A fundamental flaw with bikes/cycles

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Default, Jun 7, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Default

    Default Guest

    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!!
     
    Tags:


  2. Jon Bond

    Jon Bond Guest

    "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 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!!

    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
     
  3. user

    user Guest

    Default wrote:
    > 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.
     
  4. G Huang

    G Huang Guest

    Default wrote:
    > 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.
     
  5. Snoopy

    Snoopy Guest

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:23:18 GMT, "Jon Bond" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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 =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
     
  6. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> wrote:

    > 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!
     
  7. Where? Got any pics of such a machine?

    chris

    [email protected] wrote:

    > 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.
     
  8. Tbgibb

    Tbgibb Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> writes:

    >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 protected]
     
  9. Ken

    Ken Guest

    [email protected] (TBGibb) wrote in news:[email protected]:
    > 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.

    http://216.247.25.241/miva/merchant.mv? Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=T&Category_Code=
     
  10. Tom Keats

    Tom Keats Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> writes:

    > 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: http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/

    cheers, Tom

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

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, chris freeman <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Where? Got any pics of such a machine?
    >
    > chris
    >
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
     
  12. DiabloScott

    DiabloScott New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    1
    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
     
  13. Jim Price

    Jim Price Guest

    Default trolled: <snip>

    > 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!

    > 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
     
  14. Bob Flemming

    Bob Flemming Guest

    On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:14:25 GMT, "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> wrote:

    >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.

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

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

    bob
     
  15. 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 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
     
  16. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Bob Flemming
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.
     
  17. Walter Mitty

    Walter Mitty Guest

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

    What's top posting?

    >
    > 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.
     
  18. 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": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
     
  19. 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": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
     
  20. "Default" <[email protected]_host.smooth> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > 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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...