High humidity and cotton

[Terry Morse]

wle wrote:

> >
> > I think the synthetics are far superior when you ride in
> > hilly or mountainous areas. A cotton shirt will get
> > sopping wet on your way up the hill, leaving you very
> > chilly as you zoom down the other side. Synthetics
> > absorb almost no water, so you stay comfortable on the
> > downhill ride.
>
> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?

More water absorbed, more water available for evaporative
cooling, more cooling. Good on very hot days, not so good on
long descents when it's not so hot.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Richard Ney]

Terry Morse writes:

>>> I think the synthetics are far superior when you ride in
>>> hilly or mountainous areas. A cotton shirt will get
>>> sopping wet on your way up the hill, leaving you very
>>> chilly as you zoom down the other side. Synthetics
>>> absorb almost no water, so you stay comfortable on the
>>> downhill ride.
>>
>> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?
>
> More water absorbed, more water available for evaporative
> cooling, more cooling. Good on very hot days, not so good
> on long descents when it's not so hot.

I'd add that a synthetic base layer--DeFeet, Craft, etc--
does a great job wicking moisture away from the skin and
keeping me warm on cool days and dry on hot ones. After a
three hour ride in the hills on a hot day, my (synthetic)
jersey is pretty damp but the undershirt is dry. Probably my
favorite piece of bike clothing.

http://tinyurl.com/38oj5

 

[w]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>wle wrote:
>
>> >
>> > I think the synthetics are far superior when you ride
>> > in hilly or mountainous areas. A cotton shirt will get
>> > sopping wet on your way up the hill, leaving you very
>> > chilly as you zoom down the other side. Synthetics
>> > absorb almost no water, so you stay comfortable on the
>> > downhill ride.
>>
>> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?
>
>More water absorbed, more water available for evaporative
>cooling, more cooling. Good on very hot days, not so good
>on long descents when it's not so hot.

ok but cotton absorbs more water. this is why i was asking.
the other guy said synthetics are better because they absorb
less water. you are saying the opposite.

wle.

>--
>terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Jobst Brandt]

>> I think the synthetics are far superior when you ride in
>> hilly or mountainous areas. A cotton shirt will get
>> sopping wet on your way up the hill, leaving you very
>> chilly as you zoom down the other side. Synthetics
>> absorb almost no water, so you stay comfortable on the
>> downhill ride.

> How does the amount of water absorbed matter?

> I mean, if the shirt doesn't absorb it, it will stay on
> your body and be dripping, right?

Two points. The random size of cotton fibers make them
denser pack than a synthetic fiber cloth and these fine
interstices hold water more securely and wick more poorly
than a synthetics. What is less obvious, because knit-wear
vanished overnight, is that old knit-wear jerseys dried
rapidly, being sufficiently loosely woven (knitted) and were
cool and warm enough to have a great following among people
who noticed such things. That is one of the attractions of
wool although it has other negative characteristics.

Today, knit-wear is gone because it cannot be printed on to
carry a dozen sponsors labels. Knit-wear had to be
embroidered and that is why there was so little advertising
on these jerseys. When woven, printable jerseys came along,
riders were derided as "Jersey Pro's" affecting a
professional appearance without substance. Just the same,
the money was in the Jersey Pro's charge card, not the knit-
wear folks' and now that's all we have. Besides, we are in
the age of appearances as we see with the big black "car"
syndrome. The UCI also rescinded their prohibition on
displaying brand names of businesses that did not sponsor
the rider. That was in the black shorts/white socks era.

long zippers in the front of these flopping non-aerodynamic
jerseys are there for good reason. THey must be opened when
climbing hills in warm weather for cooling because almost no
air penetrates these shirts compared to knit-wear. It is
obvious that long zippers were available but never used on
knitted jerseys because they did not need them. I am still
wearing that old stuff, not because it looks right but
because I never think of unzipping it in summer or winter...
except to put it on or take it off.

R.I.P.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[Andy M-S]

[email protected] (JP) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:<XCq*[email protected]>...
> > JP <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >"Doug Huffman"
> > >>I live and ride in 90+F and 90+%RH (Charleston, SC)
> > >>and promise that 'wear cotton and die' is a good
> > >>warning if a bit hyperbolic.
> [Otherwise sensible stuff]
> > >Besides, it's also sensible, if at all possible, on
> > >those 90/90 days to do your bike riding in the morning,
> > >unless you have a reason to train specifically for heat
> > >acclimatization.
> >
> > Or, gosh, unless you actually have somewhere to go,
> > rather than using the bike exclusively as a toy.
>
> Yeah, for those who have the luxury of being able to
> arrive somewhere smelling like the hippo exhibit at the
> zoo. And whether training or commuting, you're still
> sucking the same ozone into your lungs, at least around
> here anyway.
>
> JP

Hmm. I commute year round rain or shine or snow or heat and
I never smell like a hippo. Of course, unlike some people, I
shower regularly.

 

[Tom Reingold]

[email protected] wrote:

> Two points. The random size of cotton fibers make them
> denser pack than a synthetic fiber cloth and these fine
> interstices hold water more securely and wick more poorly
> than a synthetics. What is less obvious, because knit-wear
> vanished overnight, is that old knit-wear jerseys dried
> rapidly, being sufficiently loosely woven (knitted) and
> were cool and warm enough to have a great following among
> people who noticed such things. That is one of the
> attractions of wool although it has other negative
> characteristics.
>
> Today, knit-wear is gone because it cannot be printed on
> to carry a dozen sponsors labels. Knit-wear had to be
> embroidered and that is why there was so little
> advertising on these jerseys. When woven, printable
> jerseys came along, riders were derided as "Jersey Pro's"
> affecting a professional appearance without substance.
> Just the same, the money was in the Jersey Pro's charge
> card, not the knit-wear folks' and now that's all we have.
> Besides, we are in the age of appearances as we see with
> the big black "car" syndrome. The UCI also rescinded their
> prohibition on displaying brand names of businesses that
> did not sponsor the rider. That was in the black
> shorts/white socks era.
>
> long zippers in the front of these flopping non-
> aerodynamic jerseys are there for good reason. THey must
> be opened when climbing hills in warm weather for cooling
> because almost no air penetrates these shirts compared to
> knit-wear. It is obvious that long zippers were available
> but never used on knitted jerseys because they did not
> need them. I am still wearing that old stuff, not because
> it looks right but because I never think of unzipping it
> in summer or winter... except to put it on or take it off.
>
> R.I.P.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected]

Quite right. I gave my wool jerseys away a year or two ago
because they had shrunken and I had grown. (I promise both
happened. I'm not that much fatter, but my chest and
shoulders have really grown, honest.) I remember hearing
about wool jerseys and wondering if they would be hot in
the summer. Interestingly, they are not hot when riding,
because of the wicking action, but they were certainly hot
when I stopped.

I am astonished at the prices of jerseys in the bike shops.
The good news is that you can get jerseys without prints,
and they suit me fine.

Taken recently, I'm the guy named Tom on the right:

http://tinyurl.com/3yree

Tom

 

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>JP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Besides, it's also sensible, if at all possible, on those
>>>90/90 days to do your bike riding in the morning, unless
>>>you have a reason to train specifically for heat
>>>acclimatization.
>>Or, gosh, unless you actually have somewhere to go, rather
>>than using the bike exclusively as a toy.
>Or, gosh, unless you actually have something to do, which
>precludes using the bike.

Er, what?

Why does the fact that some things - like moving pianos -
can't be done on bikes invalidate the observation that
transportational cyclists often cannot choose when in the
day to ride?

[Answer: it doesn't.]
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Tom Reingold writes:

> Quite right. I gave my wool jerseys away a year or two ago
> because they had shrunken and I had grown. (I promise both
> happened. I'm not that much fatter, but my chest and
> shoulders have really grown, honest.) I remember hearing
> about wool jerseys and wondering if they would be hot in
> the summer. Interestingly, they are not hot when riding,
> because of the wicking action, but they were certainly hot
> when I stopped.

I think you are overlooking the ventilation effect because
wool as synthetic knit-wear allows air passage that woven
fabrics (that are offered these days) do not. Hence the long
zipper so they can be ridden wide open for ventilation. It's
not the printing that makes these jerseys uncomfortable.

> I am astonished at the prices of jerseys in the bike
> shops. The good news is that you can get jerseys without
> prints, and they suit me fine.

> Taken recently, I'm the guy named Tom on the right:

> http://tinyurl.com/3yree

Do you work for the CIA/FBI? Why the welding goggles?

http://tinyurl.com/2x2y6 http://tinyurl.com/3arss

I'm the guy on the left.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[Dvt]

wle wrote:
> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?

The cotton shirt, which holds more water, gets heavy and
flaps around in the breeze. Getting slapped every few
seconds with a wet rag is uncomfortable. I don't get that
sensation with a synthetic.

--
Dave dvt at psu dot edu

 

[Tim McNamara]

dvt <[email protected]> writes:

> wle wrote:
>> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?
>
> The cotton shirt, which holds more water, gets heavy and
> flaps around in the breeze. Getting slapped every few
> seconds with a wet rag is uncomfortable.

Now *there's* a charming description!

I find that cotton shorts can get clammy and unpleasant. I
much prefer wool jerseys and have some of fairly heavy knit
and some of much finer knit. The latter are WoolyWarms
(www.woolywarm.com) and I find the SS ones comfortable well
into the 90's (which is good because I really like to ride
when the weather is hot).

 

[Matt O'Toole]

dvt wrote:

> wle wrote:
>> how does the amount of water absorbed matter?

> The cotton shirt, which holds more water, gets heavy and
> flaps around in the breeze. Getting slapped every few
> seconds with a wet rag is uncomfortable. I don't get that
> sensation with a synthetic.

Not to mention a big wet rag. Cotton T-shirts grow to
poncho size when wet. It's even worse these days because
they're all oversized to begin with, for that phat look on
fat people.

I have some cotton shirts which are some kind of mesh weave
-- much different than a T-shirt or pique knit -- not
stretchy. Air blows through them like a knit wool jersey.
They don't grow as they get wet, but they don't get wet to
begin with. Great stuff, but it comes and goes on the
market. Mine are Patagonia from several years ago. I can't
find anything quite like them these days.

Matt O.

 

[David Reuteler]

Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find that cotton shorts can get clammy and unpleasant. I
> much prefer wool jerseys and have some of fairly heavy
> knit and some of much finer knit. The latter are
> WoolyWarms (www.woolywarm.com) and I find the SS ones
> comfortable well into the 90's (which is good because I
> really like to ride when the weather is hot).

i'm a wool bigot so i'll drop in my unsolicited opinion ..
actually i only wear wool. for me they're comfortable up to
the 105 or so it got here (idaho) last summer or minnesota
in the mid 90s and humid.

i own some old swobo, woolistic and woolywarm. if the
woolistic acido didn't have that stupid elastic i'd put it
down as my unconditional favourite. otherwise i use two (1
in winter) of them for commuting and wash once a week.
they've held up extremely well over the past year. i took 2
of the swobos on a 3.5 month tour washing them every other
day in tide (which is bad) and now two years later still use
'em all the time. modern wool holds up pretty well, you
don't need to wash it as often (tho major rides require a
wash), tho the colour does fade more than synthetics. i'm
really not sure what the downsides are supposed to be.

i have one woolywarm, and my complaints with it are more
personal preference. i prefer a zipper to buttons, it's cut
way too large (buy smaller) and more like a shirt than a
jersey (it's meant to be baggy).

the real problem with wool lately has been availability.
they all seem to go bankrupt (swobo) or never have any stock
(woolistic). even woolywarm only has certain colours at any
given time.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

dvt wrote:

> I wore an el cheapo jersey with synthetics. It got wet,
> too, but it was much less uncomfortable in that state.

This is true. However, synthetics vary *a lot* in their
performance. The slick finish ones that are usually printed
on are like you describe, but there are other ones that are
great -- moisture seems to just sublimate off your skin.
Some of the mesh weaves are really nice too. And the early
synthetic jerseys were really awful. If that's what you
remember, don't base your impressions on
it. These modern, super-duper fabrics really do work, but
at what cost is the question.

Matt O.

 

[Rick Onanian]

On 10 Jun 2004 15:30:17 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Or, gosh, unless you actually have somewhere to go,
>>>rather than using the bike exclusively as a toy.
>>Or, gosh, unless you actually have something to do, which
>>precludes using the bike.
>
>Er, what?
>
>Why does the fact that some things - like moving pianos -
>can't be done on

You've missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with
the cargo capabilities of the bike. I'm sure there's a web
page showing how somebody moved a piano with a bike anyway.

>bikes invalidate the observation that transportational
>cyclists often cannot choose when in the day to ride?

Reading that doesn't make me want to ride
transportationally. I like to choose when I'm going to ride.

Previously, you've basically said "it's ridiculous for you
not to be a transportational cyclist", quoted at the top of
this message (the bit about going somewhere vs. bike as
toy). This has nothing to do with the choices that
transportational cyclists cannot make. How did you get that?

>[Answer: it doesn't.]

Using the bike as transportation takes a lot more time than,
for example, driving the same distance (for some
circumstances; for others, this argument is invalid). As a
result, a schedule often doesn't allow biking.

One size does not fit all. How many times do I have to say
it? So, just because YOU ride transportationally, doesn't
mean that EVERYBODY must do so. Some of us ride for fun, and
solely so. When we need to get somewhere, we choose a method
that better fits our needs. You don't need to make snide
remarks to everybody who discusses riding recreationally.
--
Rick Onanian

 

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Or, gosh, unless you actually have somewhere to go,
>>>>rather than using the bike exclusively as a toy.
>Previously, you've basically said "it's ridiculous for you
>not to be a transportational cyclist", quoted at the top of
>this message

No, I didn't, and your misreading of that is the core of the
problem here. I pointed out that the (persistent) assumption
on rbt that all bicycling is recreational is absurd.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill
the tomato!

 

[Andy M-S]

Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 10 Jun 2004 15:30:17 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>Or, gosh, unless you actually have somewhere to go,
> >>>rather than using the bike exclusively as a toy.
> >>Or, gosh, unless you actually have something to do,
> >>which precludes using the bike.
> >
> >Er, what?
> >
> >Why does the fact that some things - like moving pianos -
> >can't be done on
>
> You've missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do
> with the cargo capabilities of the bike. I'm sure
> there's a web page showing how somebody moved a piano
> with a bike anyway.
>
> >bikes invalidate the observation that transportational
> >cyclists often cannot choose when in the day to ride?
>
> Reading that doesn't make me want to ride
> transportationally. I like to choose when I'm going
> to ride.
>
> Previously, you've basically said "it's ridiculous for
> you not to be a transportational cyclist", quoted at the
> top of this message (the bit about going somewhere vs.
> bike as toy). This has nothing to do with the choices
> that transportational cyclists cannot make. How did you
> get that?
>
> >[Answer: it doesn't.]
>
> Using the bike as transportation takes a lot more time
> than, for example, driving the same distance (for some
> circumstances; for others, this argument is invalid). As a
> result, a schedule often doesn't allow biking.
>
> One size does not fit all. How many times do I have to say
> it? So, just because YOU ride transportationally, doesn't
> mean that EVERYBODY must do so. Some of us ride for fun,
> and solely so. When we need to get somewhere, we choose a
> method that better fits our needs. You don't need to make
> snide remarks to everybody who discusses riding
> recreationally.

I think that this may all be a misunderstanding. Take the
message that started this subthread:

> >>Or, gosh, unless you actually have something to do,
> >>which precludes using the bike.

parsed as

[Or, gosh] [unless you actually have something to do] [which
precludes using the bike]

I read that (and so did others) as a snide remark that some
people have "things to do" as opposed to riding a bike,
which is implied to be unimportant by contrast to these
other "things." That's what people are reacting to--the
notion that bikes are purely recreational.

Now, remove one comma and you get:

> >>Or, gosh, unless you actually have something to do which
> >>precludes using the bike.

parsed as

[Or, gosh] [unless you actually have something to do which
precludes using the bike]

Which translates as "sometimes you have to do things that
you can't do with a bike."

That's a much less objectionable statement, because it's
obviously true. I have seen upright pianos moved by bike,
but in general, it's not going to be the sort of thing for
which you use a bike. Likewise, since the local airport
doesn't have long-term bike parking, it's not somewhere I
would go on a bike. There are lots of other examples.

So, two possible readings of the statement. The first is
snotty and deserves all the flak it has received. The second
is unobjectionable. If the second is what was meant (and it
sounds like it) then all this hoo-hah is the result of a
minor (and all-too-common) grammatical error.

 

[Mark South]

"Andy M-S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So, two possible readings of the statement. The first is
> snotty and deserves all the flak it has received. The
> second is unobjectionable.

In British English it is common to use a comma to link a
coordinate clause. I think you will find this recommended in
the Chicago Manual of Style as well, so it's not a purely
Brit thing.

> If the second is what was meant (and it sounds like it)
> then all this hoo-hah is the result of a minor (and all-too-
> common) grammatical error.

I doubt it was an error - see above. Dr Damerell is often
on a high horse and I've had serious run-ins with him in
the past, but his use of the language is generally not to
be faulted.

On the other hand, it seems obvious that the disagreement
was that Rick (I think) said that being soaked while on the
bike was OK, and David retorted that that was OK unless one
actually had something to do. They seem to have interpreted
each other as being fun/exercise and transportation fascists
respectively. It's not clear at this stage why.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[David Damerell]

Mark South <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Andy M-S" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>So, two possible readings of the statement. The first is
>>snotty and deserves all the flak it has received. The
>>second is unobjectionable.
>I doubt it was an error - see above. Dr Damerell is often
>on a high horse and I've had serious run-ins with him in
>the past, but his use of the language is generally not to
>be faulted.

Thank you, but actually Rick wrote the statement that Andy
M-S (wrongly) supposes started the disagreement.

>On the other hand, it seems obvious that the disagreement
>was that Rick (I think) said that being soaked while on the
>bike was OK, and David retorted that that was OK unless one
>actually had something to do.

Originally "JP" wrote that in hot climates one may as well
ride in the early morning unless one wishes to train for
heat acclimatization, and I replied intending to point out
(snidely) that not everyone rides purely recreationally; if
you have somewhere to go, you generally can't wait for the
weather to suit you.

There is a persistent assumption on rbt that everyone is
only interested in racing and hence in training and
equipment for racing.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill
the tomato!

 

[Dvt]

David Damerell wrote:
> the (persistent) assumption on rbt that all bicycling is
> recreational is absurd.

I don't think you could be more wrong. r.b.tech is a great
source of info for commuters and other utilitarian
cyclists. A recreational cyclist doesn't have as much need
for things like fenders, internally geared hubs, studded
tires, and chain cases since they are much less likely to
ride in inclement condititions. These items are regularly
discussed here.

--
Dave dvt at psu dot edu

 

[David Damerell]

dvt <[email protected]> wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>the (persistent) assumption on rbt that all bicycling is
>>recreational is absurd.
>I don't think you could be more wrong. r.b.tech is a great
>source of info for commuters and other utilitarian
>cyclists.

Yes. I wrote "persistent", not "pervasive"; I don't mean to
suggest that everyone makes this assumption, but that the
people who do make it are loath to abandon it.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill
the tomato!