first commute by bicycle



"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:D[email protected]...
> Thanks everyone for your helpful replies. I must say this group is a lot
> friendlier than uk.transport.


Ah yes, uk.tosspot, as it is 'affectionately' known ;-)


>
> I went in on the bike today and noticed a decrease in sweatiness compared
> to last week, so hopefully my body will adjust quickly to the workload.
> Main problem at the moment seems to be sore legs.


You will get fitter and you may be pleasantly surprised at how quickly it
happens. Don't forget to give yourself a rest from the bike too - rest is an
important part of getting fitter.

Cheers, helen s
 
"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:D[email protected]...
>> Thanks everyone for your helpful replies. I must say this group is a lot
>> friendlier than uk.transport.

>
> Ah yes, uk.tosspot, as it is 'affectionately' known ;-)
>
>
>>
>> I went in on the bike today and noticed a decrease in sweatiness compared
>> to last week, so hopefully my body will adjust quickly to the workload.
>> Main problem at the moment seems to be sore legs.

>
> You will get fitter and you may be pleasantly surprised at how quickly it
> happens. Don't forget to give yourself a rest from the bike too - rest is
> an important part of getting fitter.
>
> Cheers, helen s
>


Yes I'm currently aiming at 1-2 times per week commuting on the bike until I
get my stamina up, then I shall see how it goes from there. The last couple
of times I took the bike was the day after doing heavy squats at the gym so
that is probably the reason why my legs are feeling it more than my
cardiovascular system.

Having read through many of the posts on this group I find the claimed 15
mph+ averages very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to manage that one
day.
 
"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Yes I'm currently aiming at 1-2 times per week commuting on the bike until
> I get my stamina up, then I shall see how it goes from there. The last
> couple of times I took the bike was the day after doing heavy squats at
> the gym so that is probably the reason why my legs are feeling it more
> than my cardiovascular system.
>
> Having read through many of the posts on this group I find the claimed 15
> mph+ averages very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to manage that one
> day.
>


Oh my average speed isn't 15mph, it's lower. I'm a happy pootler.

Cheers, helen s
 
Adam Lea wrote:

> Yes I'm currently aiming at 1-2 times per week commuting on the bike until I
> get my stamina up, then I shall see how it goes from there.


Tuesday and Thursday? 3 times a week would get you fitter faster.
Monday, Wednesday, Friday would be ideal.

> The last couple of times I took the bike was the day after doing heavy squats at the
> gym so that is probably the reason why my legs are feeling it more than my
> cardiovascular system.


Yes, probably.

> Having read through many of the posts on this group I find the claimed 15
> mph+ averages very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to manage that one
> day.


Go for increasing frequency of rides first. You'll find the increase in
speed will initially come by itself. Later on you will be able to
improve your speed by concentrating on making one or two rides a week
fast, using the remainder as gentle recovery rides.

--
Dave...
 
i artikel [email protected], skrev Paul
Murphy på [email protected] den 06-04-03 15.59:

> in terms of robustness and low maintenance
> requirements, it could be argued that what I have is more of a proper bike
> than many of the feather light racing models out there!



snip


> I suspect
> many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long with the use my
> bike gets.



I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way frail.
They are only more expensive and possibly less comfortable. What makes a
bike heavy are things like hub gears, hub dynamos, hub brakes, suspension,
and comfy saddles. If you have a bike with all these things, it's seldom
worth it to spend the extra money on the best and lightest components, since
it will be comparatively heavy anyway. The combination will result in a
heavy bike which is not in the least stronger than a light bike.

A 105kg person is admittedly on the heavy side, but I doubt you would have
any problem with a light bike. If you do, it would probably just be the
wheels getting untrue, and that can be fixed with a little extra
maintenance, or getting stronger spokes and rims at a marginal weight
penalty.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary
 
in message <C05B052C.19EE7%[email protected]>, Erik Sandblom
('[email protected]') wrote:

>> I suspect
>> many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long with the
>> use my bike gets.

>
> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
> frail. They are only more expensive and possibly less comfortable. What
> makes a bike heavy are things like hub gears, hub dynamos, hub brakes,
> suspension, and comfy saddles.


No. Light bikes are not necessarily frailer. Nor are the necessarily less
comfortable - carbon fibre makes very comfortable bikes. But the old
'strong, light, cheap, choose two' definitely does apply.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Roburt Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'
 
Adam Lea wrote:
> Having read through many of the posts on this group I find the claimed 15
> mph+ averages very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to manage that one
> day.


I expected an average of at least 15mph this morning, given that my
computer was reading 20mph or more for most of the journey. I was most
surprised and disappointed to see an average reading of 14.2 when I
arrived at work :-(

Little things can make a huge difference. For example, the opening in
2001 of the final section of the Avon ring road knocked about 1mph off
of my average speed. It takes longer for me to get across the ring road
now, and I inevitably lose a great deal of momentum at the beginning of
a gentle uphill drag.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> Having read through many of the posts on this group I find the claimed
>> 15 mph+ averages very impressive. Hopefully I will be able to manage
>> that one day.

>
> I expected an average of at least 15mph this morning, given that my
> computer was reading 20mph or more for most of the journey. I was most
> surprised and disappointed to see an average reading of 14.2 when I
> arrived at work :-(
>


I've stopped worrying about average speed etc but from the days when I
did I found that you needed to rush up to red lights, brake hard and
stop if you wanted to keep your average up. The more usual slow
approach waiting for them to change without putting your feet down
could quite significantly affect your average for the worse. For a 15
mile commute up the A10 and across Cambridge I used to reckon 50-55mins
(16 - 18mph) typically with down to 45mins with a good tail wind and
over an hour with a good head wind.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> I've stopped worrying about average speed etc but from the days when I
> did I found that you needed to rush up to red lights, brake hard and
> stop if you wanted to keep your average up. The more usual slow
> approach waiting for them to change without putting your feet down
> could quite significantly affect your average for the worse.


Only if you are taking rolling time rather than total time into
account.
If you take door to door time then it doesn't care if more or less of
that time is spent standing at lights..

...d
 
"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C05B052C.19EE7%[email protected]...
> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
> frail.
> They are only more expensive and possibly less comfortable. What makes a
> bike heavy are things like hub gears, hub dynamos, hub brakes, suspension,
> and comfy saddles. If you have a bike with all these things, it's seldom
> worth it to spend the extra money on the best and lightest components,
> since
> it will be comparatively heavy anyway. The combination will result in a
> heavy bike which is not in the least stronger than a light bike.


The things that make the bike heavier are the things that I want though. I
want hub brakes and gears and theres no way in the world I'd want an
external dynamo rubbing againt my tyre or having to rely on a battery
powered headlamp. These are all lower maintenance additions as I see them.
>
> A 105kg person is admittedly on the heavy side, but I doubt you would have
> any problem with a light bike. If you do, it would probably just be the
> wheels getting untrue, and that can be fixed with a little extra
> maintenance, or getting stronger spokes and rims at a marginal weight
> penalty.


The problem is that even though carbon fibre composite construction is
stronger than many other designs for tensile strrength, its NOT as robust
and knocks or over stessing it can have "hidden" consequences whereas
impending failure of alloy components is more obvious, without sudden
catastrophic failure. I used to work in the Aviation industry and Alluminium
alloys, magnesium alloys, titanium as well as composite structures are all
used extensively in aircraft construction. Id rather have my bike designed
with a higher margin of safety and increased robustness but I can understand
why others want lighter, more highly stressed machines. If I wanted a super
lightweight carbon fibre electric bike there's always one of these "yellow
dreams" :
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...p://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/index.htm

Paul
 
Erik Sandblom writz:
> i artikel [email protected], skrev Paul
> > I suspect many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long with the use my
> > bike gets.

> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way frail.

Dunno about that, you'll see stickers on the carbon-framed bikes saying
something to the effect, "throw this bike away after three years".
Whereas my commuter has a sticker on it saying "Steel is Real " - nice
to be reassured I'm not just imaging my bike, after all.
 
sothach wrote:

> Whereas my commuter has a sticker on it saying "Steel is Real " - nice
> to be reassured I'm not just imaging my bike, after all.

^^^^^^^^
Jpegs?

...d
 
in message <[email protected]>,
sothach ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Erik Sandblom writz:
>> i artikel [email protected], skrev
>> Paul
>> > I suspect many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long
>> > with the use my bike gets.

>> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
>> frail.

> Dunno about that, you'll see stickers on the carbon-framed bikes saying
> something to the effect, "throw this bike away after three years".


Where? None on mine.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> sothach ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Erik Sandblom writz:
> >> i artikel [email protected], skrev
> >> Paul
> >> > I suspect many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long
> >> > with the use my bike gets.
> >> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
> >> frail.

> > Dunno about that, you'll see stickers on the carbon-framed bikes saying
> > something to the effect, "throw this bike away after three years".

>
> Where? None on mine.

Dunno, my frame is made of a carbon-iron composite material, but I read
it in the gaurdian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wheels/story/0,,1660620,00.html
 
> I've stopped worrying about average speed etc but from the days when I
> did I found that you needed to rush up to red lights, brake hard and
> stop if you wanted to keep your average up.


Does wonders for your fitness - a series of lights makes for fairly good
interval type training. My eyes pop start popping out if I get a few
greens in a row thobut.
 
> Dunno about that, you'll see stickers on the carbon-framed bikes
> saying something to the effect, "throw this bike away after three
> years".


My carbon frame is 10 years old and still going strong. Reading up on the
net, most bad comments seem to be about bikes in the early days of carbon.
 
i artikel [email protected], skrev Paul
Murphy på [email protected] den 06-04-07 01.14:

> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:C05B052C.19EE7%[email protected]...
>> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
>> frail.
>> They are only more expensive and possibly less comfortable. What makes a
>> bike heavy are things like hub gears, hub dynamos, hub brakes, suspension,
>> and comfy saddles. If you have a bike with all these things, it's seldom
>> worth it to spend the extra money on the best and lightest components,
>> since
>> it will be comparatively heavy anyway. The combination will result in a
>> heavy bike which is not in the least stronger than a light bike.

>
> The things that make the bike heavier are the things that I want though. I
> want hub brakes and gears and theres no way in the world I'd want an
> external dynamo rubbing againt my tyre or having to rely on a battery
> powered headlamp. These are all lower maintenance additions as I see them.



I accept the low-maintenance, high-weight tradeoff. But if you put an
electric motor on it, doesn't that require a lot of maintenance? Isn't this
a high-weight, high-maintenance solution?


>> A 105kg person is admittedly on the heavy side, but I doubt you would have
>> any problem with a light bike. If you do, it would probably just be the
>> wheels getting untrue, and that can be fixed with a little extra
>> maintenance, or getting stronger spokes and rims at a marginal weight
>> penalty.

>
> The problem is that even though carbon fibre composite construction



Fibre schmiber. My Brompton is all steel except the aluminum handlebar. Hub
dynamo, hub gears, rim brakes, hefty iron-looking rear rack, and weighs
under 14kg. It won't run smoothly over potholes, but I don't feel that's a
necessary or desirable design goal. If that was necessary, you could weld
all the folds, and it would probably do potholes and still weigh 14kg.


> catastrophic failure.



I understand aluminum breaks apart like this, but it's so widespread, and I
trust the manufacturer's assertion that it will most likely last for the
service life of the bike. I don't feel this is a "stressed" or "feather
light" bike.


> If I wanted a super
> lightweight carbon fibre electric bike there's always one of these "yellow
> dreams" :
> http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http
> %3a%2f%2fwww.petrol.free.fr%2fElectricShop%2findex.htm



http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/

What do you use that bike for? No mudguards, racks, or lights. This is a
racing bike.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary
 
"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C05F5106.1A177%[email protected]...
<snip>
> I accept the low-maintenance, high-weight tradeoff. But if you put an
> electric motor on it, doesn't that require a lot of maintenance? Isn't
> this
> a high-weight, high-maintenance solution?


There is no additional maintenance reqd associated with my bikes design as a
result of having an electric motor. It's a brushless design and the
powerplant is looked upon as being a "sealed unit" It contains the bottom
bracket so there's one less set of bearings to adjust. These Panasonic bike
powerplants have an excellent reputation and other than some initial battery
charger design problems (which have since been rectified), I'm not aware of
any reliability issues.

<snip>
> Fibre schmiber. My Brompton is all steel except the aluminum handlebar.
> Hub
> dynamo, hub gears, rim brakes, hefty iron-looking rear rack, and weighs
> under 14kg. It won't run smoothly over potholes, but I don't feel that's a
> necessary or desirable design goal. If that was necessary, you could weld
> all the folds, and it would probably do potholes and still weigh 14kg.


Are you suggesting that full size, full frame bikes made of steel weigh
around 14 kg as well? If I ever want a folding bike, certainly I'll consider
one of those. I want the frame rigidity which comes with a full frame,
that's one reason why I bought the gents frame version (with top tube)
rather than the ST version of the Giant Twist.

>
>> catastrophic failure.

>
>
> I understand aluminum breaks apart like this, but it's so widespread, and
> I
> trust the manufacturer's assertion that it will most likely last for the
> service life of the bike. I don't feel this is a "stressed" or "feather
> light" bike.


It does depend on the composition of the alloy and any treatments its
undergone as to how much material displacement and or cracking or
indications occur before failure but with even the worst case scenario,
aluminium alloys are still much preferable over carbon fibre in situations
where you don't want to be surprised by a catastrophic failure. If I wanted
to take my bike on the train in the UK during peak times, only then would I
consider a foldable bike.

>

<snip>
> http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/
>
> What do you use that bike for? No mudguards, racks, or lights. This is a
> racing bike.


Well I don't have one of those. At 4,500 Euros its far beyond my means but
it does show what's possible in terms of light weight electric bikes. As you
rightly point out it also wouldn't meet my cycling needs. It does look very
nice though - it takes an award for maximum bling factor.

Paul
 
in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:

> The problem is that even though carbon fibre composite construction is
> stronger than many other designs for tensile strrength, its NOT as
> robust and knocks or over stessing it can have "hidden" consequences
> whereas impending failure of alloy components is more obvious, without
> sudden catastrophic failure.


Last October, as regulars here will be bored of hearing, I crashed my
8.7Kg carbon fibre bike into a pile of granite boulders at 46mph. The
frame was returned to the manufacture for damage assessment, and was
found to have no structural damage. No damage was detected in the fork
or handlebars either, but I replaced both on the precautionary
principle.

Yes, carbon fibre is vulnerable to hidden damage. But it is /very/ strong
and resilient.

Oh, and if we're comparing bikes on a like for like basis, then this

> If I wanted a super lightweight carbon fibre electric bike there's
> always one of these "yellow dreams" :
> http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/index.htm


is still 250% heavier than, for example, this:

http://gb.cannondale.com/bikes/06/ce/model-6rct0s.html

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig
 
in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Are you suggesting that full size, full frame bikes made of steel weigh
> around 14 kg as well?


No, as little as half that. The frame is a small part of the weight of
the bike, after all. A carbon frame weighs from about 900 grammes to
about 1.8Kg, with most around 1.25Kg, a quality steel frame from 1.14Kg
(http://home.vicnet.net.au/~hillman/) to possibly as much as 2.5Kg, with
most around 2000g. If you take the kit of a Cannondale Six13 (frame
weight 1536 grammes, all-up weight 6600 grammes) and put it on a Colnago
Master XLight, or a Hewitt Poggio, or a Hillman Custom, or a Serotta
Fiete, or a Strong Frames True Temper, or a Vanilla Custom, you'll still
get a bike that's too light to be UCI legal; and those are all quality
steel frames.

Using less exotic components, a good-quality steel road bike weighs about
9-10Kg. Tourers are heavier, but that's mostly due to additional
equipment (racks, etc), larger tyres and stronger wheels. Very little of
the extra weight will be in the frame.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.
 

Similar threads