A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles

"Default" <user_sucking@the_host.smooth> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on

the

Quoted message said:

right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the left side too (and have two chains)?
(duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty consistently for a few months and
have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've noticed in the last couple of months
that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more muscular development than my left leg.
What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a little imagination into it. The whole
point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

I hope this is a troll.

Personally, I actually took off my left pedal and crank. Its just a waste of weight. I also
amputated my left leg at the hip. Now I'm so much faster, and only slightly gangrenous.

Jon Bond

Default said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented.

[troll snipped]

Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with a
linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.

Default said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the
left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty
consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've
noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more
muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a
little imagination into it. The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

Try a Harley-Davidson or a Kawasaki. They have very different mechanisms. Your legs will feel much
better and you'll be happier.

Jon Bond said:

Quoted message said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. I've been cycling pretty consistently
for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've noticed in the
last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more muscular
development than my left leg. What's the point of that?

Personally, I actually took off my left pedal and crank. Its just a waste of weight. I also
amputated my left leg at the hip. Now I'm so much faster, and only slightly gangrenous.

Jon Bond

You are well behind the times John. The latest generation of cyclists are amputating their ears to
improve the laminar air flow around the side of their heads.

I'm curious as to what happens when your remaining leg gets cramp though. Wouldn't your bike sport
surgeon who follows you in the support car need several hours to reattach your other leg? I think
you may find you lose a race in the future because of your mindless fettish on weight.

SNOOPY

--
Join the fight against aggressive, unrepentant spammers 'china-netcom'. E-mail me for more details

--

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- newsfeeds.comnewsfeeds.comOpen ↗ - The #1
Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In article said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the
left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty
consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've
noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more
muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a
little imagination into it. The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

Clearly you are the perfect candidate for riding an Ordinary!

Where? Got any pics of such a machine?

chris

Quoted message said:

Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with a
linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.

In article said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the
left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty
consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've
noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more
muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a
little imagination into it. The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

That's what we get for having the stupidity to use something is essentially unchanged since 1885
when J.K. Starley of England introduced his "Rover Safety Bicycle." (per Scientific American, March
1973). Now that someone has revealed the travesty (sure took long enough) we can get going. All we
need to do is put two back wheels on the bike and have the chain down the middle. *All* we need is a
differential to keep the wheels from scuffing when cornering.

Until this can be accomplished we can combat your asymetry by outfitting you with a "Penny Farthing"
or, if the altitude proves troublesome, Hot Wheels.

Tom Gibb <[email hidden]

[email hidden] (TBGibb) wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Until this can be accomplished we can combat your asymetry by outfitting you with a "Penny
Farthing" or, if the altitude proves troublesome, Hot Wheels.

Check it out, the ultimate symetric drive human powered vehicle. High tech titanium construction.
Super stable ride. Rear suspension. Weighs under 20 pounds. Price is only $850.

216.247.25.241merchant.mvOpen ↗ Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=T&Category_Code=

In article said:

Why don't they put the crancks on the left side too (and have two chains)?

You might be interested to have a look at: "Subject 8i.4 Alenax Bicycle" in the FAQ, which is
located at: draco.acs.uci.edurbfaqOpen ↗

cheers, Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn
[point] bc [point] ca

In article said:

Where? Got any pics of such a machine?

chris

Quoted message said:

Actually, there are bikes in which the circular motion of the pedals has been replaced with a
linear, up/down motion, which is more efficient.

Please don't top post.

Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in documentable
form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That they have all been
abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's alleged bicycle used treadles
rather than pedals 150 years ago.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Default
Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the pedal
cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the left side
too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty consistently
for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've noticed in the last
couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more muscular development than
my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a little imagination into it.
The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

Well <default> buddy, what you need to do is amputate your genitalia which (small though they may be) clearly interefere with your spin cadence. This will certainly have the desired effect of equalizing your leg fattiness.

You're welcome.

Scotty

Default trolled: <snip>

Quoted message said:

I've noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left

Not more muscular? Try chewing those cakes on the other side of your mouth!

Quoted message said:

The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

I'm not surprised. Maybe a Cannondale with a Lefty would help?

Jim Price

Default' user_sucking@the_host.smooth said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the
left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!! I've been cycling pretty
consistently for a few months and have regularly done so since a very early age, but now I've
noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie. it has more
muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that? If only the engineers would put a
little imagination into it.

Well you could administer some imagination yourself. Try sitting on the bike 'the other way round'
<ie, bum on handlebars and holding seat with hands>...at least then you'll be using the 'less fatter
leg' than the 'more fatter one'..balance things up a bit.

Personally, I'm not that bothered, I can tolerate things - just means I have to buy two different
size trousers, one normal and one with a 'fat leg' and talk sweetly to a nice dame from down the pub
to do a bit of sewing for me.

Quoted message said:

The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

I know, it's hell, but life never was perfect my friend.

bob

user-<< I mean bikes have essentially stayed the same since they were first invented.

Good, efficient design, tough to improve on.

<< Why don't they put the crancks on the left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)?

Heavier, more expensive, more complicated, no more efficient...

<< but now I've noticed in the last couple of months that my right leg is fatter than my left, ie.
it has more muscular development than my left leg. What's the point of that?

Then you are a poor pedel-er. Having the crank on the left wouldn't make your leg development be
even...They are connected together, ya know.

<< The whole point of cycling is making me really very angry!!

Then you are missing the point of cycling...

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

In article <[email hidden]>, Bob Flemming

Quoted message said:

Well you could administer some imagination yourself. Try sitting on the bike 'the other way round'
<ie, bum on handlebars and holding seat with hands>...at least then you'll be using the 'less
fatter leg' than the 'more fatter one'..balance things up a bit.

What a brilliant suggestion! And it would also come in handy when having to ride into the rain or a
really cold headwind.

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
"]news:[email hidden] he conjectured that:

What's top posting?

Quoted message said:

Please don't top post.

Bikes with levers rather than pedals have been around for about 120 years or so in documentable
form. There were several Ordinaries with such systems as well as safeties. That they have all been
abandoned is pretty telling. For that matter, Kirkpatrick MacMillan's alleged bicycle used
treadles rather than pedals 150 years ago.

--
Walter Mitty.

That's because you're pushing harder with that leg. It doesn't matter which side the chain is on
because the crankes/gears/chain are all in a direct connection. When one moves, all move.

Chris ~"if it ain't broke..."~ Zacho

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

Then again, you could always tell the ladies that the extra bulk in your right trouser leg is
something it's not...

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

"Default" <user_sucking@the_host.smooth> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Why (the hell) hasn't the form of the mechanism of bikes ever changed/improved? I mean bikes have
essentially stayed the same since they were first invented. The point is, I'm referring to the
pedal cranck-wheel which is always on the right-hand side. Why don't they put the crancks on the
left side too (and have two chains)? (duh..)? Or have it in the middle!!

This won't always help. Take a tandem stoker, for example. They have chainwheels on left and right,
but it actually makes things worse as the left chainwheel is driven by the pilot so increasing the
imbalance!

I wonder if there has been any research done to see if tandem stokers habitially have uneven leg
development in the same way that skeletons of English longbowmen on battlefields show asymmetric arm
development as witnessed by the robustness of muscle attachments.

Perhaps I could get a grant to carry out a study on this. If you know anyone interested in financing
such a study please drop me a line ;-)

Andrew Webster