Arthritis, advice please...

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-05, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> "There is no point in cycling unless you want to go fast" and similar.

WHO ARE YOU ****ING MISQUOTING AS HAVING SAID THAT?

I have this question: does using a higher cadence and lower force
generally allow most people to produce more power for a longer time? By
higher I mean 60+, by lower, more like 30.

Never mind whether their reasons for wanting to produce more power are
good or not.

 

[Ace]

On 5 Aug 2007 14:07:39 GMT, [email protected] (Nick Maclaren) wrote:

>
>In article <[email protected]>, Ace <[email protected]> writes:

>|> Why can't you accept that
>|> maybe it's _you_ that's different, not the rest of the world?
>
>DON'T ****ING MISQUOTE. IT IS OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE POSTED THAT
>MY ADVICE IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO.

They're entitled to their opinions too. What's the point in banging on
about something which no-one else seems to agree with? It's not like
you're going to convince anyone. In any case, while experimentation is
probably a good idea for anyone suffering joint problems, advising
people to go strainght out and do something which will almost
certainly, judging by everyone else's posts, exacerbate their problems
clearly is "EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO."


--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

 

[ravi]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> > Fine. So? You may be unusual.
>
> But I may not be, and IME people who mash hard suffer over
> distances much more than spinners, with spectacular performance
> drop-offs caused by muscles that just *stop*. Only at the
> anecdotal level, but very visibly so to me at that level.
>
> > For the evidence that low cadences are
> > generally more efficient, see Whitt "Bicycling Science".
>
> For evidence the other way, see which technique has been on the
> increase due to sporting success. However, we digress from the
> OP's knee problems. All I was really trying to raise is that an
> upright position and low cadence are not necessarily things that
> need to be adopted together, and indeed can act independently for
> or against his problem.
>
> > Yes. And, given that, you would expect that the more natural a motion,
> > the more efficient it would be. That might not be so, but it the way
> > that the smart people guess.
>
> The natural motion is for maximum efficiency at a low,
> hunting/gathering sort of speed, and is a very different mechanical
> motion to pedalling a bike. It is not necessarily anything to do
> with maximum efficiency in pedalling a bike at a given rate, where
> you have far more felxibility in tuning your speed/output
> compromise than if you're on foot because all you do is speed up,
> rather than change the whole motion.
> "Natural motion" on a bike is a faintly ridiculous notion, as it's
> completely artificial: nature doesn't really do wheels...
> "Natural" is what you'd have got used to. I was a masher not
> because it was natural, but when I got my first "racer" I figured
> that since top gear was "fastest" anything else made me a wuss, so
> I went everywhere (even up hills from standing starts) in top gear.
> Dumb, but true. On my walk to work I'm occasionally passed by a
> cycle commuting girl, who'd finish on the hill up to the hospital
> at continental drift cadence, going very slowly in absolute speed
> too. I asked her why whe didn't use lower gears one day after
> watching her for months, she said it looked stupid. I let it
> drop... Last time I saw her she was zooming up at high cadence.
> Was that "natural", or learned? The latter method was visibly more
> efficient.
>
> > The normal reason that people use them is because they are in a
> > semi-crouch.
>
> No shortage of mashers in a crouch position...
> I suspect the reason people use low cadences is that was what they
> got used to on the single-speed they learned to ride a bike on. I
> think most people tend to use higher cadences because they're told
> they can keep going for longer if they do. They perpetuate such
> advice because they find it to be true!
>
> > Perhaps your position isn't as appropriate for low cadence cycling as
> > you think that it is?
>
> Or perhaps I'm just physiologically suited to higher cadence
> cycling at present, whether or not I'm upright, lying back on my
> recumbent, or crouching. I don't think the answers are nearly as
> black and white universal as you seem to think, and I still see no
> obvious reason why cadence needs to be hardwired to riding position.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roger Merriman]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Nick Maclaren
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > As I said, I have communicated with many people who have had
> > similar experiences. The one thing you aren't prepared to consider
> > as a reason why cycling as a form of transport is so negligible in
> > the USA and UK is that the commonly available bicycles and advice
> > in the UK are not suitable for all or even most people.
>
> I think we could agree on that.
>
> For many people - particularly those doing short intra-urban journeys with
> much stopping and starting - I'd agree that an upright riding position
> with hands above saddle level, and probably a step through frame, is
> probably optimal. For those people who are travelling long distances on
> relatively flat roads, some form of recumbent has to be a better solution
> than the classic drop-bar racing bike.
>
seems reasonble.

> It's only for people who ride distances in hilly areas that the 'racing
> bike' style /may/ be optimal, and I'm not confident even of that.
>

> The racing bike we have now is a product of evolution within an envelope of
> arbitrary rules imposed by the UCI. Within the scope of what the UCI will
> allow, we can be reasonably confident that the modern racing bike is close
> to optimal for the sort of route that bike races typically use, because if
> another UCI-legal conformation was better it would have been adopted. But
> in my opinion the UCI have had a very malign influence on the evolution of
> the bicycle, and I'm confident that if the organisation didn't exist
> available bicycles would be better suited to more people.
>
that does appear to be true.

> I'm not arguing that everyone should ride race bikes. Quite the contrary.
>
> Where I'm disagreeing with you is two quite specific points:
>
> (1) I do not believe that, typically, the saddle height on an 'upright'
> bike is higher in proportion to rider height than on a 'race' bike; and
>
> (2) I strongly believe that a high cadence, low force pedalling stroke is
> better for people with knee injuries than a low cadence, high force style.

i would concour. i have one bad knee while i am faster genrally with
higher gears. it hurts my knee. i don't seem to spin fast any way, but
dropping the gears does help. it also less tireing to spin than grind up
an hill. and since my play bike has plenty and low of those. why not.

roger

--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ace <[email protected]> writes:
|>
|> What's the point in banging on
|> about something which no-one else seems to agree with? It's not like
|> you're going to convince anyone.

A very good question :-(

Some 40 years ago, I realised that the attitude and propaganda of
the 'serious' recreational cycling community was a major factor in
the way that cycling was dropping off faster as a method of transport
in the UK than in the comparable European countries. I predicted a
near-total demise within a few decades, and was right (not that it
was hard to predict, by mere extrapolation). It happened.

Some 15 years ago, I realised that the attitude of the 'pro-cycling'
pressure groups (principally encouraging cyclists off the roads etc.)
was going to discourage cycling from recovering as a significant form
of transport outside a few city centres and similar routes/locations.
And that, of course, has not happened.

But I also realised that these factors were going to interact, to
reduce the average trip length of cycling as a form transport, and
make it effectively useless in the area of the transport crisis where
it is an essential component of any plausible solution - i.e. travel
where buses are impractical and it is too far to walk quickly, such
as within the suburbs of medium-sized cities. And that has happened,
too.

Given the attitudes, I can't be bothered to explain why, nor why this
aspect is so important, and what could be done, yet again.

I belong to the last generation that can remember cycling as a major
form of transport over much of the UK, and I doubt that there will be
another. Note that, by 'a form of transport', I am not merely talking
about commuting and shopping, but going to the pub and restaurants,
visiting sights and other facilities on holiday etc. - anything where
it is used to get from A to B or view the countryside and not as purely
cycling as an end in itself.

I predict that more money will be spent promoting cycling as a form
of transport, and a LOT more effort will be spent massaging the figures
to make it look as if that money is working, and the proportion of the
total passenger-miles and average trip length for cycling as a form of
transport will continue to drop - even relative to comparable European
countries.

But it's what you seem to want.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ben C wrote:

> I have this question: does using a higher cadence and lower force
> generally allow most people to produce more power for a longer time? By
> higher I mean 60+, by lower, more like 30.

When I was being taught as a cycle trainer I was told that 80+ is
usually where benefits set in, with the benefits being "longer"
rather than "more". I don't know the original source of that
advice, though ISTM on a personal level and those around me in my
cycling life (I don't know abouut "most people") that it lets me
keep going for longer. I've been spinning more and more as yhe
years go by, the primary reason being I seem to recover quicker on
big rides and suffer less while on them. I never noticed I have
more power that way, and I don't recall any suggestion elsewhere
that you get more power.

That is not particaularly relevant in many cycling environments,
it's quite true (including a lot of leisure and most
commuting/utility). However, I personally find in such
environments that my knees prefer less force but more often. My
knees have been through the wars more than most, but they're better
now than they were in the mid 90s. That correlates, I personally
think causally, with me working hard at upping my cadences and
mashing much less.

That's anecdotal level. However, it's not the only anecdote I've
heard on those lines, and I remain unconvinced by Nick's reasoning
for high cadences necessarily being bad in a majority of cases. I
also see no particular reason to link cadence to riding position: I
have always used similar cadences on whatever different bikes I've
had available, mashing everything when I was a masher and spinning
everything now I'm not.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Where I'm disagreeing with you is two quite specific points:
>
> (1) I do not believe that, typically, the saddle height on an 'upright'
> bike is higher in proportion to rider height than on a 'race' bike;

I'm with Simon here, and it's easily reinforced with a trip to NL,
where you get lots of roadies and lots of utility bikes, and the
latter don't obviously have saddles set higher than the former.

Indeed, my impression is that most of the roadies have a "normal"
bike for utility use too, and it would hardly be odd if they set
their pedalling to work in the same way.

> (2) I strongly believe that a high cadence, low force pedalling stroke is
> better for people with knee injuries than a low cadence, high force style.

For the most part I think so too, though knee problems will vary.
*My* knee problems are much reduced with lower forces, albeit more
often. And I still see no particular reason why cadence needs to
be hardwired to riding position. In other words, whether you're
upright or not, try different cadence styles and see what works.
The fact that different people do well with different styles
suggests it's much better to suck it and see than quote some manual
and decide that settles it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> Of courses, it's learned, not genetic - walking is learned. What
> are you rabbiting on about?

> EXTREMELY pronounced ankling, such as I now use but used not to, is
> unusual. I didn't use to need it to avoid knee pain on a bicycle,
> but as I get older I do. I would not advise it for most people,
> but moderate ankling is another matter entirely.

But moderate ankling isn't going to work with a seat 4" above
normal, which is what you've suggested elsewhere. Why do I think
so? because I employ moderate ankling and I set my saddle by the
"normal" advice and athen up a smidge, and I can't get it any
higher without considerable discomfort around my hips.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-05, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Ace <[email protected]> writes:
>|>
>|> What's the point in banging on
>|> about something which no-one else seems to agree with? It's not like
>|> you're going to convince anyone.
>
> A very good question :-(
>
> Some 40 years ago, I realised that the attitude and propaganda of
> the 'serious' recreational cycling community was a major factor in
> the way that cycling was dropping off faster as a method of transport
> in the UK than in the comparable European countries.

What is it about UK "serious cycling" propaganda that's worse than in
Europe? After all bicycle racing has always been much more popular in
Europe, so if anyone's going to get the idea that cycling consists of
hunching over a racing bike pedalling at a high cadence and not actually
going anywhere useful, why not them?

[...]
> I predict that more money will be spent promoting cycling as a form
> of transport, and a LOT more effort will be spent massaging the figures
> to make it look as if that money is working, and the proportion of the
> total passenger-miles and average trip length for cycling as a form of
> transport will continue to drop - even relative to comparable European
> countries.

So what's the answer, sensible Dutch-style bikes? I agree those would be
nice. But if you walk into a typical LBS you don't see many racers or
much of a culture of racing. It's practically impossible even to buy a
Campagnolo hub in this country unless you get it over the internet.
Mostly it's all mountain bikes, and increasingly these days if you're
spending upwards of 200 pounds, "hybrids" which are actually quite
sensible bikes.

And a lot of other things have happened in the last 40 years, so how can
you be sure that it's the culture of serious recreational cycling that's
what's done the most damage?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

> It would be bloody insane to ride with my saddle height at a cadence
> of 120.

Having gone to extraordinary lengths to moan about people coming up
with strwmen and misquoting you, you then come up with a figure
fully 150% of the only one I've ever particularly suggested. Why
do that? It really doesn't help.

I very specifically /like/ high cadences, and even using clipless
pedals I don't get anywhere near 120 for a long ride. So it's
really a load of nonsense trying to suggest anyone is saying you
should try any such thing.

All I have suggested is that there is no particular reason why an
upright cyclists cannot comfortably exceed the low cadences
associated with single speed machines if they have a suitable
spread of gears.

> It's also totally irrelevant. Same rider - same speed - two positions.
> That is what I am referring to.
>
> Also, many riders of traditional roadsters didn't pootle.

I never said they necessarily did, just that if you are pootling,
no matter what bike and position, your cadence is basically
irrelevant. If you're going to maon about people not reading what
you wrote, why not read what they write?

> 17 MPH
> was common, at a cadence of 55-60, and that is the same energy output
> as **** over *** at 19 MPH. Even I used to do that.

My point, which you have only ever "addressed" by dismissing it
with spurious rudeness, is that a rider could have been doing the
same thing, in either position, at a cadence of 80+, and if they
were used to that it very probably wouldn't do them any harm.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ace wrote:

> And I'm sure everyone sympathises with you, but why oh why do you
> remain so convinced that what works for you will by definition work
> for everyone with serious knee injuries?

To be fair, he doesn't claim that. Just that some people using
different systems *must* be wrong... There again, he's "proved"
that tall Brompton riders can't use their brakes effectively, and
mere actual, real examples to the contrary never stopped that belief!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-08-05, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Some 40 years ago, I realised that the attitude and propaganda of
>> the 'serious' recreational cycling community was a major factor in
>> the way that cycling was dropping off faster as a method of transport
>> in the UK than in the comparable European countries.
>
> What is it about UK "serious cycling" propaganda that's worse than in
> Europe? After all bicycle racing has always been much more popular in
> Europe, so if anyone's going to get the idea that cycling consists of
> hunching over a racing bike pedalling at a high cadence and not actually
> going anywhere useful, why not them?

It /is/ the case that "sensible bikes" have been much, much, much harder
to get hold of in the UK. Only recently has there been anything much of
a market for things not avowedly sports machinery, and sports (or
wannabe sports) kit still dominates. Nick is quite right when he says that.

However, high cadence is another thing that rather post-dates the
domination of sports machinery in the UK. Another thing is that
pronounced ankling, AFAICT, was initiated by sports cyclists thinking
they might get a bit more power for a little longer through a pedal
cycle. It's since been deprecated by sports cyclists who found it
didn't help, but it's not "natural" and it isn't the rule amongst
"natural cadence upright" cyclists: just look at folk pedalling about in
NL for proof, who don't have their saddles any higher than me, and I set
mine according to what Nick has characterised as "bad advice" and for
sport purposes.

> So what's the answer, sensible Dutch-style bikes? I agree those would be
> nice. But if you walk into a typical LBS you don't see many racers or
> much of a culture of racing.

Depends on the LBS. I went past one of mine on Saturday. Of the 6
machines given premier window display space, 6 were out and out racers.
Go to the web-front window of the other and 5 out of 14 are out and
out racers.
More typical across the UK are MTBs. EBC state they still sell more of
those than anything else, and I suspect a lot of them don't get any sort
of off-road use that requires an MTB, especially as MTBs become more and
more highly specialised. MTBs became the standard bike of choice in the
80s (or so ISTM) as folk could get something trendy and sporty all at
the same time.

> Mostly it's all mountain bikes, and increasingly these days if you're
> spending upwards of 200 pounds, "hybrids" which are actually quite
> sensible bikes.

This is, I think, a Good Thing. The current rise of the hybrid is
showing that you can sell bikes in the UK that don't at least pretend
that they're sports equipment. It's also easier to get hub gears and
chain guards than it used to be, mudguards and racks are becoming
standard again, and so are shorter top tubes and risers which give more
upright positions. They still give lots of gears, and that makes it
easy to run them at high cadences in those more upright positions.

> And a lot of other things have happened in the last 40 years, so how can
> you be sure that it's the culture of serious recreational cycling that's
> what's done the most damage?

I suspect the "great car economy" where you'd failed if you were using
public transport in your 30s did a lot of the damage. As is the case in
many parts of the world now, cycling was seen as something you would
only do if you couldn't afford a car. In such an environment it is
hardly surprising that enthusiasts came to predominate, and in that
atmosphere rather a chicken and egg thing with the available bikes. But
it's certainly true to say that growing up in 70s and 80s UK, I
considered racers and drop-bar tourers to be "proper bikes", and didn't
give roadsters much thought. I didn't realise they'd never gone out of
fashion in NL, as I'd never been there.
In that light, I think the current trend for hybrids with sensible
features is a great thing which is helping cycling for utility work in
the UK. It's notable that Dutch bikes are now getting lighter and
getting multiple gears too.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Nick Maclaren wrote:
[shorter cranks]
> Partly because it's a stupid suggestion.

It might be fun to get Nick and Mike Burrows in the same room and see
who could destroy the other with incredulous and sensationally rude
claims of blatant stupidity on the other's behalf fastest... ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[D.M. Procida]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Fine. So? You may be unusual. For the evidence that low cadences are
> > generally more efficient, see Whitt "Bicycling Science".
>
> Which is why Armstrong, with his famously high cadence, performed so poorly
> in the Tour de France, I suppose.
>
> You do write a lot of blithering nonsense, you know.

He said "generally", which doesn't contradict any particular cases, and
that if you look in a certain place you will find some evidence for the
notion. There's nothing blithering or nonsensical about that.

Daniele

 

[D.M. Procida]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do not believe that, typically, the saddle height on an 'upright'
> bike is higher in proportion to rider height than on a 'race' bike;

It seems pretty clear from casual observation about town that the
speedier the rider, the higher they seem to like their saddles. The
demon riders like them high up, and on the rare occasions that they have
to stop, have a toe-tip barely touching the road. The pootlers are able
to reach the ground much more comfortably from their perches.

Daniele

 

[Peter Clinch]

D.M. Procida wrote:

> It seems pretty clear from casual observation about town that the
> speedier the rider, the higher they seem to like their saddles. The
> demon riders like them high up, and on the rare occasions that they have
> to stop, have a toe-tip barely touching the road. The pootlers are able
> to reach the ground much more comfortably from their perches.

This is mostly an experience thing AFAICT. More experienced cyclists
(which usually includes "demon riders") know that with a typical bottom
bracket height, being able to put a foot down easily while still in the
saddle means they're compromising their pedalling, and since it's no
great problem coming forwards of the saddle to stop they jack up the
saddle a bit more.

More casual cyclists, IME, assume that it is important (usually for
safety is the perception) that they be able to get a foot down easily
while sat on the saddle.

In this way, as you observed, saddle height is not dependent on basic
riding position but on where any given rider, irrespective of bike and
basic position, happens to put it! If the standard "rule of thumb" for
bike fitting (see
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclebike.htm#fitting) is
followed it is entirely normal to have difficulty propping the bike up
at rest without coming off the saddle.

FWIW, my knees do suffer if it's lower than that, and I'm quite
sensitive to the height. My Brom is easy to get the right saddle
height, as it is the maximum extension of the seat tube with a hard
stop. If the QR that secures it has worked a little loose over time and
the saddle slips even half an inch, I can tell straight away that
something isn't right and it's in large part my knees sending the info.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-08-06, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-08-05, Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Some 40 years ago, I realised that the attitude and propaganda of
>>> the 'serious' recreational cycling community was a major factor in
>>> the way that cycling was dropping off faster as a method of transport
>>> in the UK than in the comparable European countries.
>>
>> What is it about UK "serious cycling" propaganda that's worse than in
>> Europe? After all bicycle racing has always been much more popular in
>> Europe, so if anyone's going to get the idea that cycling consists of
>> hunching over a racing bike pedalling at a high cadence and not actually
>> going anywhere useful, why not them?
>
> It /is/ the case that "sensible bikes" have been much, much, much harder
> to get hold of in the UK. Only recently has there been anything much of
> a market for things not avowedly sports machinery, and sports (or
> wannabe sports) kit still dominates. Nick is quite right when he says that.
>
> However, high cadence is another thing that rather post-dates the
> domination of sports machinery in the UK. Another thing is that
> pronounced ankling, AFAICT, was initiated by sports cyclists thinking
> they might get a bit more power for a little longer through a pedal
> cycle.

I think it's something people did at the time that Anquetil, the famous
ankler, was winning the TdF. More recently everyone copied the Indurain
grind and these days the Lance spin. What next? The Alberto Contador
spin I should think.

> It's since been deprecated by sports cyclists who found it didn't
> help, but it's not "natural" and it isn't the rule amongst "natural
> cadence upright" cyclists: just look at folk pedalling about in NL for
> proof, who don't have their saddles any higher than me, and I set mine
> according to what Nick has characterised as "bad advice" and for sport
> purposes.

Still Nick gives some interesting new reasons why it might be a good
idea for some people, and the style of riding and reasons for it he is
proposing are rather different from those of Anquetil-followers.

>> So what's the answer, sensible Dutch-style bikes? I agree those would be
>> nice. But if you walk into a typical LBS you don't see many racers or
>> much of a culture of racing.
>
> Depends on the LBS. I went past one of mine on Saturday. Of the 6
> machines given premier window display space, 6 were out and out racers.
> Go to the web-front window of the other and 5 out of 14 are out and
> out racers.
> More typical across the UK are MTBs. EBC state they still sell more of
> those than anything else, and I suspect a lot of them don't get any sort
> of off-road use that requires an MTB, especially as MTBs become more and
> more highly specialised.

Yes although some of those MTBs are actually BSOs.

> MTBs became the standard bike of choice in the
> 80s (or so ISTM) as folk could get something trendy and sporty all at
> the same time.
>
>> Mostly it's all mountain bikes, and increasingly these days if you're
>> spending upwards of 200 pounds, "hybrids" which are actually quite
>> sensible bikes.
>
> This is, I think, a Good Thing. The current rise of the hybrid is
> showing that you can sell bikes in the UK that don't at least pretend
> that they're sports equipment. It's also easier to get hub gears and
> chain guards than it used to be, mudguards and racks are becoming
> standard again, and so are shorter top tubes and risers which give more
> upright positions. They still give lots of gears, and that makes it
> easy to run them at high cadences in those more upright positions.

I like hub gears but I think some seriously low gears are important on a
sensible bike because normal people can be incredibly unfit and weigh
quite a lot. It really doesn't take much of a hill before they're
getting off and walking. But they need quite high gears too because
normal people don't naturally adopt a high cadence either.

The new 7 speed hub gears are very good, but 3 speed is not ideal for a
sensible bike in this country. OK in NL where it's very flat.

>> And a lot of other things have happened in the last 40 years, so how can
>> you be sure that it's the culture of serious recreational cycling that's
>> what's done the most damage?
>
> I suspect the "great car economy" where you'd failed if you were using
> public transport in your 30s did a lot of the damage.

I suspect that too.

[...]
> I didn't realise they'd never gone out of fashion in NL, as I'd never
> been there. In that light, I think the current trend for hybrids with
> sensible features is a great thing which is helping cycling for
> utility work in the UK. It's notable that Dutch bikes are now getting
> lighter and getting multiple gears too.

I rented a "sportfiet" when I was there. Aluminium frame, 7 speed hub
gears, hub brakes, chain guard, massive shiny steel rims. Rode very
nicely but still weighed a ton.

 

[Mark]

>> More typical across the UK are MTBs. EBC state they still sell more
>> of those than anything else, and I suspect a lot of them don't get
>> any sort of off-road use that requires an MTB, especially as MTBs
>> become more and more highly specialised.
>
> Yes although some of those MTBs are actually BSOs.

They're not /that/ bad - they're more MTB-shaped objects. It's the cheap
suspension that does for them.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ben C wrote:

> Still Nick gives some interesting new reasons why it might be a good
> idea for some people, and the style of riding and reasons for it he is
> proposing are rather different from those of Anquetil-followers.

Agreed. I don't have any issues with what he says might help and why,
but I very much disagree with his apparent position that saddle height
is hardwired to bike style is hardwired to cadence.

> I like hub gears but I think some seriously low gears are important on a
> sensible bike because normal people can be incredibly unfit and weigh
> quite a lot.

What is "seriously low"? If you're "incredibly unfit" it doesn't matter
if you're on a 20" gear, I think you'd still end up walking as that's a
much lower gear still.

> The new 7 speed hub gears are very good, but 3 speed is not ideal for a
> sensible bike in this country. OK in NL where it's very flat.

Depends which bit of the country. I don't see much reason to want/need
more than 3 in a lot of it. Other parts are different, of course! I
can only really get away with 3 in Dundee by having Brompton's -18% off
standard option and spinning at high(ish) cadence.

> I rented a "sportfiet" when I was there. Aluminium frame, 7 speed hub
> gears, hub brakes, chain guard, massive shiny steel rims. Rode very
> nicely but still weighed a ton.

Though the really trad models would weigh 2! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Nick Maclaren <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> writes:
> |> |> > as it is as you lift it off the ground when walking, but that isn't
> |> > the real problem. Look at the other one. It is EXTREMELY bent, and
> |> > he needs to put force on it to rotate the pedals. That is NOT good
> |>
> |> If he puts force on that other leg with the cranks in their current
> |> position, he will be pedalling backwards.

> Yes. Now remember your elementary mathematics. The change in length
> between that position and when he starts to do that is negligible
> (in case you have forgotten, look up the behavious of the cosine
> function near zero).

> |> From the angle of his bike it looks rather like he'll ground the pedal
> |> too, but maybe that's just me looking at it funny. Was he actually
> |> pedalling when this photo was taken, or frewheeling around the bend? I
> |> can see no motion blur on the chain, though I don't know if there would
> |> be at that speed.

> Dunno, but to answer Simon Brooke's strawman, the reason for extending
> a leg at the bottom is NOT for the sheer pleasure of counting inches,
> but to allow the knee to relax entirely as it returns. Exercising
> with the knee continually bent (even by one degree) causes severe
> knee pain in many people.

Exactly what this now aged cyclist found by experiment. I get quite
severe knee pains in an hour or two of cycling unless the seat is high
enough to have a totally straight leg at the bottom of the stroke, in
which case I can potter around on a bike all day without hurting my
knees. In adapting my bike to the requirements of my aging physiology
I found that what I had to do to my basic hybrid was to make my riding
position as much like an ancient sit-up-and-beg traditional bicycle as
possible. It's not fast due to wind resistance, but it's the only
cycling posture I can sustain for hours without pain.

Incidentally I agree with your method of reasoning about the kinds of
limb use evolution has adapted us for. I used the same kind of
reasoning in deciding that if I exceeded 20mph I would no longer be
able to rely on my instinctive reflexes to keep my head out of trouble
if I crashed.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]