|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
I am that out of date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
|
|||
|
|||
I am that out of date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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |