running a 12-25, 11 speeds is meaningless. The lower ratios do not get closer together - that is the jump between a 52/12 and 52/13 remains the same no matter how many ratios you have.

This is why I have contended that for the average cyclist 8 speeds were optimal. The chains, sprockets and cogs were wide enough to wear really well and still offer enough ratios so that you always had the proper gear for the proper conditions. Today's 11 speeds and the soon to be released 12 speeds wear so fast that you will be replacing chains and gears every year.

But as they say, there's one born every minute.


I'm not an expert on composites but if you hang most carbon
things in midair and strike them you get a dull thud.
Campagnolo carbon cranks ring like their forged aluminum
cranks. This may or may not have meaning but it's impressive.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 19/11/15 09:55, AMuzi wrote:


I'm not an expert on composites but if you hang most carbon things in
midair and strike them you get a dull thud. Campagnolo carbon cranks
ring like their forged aluminum cranks. This may or may not have meaning
but it's impressive.


Is that an industry standard test?

--
JS