A quick question for you all

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Thanks

Colin McKenzie

Given my experience on paths of varying widths, I'd say I'd
only be happy to cycle at any given speed on a path of 2m or
wider. Any less than that and I find I'm normally cycling
slower - simply because I feel hemmed in and constrained,
though much depends on what borders the path. If it's a
wall, for example, that's slightly worse than prickly/stingy
hedges or water. Best case is relatively flat and not very
long grassy areas to each side - probably cos I
subconsciously view them as bale-out areas that might
actually not hurt/be feasible to stay on the bike whilst
negotiating them.

Certainly I do find I restrict my speed on a path much less
than that, and a lot of the time find it very
uncomfortable/unnerving to do even 10mph on a path that's
less than 1.5m wide.

I've not cycled at night yet, but I would imagine that my
overall speed would drop unless the path was very well lit,
in which case it'd probably be roughly the same on the 2m
wide, and almost certainly quite a lot less even on the 1.5
and definitely slower on the less than 1.5m.

Of course, the last is theoretical, as I can only go by how
I would react, which is in part based on how I drive on
unfamiliar roads at night of varying widths.

--

Velvet

In "]news:[email hidden],
Colin McKenzie <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

With no other users, 0.6-1 m, I'd have thought. But I'd be
pushing it slightly at that narrowness. That's assuming it's
just the path surfacing that's narrow. If there's a drop on
each side, then I'd go for say 8 or 9m

A

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

That depends entirely upon the environment. I have gone flat
out (30-40mph) down singletrack only inches wide on open,
easily read ground. Equally I've gone a lot slower on many
wider, more difficult (terrain-wise) to read tracks. It also
depends very much on how well aquainted with a particular
track you are.

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

For me it would, as I suspect for most people. What gives
you the confidence in the daylight is the ability to see and
adust for upcoming obstacles/changes in plenty of *thinking*
time. At night, this is much reduced, even with a good set
of lights.

--
Alex BMW R1150GS DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8
team-ukrm.co.ukteam-ukrm.co.ukOpen ↗ Windy's "little soldier"

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

Much too difficult to put a figure on it. It depends on my
speed (which depends on gradient and conditions), what's at
the sides of the path. In other words, on how much risk I'm
at and would be prepared to take.

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

That's a tricky/trick question because I'd already be
more cautious just because of the redcuced vision, that
often means being slower. Not so much width required at
slower speed.

What do I win? :-)

~PB

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Thanks

Colin McKenzie

With my Lumicycles, there is no reason to slow down at night
...

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Depends completely on the circumstances. Assuming there is
no one at all around, that there are no animals or wildlife
that need consideration etc and you don't have kamikaze
rabbits running across the track then daytime would be OK
for speed. At night it would depend on how good your lights
are and what you can see to be clear because outside of that
distance you cannot say its clear and there are no other
users or a gate/dumped rubbish etc on the track that you
might need to stop quickly for. The width is purely an issue
in the mind. You rarely take up more than 6" width cycling
in a straight line but being constrained makes you feel less
confident. Look at what the North Shore riders ride on logs
above ravines for what you can do.

Tony

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so
I'll ask the question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good
sightlines etc, with a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

As others have said, up (or perhaps, rather, down) to a
certain point it's not the narrowness that makes the
difference, it's factors like what's on either side and the
terrain. You've said good sightlines and no other users, so
we can assume there are genuinely no concealed gaps or
crossings where people or animals might come out that would
limit choice of speed, but still there would have to be
something delimiting the path to define it as 'narrow', so
what would that be - fences? Then it would have to be at
least a bit wider than the bars! Drops on either side? Then
it could be narrower than the bars but it would depend on
how steep and deep the drop.

Quoted message said:

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

Yes, because your 'sightlines' would be shorter and you
could be less sure about other users in the vicinity. How
much slower also depends on the degree of familiarity
with the path.

Rich

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack
that is barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot
depends upon terrain and fitness level of course .. 😉 In
fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Quoted message said:

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow
you down apart from the width - there are no bends, hills
or other users in the vicinity.

In that case, then narrowness of track has absolutely no
limiting factor on my speed, so long as there _is_ a visible
track to follow .. Height and encroachment of undergrowth
may slow me down a tad, but if I can actually see the track
then no worries .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

Probably not much if at all .. though it would also depend
on which lights I had fitted, and whether there was a moon
out, what horror film I'd watched recently etc etc .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have
replied so far. I should have been clearer that it would
only be the riding surface that was narrow, with grass or
something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced
by deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

Colin McKenzie

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack
that is barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot
depends upon terrain and fitness level of course .. 😉 In
fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and
crocodiles to the right? More realistically: trees?

Yes it's all in the mind but the mind makes most of us take
more care.

~PB

Pete Biggs typed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack
that is barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot
depends upon terrain and fitness level of course .. 😉 In
fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and
crocodiles to the right? More realistically: trees?

Nope, we race through woodland regularly. The limiting
factor on speed, for me, is tightness of turn, general
terrain and how good my legs feel. What's at the side of the
track is of no consequence .. I don't intend to fall off and
hit it .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Yes it's all in the mind but the mind makes most of us
take more care.

If there were landmines and crocodiles to consider where I
race / ride / practice then I would slow down, but that's
theoretical anyway as I don't intend going anywhere near
where either potential danger may be ... except maybe
Salisbury Plain or a bombing range where I ride (Donna Nook)
occasionally, though when we go to Donna Nook it's mostly
slow riding, watching the wildlife etc .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Colin McKenzie typed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have
replied so far. I should have been clearer that it would
only be the riding surface that was narrow, with grass or
something similar either side.

No limits at all on my speed, though I don't go flat out all
the time .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

A lot would depend upon if you also mean there may be on-
coming cyclists. I'd still say no limit to my speed,
providing there was, as you suggest, no limit to available
lines of sight. I _would_ slow down for others though, I
trust myself implicitly, but I don't trust others as I
simply don't know them, their riding abilities, or what
they're going to do to 'miss' me .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Colin McKenzie said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have
replied so far. I should have been clearer that it would
only be the riding surface that was narrow, with grass or
something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

It would work because cyclists prefer to stick to the best
surface. Making it narrower than comfortable means
concentration would have to increase to stay on it at the
same speed. It's more pleasant to slow down and relax
instead. Most cyclists will do this.

I think 1 metre wide is comfortable for me at 25 mph, 75 cm
at 15 mph.

Same answer I posted before about night time.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack
that is barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot
depends upon terrain and fitness level of course .. 😉 In
fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and
crocodiles to the right? More realistically: trees?

No. Provided you've got about 200mm clearance for your
handlebars trees in themselves are not a problem. Wet
slippery roots, particularly it at an angle to the track,
are another matter altogether...

Having said this, on a bit of trailbuilding I've been doing
recently there was a big log - about 450mm diameter - down
across the path, and the kids persuaded us older types not
to cut it but to route the main path ('chicken run'😉 around
the butt end of it and set up a log ride across it. The log
ride is about nine or ten metres long and the ridable
surface is about 200mm wide. I don't plan to ride it because
the log is about 1.5 metres off the ground and in my opinion
that's too far to fall. But the kids can and do. And that's
a real demonstration of the fact that you can ride on very
narrow tracks indeed.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun.
If you're ;; doing it for money, stop now. ;;
Rainer Deyke

in message <[email hidden]>, Colin McKenzie

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have
replied so far. I should have been clearer that it would
only be the riding surface that was narrow, with grass or
something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

That would not affect experienced cross country riders at
all.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free
fall

Colin McKenzie said:

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have
replied so far. I should have been clearer that it would
only be the riding surface that was narrow, with grass or
something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

If it truly is as you describe then no speed change. I ride
those all the time and stray onto the grass frequently just
from not needing to stick to the line or to cross to another
parallel track. If it was a log or a deep rut that you had
to jump the bike out of or something with a steep drop to
one side then I would slow down but part surfacing an area
would not make any difference.

Tony

Colin McKenzie said:

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

Sustrans already do that. They also spread gravel on
blacktop paths to slow cyclists down.

I can't think of any other reason.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle
>more slowly than on a path of infinite width, in
>daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack
that is barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot
depends upon terrain and fitness level of course .. 😉 In
fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and
crocodiles to the right? More realistically: trees?

No. Provided you've got about 200mm clearance for your
handlebars trees in themselves are not a problem. Wet
slippery roots, particularly it at an angle to the track,
are another matter altogether...

Having said this, on a bit of trailbuilding I've been
doing recently there was a big log - about 450mm diameter
- down across the path, and the kids persuaded us older
types not to cut it but to route the main path ('chicken
run'😉 around the butt end of it and set up a log ride
across it. The log ride is about nine or ten metres long
and the ridable surface is about 200mm wide. I don't plan
to ride it because the log is about 1.5 metres off the
ground and in my opinion that's too far to fall. But the
kids can and do. And that's a real demonstration of the
fact that you can ride on very narrow tracks indeed.

Hmm, something occurs to me here.

Are you taking into account the *type* of bikes being used
on these paths of varying widths?

This would, I think, make a big difference - I'd be happier
riding a mountainbike type at greater speed on a narrower
path if I know a slight detour onto grass on the side isn't
going to part me and the bike, whereas the bike I *actually*
ride has skinny (in my books, I know they're not uberskinny)
700x25 tyres, which means I find it just about unrideable on
grass/gravel/loose stuff.

--

Velvet

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:49:50 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie said:

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be
reduced by deliberately surfacing only part of the
available width.

Sustrans already do that. They also spread gravel on
blacktop paths to slow cyclists down.

I can't think of any other reason.

A nearby bit of NCN 75 just got a coating of blacktop. and I
thought, what a lovely surface for a bike path.

The new section also got '6mph limit' signs...

And I think I noticed today (I was crossing it on a bridge
above) that it's been stone-chipped now.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗