Bike aerodynamics / weight

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
> > for TT bikes. It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
> > http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html
> >
> > Ben
> > UCI Minister of Taste
>
> That link didn't work for me but I'm guessing you meant to use this one:
> http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/totg_day1_211.JPG
>
> You should see his skate ski boots.
>
> Bret
> UCI Assistant Minister of Taste

Yes thank you. I don't know what's up with that link; sometimes
it works and sometimes it apparently goes into an infinite redirect
loop.

How weird can skate ski boots get? I mean they can be
pretty garish, but can they be abnormally shaped for
greater aerodynamics?

I never lived near a ritzy rich-people ski area, so I only recently
discovered that when you do go to one, the local thrift shop and
secondhand ski store are veritable museums of regrettable
ski fashion (and occasional pieces of nice little-used equipment).

Ben

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Your speculation seems based on what you woudl do, or think a
>> > reasonable person would do, if in the UCI's place. That's far more
>> > tenuous.
>>
>> I think it may be a mistake to believe there's enough organization
>> within the UCI to foment anything like a conspiracy.
>
>Comfort doesn't have anything to do with the UCI rules
>for TT bikes.

I think my position has been mischaracterized in this thread. I'm not
suggesting that it's the UCI's obligation to keep us "comfortable" (a
true oxymoron when it comes to time trialing), but that they would
react to a very UNcomfortable position. There's a difference. Think
La-Z-Boy recliner and a bed of nails. ;-)

> It's strictlly aesthetics. If not for the rules,
>http://www.tourofthegila.com/2003race/day1/photoalbum/photos/photo_32.html

Now THAT should be banished on aesthetics alone, no question. I may
have nightmares (you should have posted a warning...). ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[[email protected]]

cat0020 wrote:
> Dear Frank,
> My posting in this thread has not much to do with general public that
> do not ride bicycles.
>
> I would assume that for anyone who read this thread have some
> competency in all three reasons that you've given in your reply.
>
> Thank you for your contribution, however, they are somewhat misplaced
> among the people who would read this thread/usegroup.
>
> I am trying to promote recumbent bicycles among the riders who might
> read into this topic/thread/usegroup.

My objection stands. I don't care if you're talking to people in this
newsgroup or yelling to people passing by on the street. It's time to
stop linking the terms "dangerous" and "bicycling."

Even if you could produce some data on the relative safety of uprights
and recumbents per mile ridden - which I doubt - you'd be comparing
infinitesmals. The risk of significant injury during normal competent
riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.

Promoting recumbents as a way to lessen that infinitesmal risk does
more harm than good. It slanders ordinary bicycling.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[cat0020]

Frank,

Do you realize that reguardless of your rejection, I can still promote
whatever I want in this group.

Whether or not cycling is dangerous, that is all relative.
Statistically, driving a car is far more dangerous than flying with an
airline, but more people are still afraid of flying than driving.

I promote recumbent bicycle on the basis that they are more efficient
than reagular upright bicycle because they are more aerodynamic and
heathier alternative for a person's prosterior.

Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.

Contribute some facts that regular upright bicycles are superior to
recumbent bicycles rather than telling me how you do not care what I
have to say, in which case only shows that you have little tolerance to
point of view different than your own.

Have a nice day

Theo




[email protected] wrote:

> My objection stands. I don't care if you're talking to people in this
> newsgroup or yelling to people passing by on the street. It's time to
> stop linking the terms "dangerous" and "bicycling."
>
> Even if you could produce some data on the relative safety of uprights
> and recumbents per mile ridden - which I doubt - you'd be comparing
> infinitesmals. The risk of significant injury during normal competent
> riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.
>
> Promoting recumbents as a way to lessen that infinitesmal risk does
> more harm than good. It slanders ordinary bicycling.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> The risk of significant injury during normal competent
> riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.

I agree that the perception of cycling as dangerous by the general
population is overblown (ie they consider it suicidal), but I think you
underestimate the level of fear (and avoidance of it) that the average
person lives with. You can say that cycling is reasonably safe if you
can ride for decades and survive... but most people would consider a
single incident of a very large vehicle traveling at high speed and
missing them by a few inches totally unacceptible for a "leisure"
activity. This is a common occurance if you have to ride on roads with
an inadequate shoulder.

When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.

 

[[email protected]]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > The risk of significant injury during normal competent
> > riding is already very low, and certainly acceptably low.
>
> I agree that the perception of cycling as dangerous by the general
> population is overblown (ie they consider it suicidal), but I think you
> underestimate the level of fear (and avoidance of it) that the average
> person lives with.

I think there's something there you're missing. Yes, the public's
perception of danger _is_ overblown. And that's what _causes_ the
level of fear that they live with!

> You can say that cycling is reasonably safe if you
> can ride for decades and survive...

More realistically, you could literally ride for thousands of years, on
average, and "survive," if it were only possible to live that long.
Although data is sparse, the best numbers from various "western"
countries indicate there are roughly 15 million miles ridden between
bike fatalities. Divide your annual mileage into 15 million to see
how many years it would take you to reach a 50/50 chance of dying on
the bike. (The answer is much more than mere "decades"!)

> but most people would consider a
> single incident of a very large vehicle traveling at high speed and
> missing them by a few inches totally unacceptible for a "leisure"
> activity. This is a common occurance if you have to ride on roads with
> an inadequate shoulder.

I'm not sure about your words "common" and "few inches." How common?
And how few?

I ride on all sorts of roads - everything from quiet neighborhood
streets to busy arterials. Cars passing at speed closer than one foot
(assuming that's what you mean by "a few inches") are not common, by my
standards. It may happen once a year, if that.

If dangerously close passes happen a lot to you, it may be that you're
permitting it too often. Ride far enough left to be safe. (That would
be 'far enough right' in Britain, etc.)

> When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
> to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
> killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.

I'm sure that you're telling the truth. But please don't pretend
that's anything but an anomaly! There's plenty of data that shows
cycling is acceptably safe. One cluster of anomalous data points
doesn't change the reality.

Of course, there could be some specific cause for that cluster. If so,
people should be working to fix the problem. But odds are it's just a
random tragedy, and _not_ something that "proves" cycling is dangerous.

-

People do have a problem assessing risk. I think we're still wired to
live in tiny isolated villages, where risk is assessed by tales told
around the lodge fire. "Og talked to someone in the next village who
saw a wolf pack. We'd better move our camp."

Taking such tales of risk seriously may have worked for hundreds of
thousands of years, but it doesn't work in a world of billions with
instantaneous communication. We can _always_ find a scary story.

As contrast with your "3 people in 5 years" tale, I prefer the tales
from Britain's Cyclist's Touring Club. Roughly four fatalities per
year in a club membership of 60,000.

Try taking the quiz at
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

cat0020 wrote:
> Frank,
>
> Do you realize that reguardless of your rejection, I can still promote
> whatever I want in this group.

Sure. It's an open forum. You can promote giraffe unicycles as the
ultimate vehicle, too. But if you speak nonsense, expect to be called
on it.

> Whether or not cycling is dangerous, that is all relative.

Precisely. And relative to walking, riding in a car, playing
basketball, etc. cycling is acceptably safe. Don't slander it to
promote your choice.

> I promote recumbent bicycle on the basis that they are more efficient
> than reagular upright bicycle because they are more aerodynamic and
> heathier alternative for a person's prosterior.
>
> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
> ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
> the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
> pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.

Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I don't.
Again, don't slander ordinary bikes.

>
> Contribute some facts that regular upright bicycles are superior to
> recumbent bicycles rather than telling me how you do not care what I
> have to say, in which case only shows that you have little tolerance to
> point of view different than your own.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. I'm not so much objecting to your
promotion of recumbents. I'm objecting to your denigration of other
bikes, especially regarding safety. Scaring people away from bicycles
is not going to make your world, or my world, any better.

I undertstand you're a recumbent fan. We've been around and around
with the claims of recumbent fans. If you want to promote a bike
that's harder to pedal up hills, harder to carry loads, harder to
afford, harder to transport, harder to take into buildings, harder to
ride off-road, etc. because it's one or two miles per hour faster on
flat ground, that's fine. Just don't slander other bikes to do it.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Jan 2007 09:25:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

[Ron Ruff wrote]

>> When I lived in L.A. (which was a very good and relatively safe place
>> to ride) I knew of 3 people who I'd ridden and raced with who were
>> killed by motor vehicles in a 5 year period.
>
>I'm sure that you're telling the truth. But please don't pretend
>that's anything but an anomaly! There's plenty of data that shows
>cycling is acceptably safe. One cluster of anomalous data points
>doesn't change the reality.
>
>Of course, there could be some specific cause for that cluster. If so,
>people should be working to fix the problem. But odds are it's just a
>random tragedy, and _not_ something that "proves" cycling is dangerous.
>
>-
>
>People do have a problem assessing risk. I think we're still wired to
>live in tiny isolated villages, where risk is assessed by tales told
>around the lodge fire. "Og talked to someone in the next village who
>saw a wolf pack. We'd better move our camp."
>
>Taking such tales of risk seriously may have worked for hundreds of
>thousands of years, but it doesn't work in a world of billions with
>instantaneous communication. We can _always_ find a scary story.
>
>As contrast with your "3 people in 5 years" tale, I prefer the tales
>from Britain's Cyclist's Touring Club. Roughly four fatalities per
>year in a club membership of 60,000.
>
>Try taking the quiz at
>http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

"Preference" may not be a convincing argument.

A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their
father's 80th birthday.

Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.

Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
fracture.

One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle accident
and still takes anti-seizure drugs.

Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
motorcycle accident.

I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
ever been injured in cars.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Carl Said:

A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their father's
80th birthday.
1) Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
2) Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
fracture.
3) One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle
accident and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
4) Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
motorcycle accident.
I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
ever been injured in cars.


What style of bicycling are you referring to? Either the people you
are referring to are astoundingly uncoordinated, or you're unfairly
applying BMX/Freestyle/Freeride/AM instances into a debate that's
rather clearly about road bikes.

I've spent a few years on our roads, on bicycles, in autos, etc.
I've had my share of injuries on all fronts. I've been hurt by
being rear-ended by a car whose driver was busy picking pimples in the
rearview to notice the people in the crosswalk, or my motorcycle
stopped at the crosswalk.

I've also had my share of stitches, broken bones & dentistry done due
to BMX & dirt jumping. I've managed to hurt myself (though not too
badly) once or twice on the mountain bike as well. You'll note that
all these injuries have happened off-road, however, and in the midst of
what is often called "extreme sports". It's hardly fair to
compare someone coming up short on a twenty-foot gap with someone
riding a road bike down the street.

Here's where it gets interesting. In all my years on the roads,
I've never been injured while on a bicycle. I've been in several
MV accidents, and have been hurt on quite a few occasions in cars,
trucks, and motorcycles. Again, never on the road bike.

To address your above statements:

1) What type of bicycle was their uncle riding when he broke his neck?
I'd imagine fatal neck breaking on recreational road bicycling must
be extremely rare. I'd be tempted to call it an anomaly.
2) Again, what type of bicycling are we referring to? Is this
aggressive downhill, where blood is the entry fee, or is this family
having trouble keeping the rubber on the road with pedal bikes?
3) Bike style? Helmet? I can't imagine 3 responsible riders on the
road having this type of a run within a single family. Especially with
the stats and my experience suggesting even one of these would be a
rare occurrence.
4) Solo motorcycle accident is hardly comparable to bicycling on the
road. Motorcycle safety is another debate entirely. I'd like to get
into the single vehicle motorcycle crash, but am afraid I'd derail
the thread.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> cat0020 wrote:

>> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
>> ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
>> the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
>> pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.

> Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I don't.

Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank! LOL

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 09:25:56 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >As contrast with your "3 people in 5 years" tale, I prefer the tales
> >from Britain's Cyclist's Touring Club. Roughly four fatalities per
> >year in a club membership of 60,000.
> >
> >Try taking the quiz at
> >http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> "Preference" may not be a convincing argument.
>
> A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their
> father's 80th birthday.
>
> Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
>
> Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
> fracture.
>
> One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle accident
> and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
>
> Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
> motorcycle accident.
>
> I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
> ever been injured in cars.

Yes, Carl - and I can start listing the folks I know that have been
killed or seriously injured riding in cars or trucks. It would start
with two members of a small college club of mine, who died in separate
accidents within a year. It would include four close family members
with fairly serious injuries (including two head injuries). It would
include my son's good friend and his death, and my colleague at work
and his head injury. And the list would go on, limited not so much by
data as by my memory.

Is my count anomalous? How do we tell?

People of scientific bent don't flip coins to choose between "my
brother-in-law knew a guy..." stories. They look at large population
data. It's not a quirky preference. It's science.

Of course, there will always be people who prefer their
brother-in-law's expertise. You can find them in the "Homeopathic
Remedies" aisle, trying to cure their own cancer.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > cat0020 wrote:
>
> >> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to the
> >> ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a "get-off",
> >> the rider have less vertical distance to travel before "hitting" the
> >> pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.
>
> > Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I don't.
>
> Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank! LOL

Not literally "infallible," Bill. Just careful and competent. Sorry
it bothers you.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[cat0020]

Dear Frank,

I've been working as a bicycle mechanic in bicycle stores since 1990,
that's over 16 years of trurning wrenches on human powered vehicles of
all kinds. I've ridden over 30,000 miles on upright bicycles in my
lifetime so far and I still ride them.

I state facts, I repeat, facts in my postings about recumbents vs
upright bicycles, not slander, not claims nor denigration; only facts.

Maybe step out of "your world" once in a while and you may realize that
the facts that I presented in "your world" exsit just as much in the
real world, deny them as you may in "your world".

Now can you present the fact that upright bicycles are harder to pedal
versus recumbent bicycles? any chance you've counted the calories
burned and use as facts? standing up on the pedals to get up a hill may
seem easier, but do you know the fact that constant cadence and effort
on the pedals are actually more efficient way of cycling? rocking the
upright bicycle side to side as you get out of saddle actually waste
the energy that your body produced to propell the bicycle forward.

I have seen more luggage carrying capacity on recumbents than regular
upright bikes, besides towing a trailer make both kind of bikes even,
but recumbents are more aerodynamic.

Have you counted how many welding points are required to fabricate a
recumbent frame versus a regular frame? Allow me to state the facts,
not including the fork: regular bicycle frame takes 18 welds minimum,
my Vision R40 recumbent 10 welds minimum. The compenentry on a
recumbent are not as readily available, hence the pricing of
componentry reflects that, in my case, cost me $450 complete bike.
Just because something is massly produced doesn't mean the fact is that
they are less expensive or time consuming to fabricate.

We're talking about aerodynamics within this thread, off-road riding
crowd are hardly concern with aerodymics, mostly roadies are concerned
with aerodynamics.

I have crossed the north american continent on upright bicycle twice,
the next time I do, it will be on a recumbent bicycle because of its
efficiency and aerodynamics over the regular upright bicycles.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> cat0020 wrote:
>>
>>>> Furthermore, most recumbent bicycles position the rider lower to
>>>> the ground than a regular upright bicycle; hence in case of a
>>>> "get-off", the rider have less vertical distance to travel before
>>>> "hitting" the pavement, most likely result in lesser injury.
>>
>>> Right. I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I
>>> don't.

>> Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank! LOL

> Not literally "infallible," Bill. Just careful and competent. Sorry
> it bothers you.

Read what you wrote and not what you meant, Frank. (Actually, I dount
there's a difference in your case, which was my point.)

I've ridden more than 16,000 road miles in the last few years and haven't
"[fallen] off my bike", either. Doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.

HTH, B

 

[[email protected]]

cat0020 snipes anonymously:

> Dear Frank,

> I've been working as a bicycle mechanic in bicycle stores since
> 1990, that's over 16 years of trurning wrenches on human powered
> vehicles of all kinds. I've ridden over 30,000 miles on upright
> bicycles in my lifetime so far and I still ride them.

> I state facts, I repeat, facts in my postings about recumbents vs
> upright bicycles, not slander, not claims nor denigration; only
> facts.

> Maybe step out of "your world" once in a while and you may realize
> that the facts that I presented in "your world" exsit just as much
> in the real world, deny them as you may in "your world".

> Now can you present the fact that upright bicycles are harder to
> pedal versus recumbent bicycles? any chance you've counted the
> calories burned and use as facts? standing up on the pedals to get
> up a hill may seem easier, but do you know the fact that constant
> cadence and effort on the pedals are actually more efficient way of
> cycling? rocking the upright bicycle side to side as you get out of
> saddle actually waste the energy that your body produced to propell
> the bicycle forward.

> I have seen more luggage carrying capacity on recumbents than
> regular upright bikes, besides towing a trailer make both kind of
> bikes even, but recumbents are more aerodynamic.

> Have you counted how many welding points are required to fabricate a
> recumbent frame versus a regular frame? Allow me to state the
> facts, not including the fork: regular bicycle frame takes 18 welds
> minimum, my Vision R40 recumbent 10 welds minimum. The compenentry
> on a recumbent are not as readily available, hence the pricing of
> componentry reflects that, in my case, cost me $450 complete bike.
> Just because something is massly produced doesn't mean the fact is
> that they are less expensive or time consuming to fabricate.

> We're talking about aerodynamics within this thread, off-road riding
> crowd are hardly concern with aerodymics, mostly roadies are
> concerned with aerodynamics.

> I have crossed the north american continent on upright bicycle
> twice, the next time I do, it will be on a recumbent bicycle because
> of its efficiency and aerodynamics over the regular upright
> bicycles.

....stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven bicycle
replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant inroad on it
for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for bicycling around
the world in countries where the two wheeler has been a major means of
personal transportation as well as for goods.

Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does nothing
to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it is offered.
A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the lack of
recumbents (in Asia for instance).

Why do you need to hide your identity?

Use a spell checker! These are not typos.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>> I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I
> >>> don't.
>
> >> Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank! LOL
>
> > Not literally "infallible," Bill. Just careful and competent. Sorry
> > it bothers you.
>
> Read what you wrote and not what you meant, Frank. (Actually, I dount
> there's a difference in your case, which was my point.)
>
> I've ridden more than 16,000 road miles in the last few years and haven't
> "[fallen] off my bike", either. Doesn't mean it can't or won't happen.

Yes, let's read what I wrote. I didn't say "I can never fall." Nor "I
will never fall." Nor "I have never fallen."

I said "I don't." That is, I don't fall off my bike. In my ordinary,
day by day riding, I don't fall. In my touring, I don't fall. On club
rides, I don't fall. Even in the (now little) mountain biking I do, I
don't fall. It just doesn't happen, day after day, year after year,
mile after thousands of miles.

How odd that you tell _me_ to read what I wrote!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[cat0020]

On Jan 15, 3:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
> of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven bicycle
> replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant inroad on it
> for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for bicycling around
> the world in countries where the two wheeler has been a major means of
> personal transportation as well as for goods.
>
> Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
> assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does nothing
> to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it is offered.
> A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the lack of
> recumbents (in Asia for instance).
>
> Why do you need to hide your identity?
>
> Use a spell checker! These are not typos.
>
> Jobst Brandt-

Jobst,
As stated earlier in this thread, I'm not a native english
speaker/writer, I apologize if I mis-spell words, if you could kindly
show them to me and spell them out I would appreciate that. Besides the
mis-spelling, anything about what I wrote that was not clear?

Which "item" that I wrote was not factual?

Credibility is something that can not be taken, I was merely being
polite.

Is my identity important to you? or anyone else who read this thread?
What would you do if you know my identity?

 

[[email protected]]

cat0020 snipes further anonymously:

>> stated in the classic recumbent apologist style, ignoring the test
>> of time. Recumbents have been with us since the chain driven
>> bicycle replaced the high wheeler and have not made a significant
>> inroad on it for reasons ignored above. The time test is true for
>> bicycling around the world in countries where the two wheeler has
>> been a major means of personal transportation as well as for goods.

>> Beside that, the item contains claims that are not facts but rather
>> assumptions that abound in bicycling. The "Dear Frank" does
>> nothing to enhance the credibility of it especially in the tone it
>> is offered. A major omission was that the UCI is at fault for the
>> lack of recumbents (in Asia for instance).

>> Why do you need to hide your identity?

>> Use a spell checker! These are not typos.

> Jobst,

> As stated earlier in this thread, I'm not a native english
> speaker/writer, I apologize if I mis-spell words, if you could
> kindly show them to me and spell them out I would appreciate that.
> Besides the mis-spelling, anything about what I wrote that was not
> clear?

I'm sure you have a spell checker at your disposal and if not, you can
download an editor that has one.

> Which "item" that I wrote was not factual?

Among other things, energy lost in leaning the bicycle while standing.
No energy is wasted. This is especially apparent if you consider the
lean angles that are such that sighting through the front wheel makes
apparent that the tire remains between the hub flanges while climbing.
Those are a small angles that takes no more energy than pulling on the
bars while seated. Other than that, there isn't any significant done
by the arms that are uses as static braces during the pedal stroke and
add no work.

That's just one aspect. But how about addressing why you imply that
people who choose not to ride a recumbent are foolish by extension,
because they do not recognize the benefits over their choice of mount.

> Credibility is something that can not be taken, I was merely being
> polite.

Your "Dear Frank" gave emphasis to the impolite message you delivered
in a snide tone. You seem to master English well enough to do that.

> Is my identity important to you? or anyone else who read this
> thread? What would you do if you know my identity?

Your anonymity gives the flavor of talking to a wall rather than
responding to a person. You'll notice that many of the rudest
postings here are anonymous (or an alias), not by accident.

Civil courtesy prefers that when introduced, you rise if seated, take
off gloves to shake hands, remove dark glasses when doing so and make
eye contact. By extension, sniping from an obvious alias is the
opposite of these common courtesies. So what is your excuse?

Jobst Brandt

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd worry about that if I ever fell off my bike. But I
>>>>> don't.

>>>> Ah, the Infamous Infallible (quite literally, he thinks) Frank!
>>>> LOL

>>> Not literally "infallible," Bill. Just careful and competent.
>>> Sorry it bothers you.

>> Read what you wrote and not what you meant, Frank. (Actually, I
>> dount there's a difference in your case, which was my point.)
>>
>> I've ridden more than 16,000 road miles in the last few years and
>> haven't "[fallen] off my bike", either. Doesn't mean it can't or
>> won't happen.

> Yes, let's read what I wrote. I didn't say "I can never fall." Nor
> "I will never fall." Nor "I have never fallen."
>
> I said "I don't." That is, I don't fall off my bike. In my ordinary,
> day by day riding, I don't fall. In my touring, I don't fall. On
> club rides, I don't fall. Even in the (now little) mountain biking I
> do, I don't fall. It just doesn't happen, day after day, year after
> year, mile after thousands of miles.
>
> How odd that you tell _me_ to read what I wrote!

Ah, let's go get it -- ALL of it -- shall we? You wrote, quote: "I'd worry
about that if I /ever/ fell off my bike. But I don't." (emphasis added)

You conveniently ignore the word "ever" -- not to mention your own story of
a fall in a parking lot (?) or near your vehicle (?) once long ago.
Slightly injured your arm (?) IIRC.

I hope your and my streaks continue, Frank, and that we indeed "don't fall
off [our} bike"...ever! I'm just not so smug to think it can't (or even
won't) happen.

HTH...again.

B

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 15 Jan 2007 11:49:25 -0800, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Carl Said:
>
>A friend and his brothers are visiting their parents for their father's
>80th birthday.
>1) Their uncle died after breaking his neck in a solo bicycle accident.
>2) Their aunt broke her leg in a solo bicycle accident, a compound
>fracture.
>3) One brother suffered a serious head injury in a solo bicycle
>accident and still takes anti-seizure drugs.
>4) Another brother broke ribs and ruptured his spleen in a solo
>motorcycle accident.
>I can understand their "anomalous" point of view. None of them have
>ever been injured in cars.
>
>
>What style of bicycling are you referring to? Either the people you
>are referring to are astoundingly uncoordinated, or you're unfairly
>applying BMX/Freestyle/Freeride/AM instances into a debate that's
>rather clearly about road bikes.

I think that family is doing something really wild on the bike. Solo
bike accidents breaking bones so often? Wow.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************