Next best thing to a Brooks Pro



J

Joe Riel

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> interfere with athletic competition. The best all around design would
> be quickly found and it would probably be much the same for all teams.


Beware the unintended consequences. A likely outcome is that teams
would choose to be noncompetitive in some races, or stages, in order
to improve their chances in others. This would not necessarily lead
to a common design.

--
Joe Riel
 
On 26 Oct 2006 14:49:45 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>> I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
>>> on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
>>> in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
>>> that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
>>> embedded in the surface of car tires.

>
>> Er, goatheads don't puncture car or motorcycle tires, but I hear
>> rumors that they can cause problems for bicycles.

>
>Ah yes, but I find them in tires of cars that pulled off the road at
>locations where the stuff grows. That they break off and leave only
>their thorn once back on the road is the same as for bicyclists,
>except that the thorn is too short to reach the air chamber... and is
>hard to see, being a tiny tan colored pip in the huge tire.
>
>> Since you insist that anything outside your experience can't exist,
>> would you please tell us what your experience is?

>
>I think it's a good measure, considering riding on all sorts of
>terrain with people from around the world who also have not found
>them.
>
>> That is, how many flat bicycle tires have you had in the last year
>> or ten thousand miles?

>
>About six or eight, I don't recall. Of these, three or four were
>snake bites.
>
>> In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average
>> of a flat tire every sixty miles.

>
>I wouldn't be so proud of that. You seem to be attracted to roads
>that are full of thorns and know where they are. Instead of crossing
>these minefields, avoid them.
>
>> As I recall, we've been through this before. Confronted with
>> pictures, you insisted that you could see no goatheads. Confronted
>> with close-ups, you changed your tune to asking why I ride a bicycle
>> on a path that doesn't suit your theories.

>
>You changed the pictures!
>
>> For general amusement, here's the thread:

>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec....6763342204c/37608e9e4b7ce770#37608e9e4b7ce770
>> or http://tinyurl.com/m5ggx

>
>> If you're as authoritative about flints as you were about goatheads,
>> this would be a good time to fall silent, but it really would be
>> interesting to know how many flats your experience is based on.

>
>As I said, it is based on miles ridden on roads that you claim are
>full of them. I have never had a roofing tack in my tires, but that
>does not mean you cant get one, especially if you ride through an area
>where they are used. I think you are turning discovery upside down.
>
>The argument seems the same as broken spokes. Unless you break them
>often, you don't know anything about spoke failure, so the current
>argument goes yet I made the transition from spoke failure to
>practically none with design.
>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

So your authoritative position that all those riders who mention
flints as a problem is based on not having had such a problem yourself
on 6-8 flats per year or 10,000 miles.

Sounds like less than 250 flats in 300,000 miles, not a very
impressive sample.

Your argument about spokes is illogical.

You wrote about breaking spokes often before something changed (either
your spoke stretching or the durability of spokes that you mention
changed dramatically in 10 years).

So you never claimed that spoke failure was a myth, which is what
you're claiming about flints.

As for changing the pictures, I simply took more, with closeups. It's
pathetic to argue first that there were no goatheads and then switch
to saying that goathead-infested paths where I live should be avoided
in order not to contradict your theories about how easily goatheads
can be avoided.

(Did you think that I was just imagining the goatheads?)

You can do better than that.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:49:51 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 25 Oct 2006 23:58:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average of a
>>flat tire every sixty miles.

>
>Wow, that's a lot of flats. I guess those goatheads are really bad.
>If the problem is something more mundane - like glass --, try Mr.
>Tuffy. I'd expect that in 60 rides like that with Mr. Tuffy you'd get
>one or zero flats -- at least that's my experience riding on roads in
>and around New York City, which have a fair amount of glass and other
>debris on the roads. Though maybe they can't beat goatheads.


Dear John,

It's just an annoying recent spate of bad luck.

I was having much better luck earlier in the year and foolishly
imagined that things were somehow improving.

It really illustrates nothing more than regional variation. I just
happen to live in an area where the soil and climate encourage
puncture vine.

But despite my pathetic whimpering, I can easily point to a place with
far worse goathead trouble. If I turned north at the dam and rode up
the bluffs to Pueblo West, I'd want a mountain bike with knobby tires,
Mr. Tuffy, thorn-resistant tubes, and Slime. Local bike shops hate to
sell touring bikes to people who live in Pueblo West, since it's
common to flat on goatheads by the end of your first block.

If I were to use Jobst's logic, I'd insist that Michelin wire flats
are a myth. I've read about Michelin wire flats on RBT, but I've never
had one, despite about 30,000 miles on a 65-mph stretch of highway.
Really, it's absurd to think that a little piece of wire (probably
lying flat) could somehow fly up and pierce a bicycle tire! We don't
hear of car tires suffering such flats. Since I've never had one and
my theory denies them, they must be myth and--

A friend borrowed a bicycle a year or two ago, rode about 20 miles on
a similar highway with far less traffic about six miles south of my
daily ride, and told me that he had an odd flat. It was, he said, just
a tiny little piece of wire that caused a slow leak.

Michelin wire, I explained, trying to look bored and experienced. Very
common.

Then I betrayed my excitement and asked if he had kept the little
wire. He hadn't, and I broke down and confessed that I'd read about
Michelin wire flats on RBT, but that I'd never seen one before.

As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
right over.

Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
Indeed, the hardest thorns to spot and dig out of the tire are the
ones broken off where the tread and sidewall meet.

So I use Slime tubes, which often get me home. When I fix a flat and
later check the tube, it's not unusual to find several sealed goathead
punctures.

For me, this is normal. But I don't recommend Slime or Mr. Tuffy or
other anti-flat measures for most riders on RBT because my impression
is that, like Jobst, most people suffer only 6-8 flats (or fewer) per
year. And I wouldn't be surprised to find that Slime tubes don't wrok
well where glass is the problem, since Slime doesn't work well against
bigger holes and slits.

My disagreement with Jobst about flints is based on:

a) finding nasty little shark-tooth-shaped rock flakes in my flat
tires opposite nasty little slits in the tubes (happily reduced since
the sand-and-gravel pit on my daily ride closed)

b) other RBT posters reporting that flint flats are a routine problem
where they live (like "Michelin wire," "flint" is a UK/European term)

c) glass chips cause flats, so it's strange to argue that rock chips
are somehow unable to do the same thing (google flint knapping, or
just cut yourself on the right kind of rock)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
D

DougC

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I don't see the point for this proposed requirement. Right now, I
>> think most teams have separate bikes for TT's and road stages, the
>> European racers have front suspension bikes for cobblestones, and
>> some of the better funded teams have special bikes for climbing
>> stages. So why would it be appropriate to make an alternative
>> design mandatory for ALL stages?

>
> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.

As I heard it--the HPVA formed because the "other" organizations had
already excluded recumbents. It's not that difficult to write technical
rules that would allow all bicycles; something along the lines of "one
rider, exclusively human powered, with no parts solely for aerodynamic
benefit" would work. ANYTHING else goes. Would that be simpler or more
complicated than the rules they have now?

> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> interfere with athletic competition. The best all around design would
> be quickly found and it would probably be much the same for all teams.
>

The big teams can spend huge sums of money on their setups that
"ordinary people" cannot afford. On an economic basis, the playing field
is /somewhat/ uneven already.
--------
-In one way, allowing recumbents WOULD level the playing field, at least
for the first couple years. The big corporate teams that dominate it now
would have to start over from scratch, evaluating new choices and
obtaining new bikes (if they chose).

[end]
 
C

* * Chas

Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:49:51 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Oct 2006 23:58:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

<snip>
> It really illustrates nothing more than regional variation. I just
> happen to live in an area where the soil and climate encourage
> puncture vine.
>
> But despite my pathetic whimpering, I can easily point to a place with
> far worse goathead trouble. If I turned north at the dam and rode up
> the bluffs to Pueblo West, I'd want a mountain bike with knobby tires,
> Mr. Tuffy, thorn-resistant tubes, and Slime. Local bike shops hate to
> sell touring bikes to people who live in Pueblo West, since it's
> common to flat on goatheads by the end of your first block.
>

At our shop in NM in the 70's it seemed that bikes with "thorn proof"
tubes came in with goathead flats just as often or even more often than
those with standard tubes.

TP tubes are less flexable and make tires harder which gives the
goatheads better support to push through. Also, many folks who rode with
TP tubes were less experienced cyclists and tended to ride closer to the
curbs and sides of the roads. By riding further out in the trafic lane
there's less of a chance of getting a flat because cars tend to sweep
the debris off the road surface.

We rode sewups much of the time and used "sticker flickers" to help
prevent flats. In addition, we used to run at lower than the maxium
recommended tire pressures. I ran sewups at 80-85 PSI and clinchers at
75-80 PSI.

In a good (bad) goathead year, I've seen some with horns up to 8mm long!
Nothing short of steel belts are going to stop one of those suckers!

> If I were to use Jobst's logic, I'd insist that Michelin wire flats
> are a myth. I've read about Michelin wire flats on RBT, but I've never
> had one, despite about 30,000 miles on a 65-mph stretch of highway.
> Really, it's absurd to think that a little piece of wire (probably
> lying flat) could somehow fly up and pierce a bicycle tire! We don't
> hear of car tires suffering such flats. Since I've never had one and
> my theory denies them, they must be myth and--
>


I once got a flat in a clincher caused by a thin wire. It never occured
to me that it could have come from a tire casing.

>A friend borrowed a bicycle a year or two ago, rode about 20 miles on
> a similar highway with far less traffic about six miles south of my
> daily ride, and told me that he had an odd flat. It was, he said, just
> a tiny little piece of wire that caused a slow leak.

<snip>
> As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
> where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
> also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
> right over.
>
> Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
> tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
> sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.
> Indeed, the hardest thorns to spot and dig out of the tire are the
> ones broken off where the tread and sidewall meet.
> My disagreement with Jobst about flints is based on:
>

Never saw too many flats from glass but that was before the 140 PSI
tires. Most of the goathead flats that I got were on the side of the
tread where the sticker flickers didn't clear them too well and they
would cause a slow leak.

> a) finding nasty little shark-tooth-shaped rock flakes in my flat
> tires opposite nasty little slits in the tubes (happily reduced since
> the sand-and-gravel pit on my daily ride closed)
>

Crushed granite chips on a tar-bound macadam (tarmac) road are pretty
sharp. I've never seen a flat bike or car tire caused by them but they
are tough on running and hiking shoes - road rash too! I could see were
running tires at higher PSI could be a problem.

Chas.
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:39:34 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
>where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
>also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
>right over.
>
>Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
>tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
>sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.


That's bad.

One thing with Mr. Tuffies is that it's possible to use oversized ones
to get a little more protection. I've used the model for, I think,
700x28-32 in 700x23 tires, and while it might not really get up the
sidewall, it protects more.

No, I don't work for the company or own stock in it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Carl Fogel writes:

> So your authoritative position that all those riders who mention
> flints as a problem is based on not having had such a problem
> yourself on 6-8 flats per year or 10,000 miles.


> Sounds like less than 250 flats in 300,000 miles, not a very
> impressive sample.


> Your argument about spokes is illogical.


OK, let's try another example. I haven't fallen off my bicycle while
descending mountains in years. My last crash was at low speed when I
had a fever and blacked out. To say that I don't know anything about
descending because I don't crash enough to understand the hazards in
contrast to Mr. Xyz who crashes often, doesn't prove prove he is an
expert or that I'm not.

Not having met anyone nor patched a tire with cherts is likewise
pretty good proof that these minerals, if a real hazard, are about as
scarce as hen's teeth. As I said, I ride on rough unpaved, rocky
roads and trails often. MTB riders I occasionally meet can't believe
that I and my fellow riders don't get flats all the time. It's been
that way since the days when we all rode Clement tubulars:

http://tinyurl.com/7nsry

> You wrote about breaking spokes often before something changed
> (either your spoke stretching or the durability of spokes that you
> mention changed dramatically in 10 years).


> So you never claimed that spoke failure was a myth, which is what
> you're claiming about flints.


Don't try so hard to appear amazed. That spokes break is known and
reported here. I witness such failures and have chronicled the
process. Are you contending that I know nothing about spoke failure
because i no longer break spokes... or what is your point?

> As for changing the pictures, I simply took more, with closeups.
> It's pathetic to argue first that there were no goatheads and then
> switch to saying that goathead-infested paths where I live should be
> avoided in order not to contradict your theories about how easily
> goatheads can be avoided.


You showed a picture of a paved path with cracks and claimed that
puncture vine was all over the road when there was no greenery visible
in those cracks. Then you showed cracks that had puncture vine
clearly evident. That is deceptive. That you choose to ride on this
thorn infested path, knowing what you do about the plant, and report
multiple flat tires regularly sounds like masochism to me.

As I said, avoid that minefield.

> (Did you think that I was just imagining the goatheads?)


> You can do better than that.


Jobst Brandt
 
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:47:30 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:39:34 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>As for Mr. Tuffy strips, I think that they probably work quite well
>>where glass and wires and similar debris are a problem. The strips
>>also help with goatheads, but only against goatheads that you run
>>right over.
>>
>>Unfortunately, about half the goatheads go through either side of the
>>tire. They can stick up from the ground enough to jab at the
>>sidewalls, particularly if you're turning and tilting to one side.

>
>That's bad.
>
>One thing with Mr. Tuffies is that it's possible to use oversized ones
>to get a little more protection. I've used the model for, I think,
>700x28-32 in 700x23 tires, and while it might not really get up the
>sidewall, it protects more.
>
>No, I don't work for the company or own stock in it.


Dear John,

We agree that strips like Mr. Tuffy help, but it's worth pointing out
that they won't stop a direct dead-on hit from a goathead:

http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=184a goathead through mrtuffy.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yb9ffd

That's a poorly focused goathead. I clipped off one thorn, gave the
goathead a gentle tap with a hammer, and easily drove its remaining
thorn through the red plastic Mr. Tuffy strip.

The tiny thorn is wickedly sharp and hard.

The thorn tip is blunted because it went through the strip and a soft
mat and then hit a hard wooden bench top.

The other objects are a sewing pin and a sharp toothpick. In a
slightly better picture, you can see that the undamaged goathead thorn
tip was as sharp as or sharper than the toothpick and pin:

http://server5.theimagehosting.com/image.php?img=183a pin goathead toothpick mm.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yavhcp

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On 27 Oct 2006 00:54:35 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>> So your authoritative position that all those riders who mention
>> flints as a problem is based on not having had such a problem
>> yourself on 6-8 flats per year or 10,000 miles.

>
>> Sounds like less than 250 flats in 300,000 miles, not a very
>> impressive sample.

>
>> Your argument about spokes is illogical.

>
>OK, let's try another example. I haven't fallen off my bicycle while
>descending mountains in years. My last crash was at low speed when I
>had a fever and blacked out. To say that I don't know anything about
>descending because I don't crash enough to understand the hazards in
>contrast to Mr. Xyz who crashes often, doesn't prove prove he is an
>expert or that I'm not.
>
>Not having met anyone nor patched a tire with cherts is likewise
>pretty good proof that these minerals, if a real hazard, are about as
>scarce as hen's teeth. As I said, I ride on rough unpaved, rocky
>roads and trails often. MTB riders I occasionally meet can't believe
>that I and my fellow riders don't get flats all the time. It's been
>that way since the days when we all rode Clement tubulars:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/7nsry
>
>> You wrote about breaking spokes often before something changed
>> (either your spoke stretching or the durability of spokes that you
>> mention changed dramatically in 10 years).

>
>> So you never claimed that spoke failure was a myth, which is what
>> you're claiming about flints.

>
>Don't try so hard to appear amazed. That spokes break is known and
>reported here. I witness such failures and have chronicled the
>process. Are you contending that I know nothing about spoke failure
>because i no longer break spokes... or what is your point?
>
>> As for changing the pictures, I simply took more, with closeups.
>> It's pathetic to argue first that there were no goatheads and then
>> switch to saying that goathead-infested paths where I live should be
>> avoided in order not to contradict your theories about how easily
>> goatheads can be avoided.

>
>You showed a picture of a paved path with cracks and claimed that
>puncture vine was all over the road when there was no greenery visible
>in those cracks. Then you showed cracks that had puncture vine
>clearly evident. That is deceptive. That you choose to ride on this
>thorn infested path, knowing what you do about the plant, and report
>multiple flat tires regularly sounds like masochism to me.
>
>As I said, avoid that minefield.
>
>> (Did you think that I was just imagining the goatheads?)

>
>> You can do better than that.

>
>Jobst Brandt


Dear Jobst,

Stop peddling twaddle, stop making silly excuses, and enjoy the thread
where the UK crowd seem puzzled by your denial of flints. You've read
them before, but they seem to bounce right off you.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> interfere with athletic competition....


This is an OPINION of what is ideal.

There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
same standard.

Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
Carl Fogel writes:

> Stop peddling twaddle, stop making silly excuses, and enjoy the
> thread where the UK crowd seem puzzled by your denial of flints.
> You've read them before, but they seem to bounce right off you.


I notice you got no volunteer pictures of such a device in a tire nor
one seen from the inside of a tire casing. Locally, we have riders
who constantly get flats in spite of liners and slime... and they ride
the same routes that I and many others ride without problem. They
also claim to have mysterious sharp demons that attack their tires but
never investigated what they are. If you tell them they are most
likely cherts, they would probably agree.

That is not the type of proof that makes sense on this newsgroup. I
note that you try a bit harder to offer pictorial proof and find
research to support your claims. Let's see if the flintstones can do
likewise.

Jobst Brandt
 
Tom Sherman writes:

>> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
>> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an
>> athletic event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the
>> sport already. The ideal is to level the playing field while at
>> the same time not interfere with athletic competition....


> This is an OPINION of what is ideal.


> There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> same standard.


I see you deleted parallels in other sports, all of which have limits
on equipment such as balls, bats, goal size, playing field size and
others.

> Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.


What makes you choose that date? I haven't proposed an ideal bicycle
definition anywhere. There you go again putting words in my mouth!

Jobst Brandt
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >>>> How do they do that? The technical innovations of merit are
> >>>> those that make the bicycle more reliable. Better brakes,
> >>>> shifting, BB's, hubs, rims and the like. We already know what
> >>>> design is optimum for top speeds and for human powered flight.
> >>>> We don't need no steenkin UCI for that....

>
> >>> What about technical innovations that make bicycles faster - are
> >>> they not worthwhile? Or the flip side - proving certain technical
> >>> innovations to be inferior to existing technology?

>
> >> I don't know of any that are versatile. As we know the bicycle
> >> unassisted land speed record lies over 80mph. What do you want to
> >> do to make that useful in UCI racing? There is no lack of
> >> technology....

>
> > The performance recumbents that are available from the major
> > (relatively speaking [1]) manufactures are significantly lighter,
> > stiffer [2] and more aerodynamic that those of 10 or even 5 years
> > ago. There is still significant room for improvement, unlike DF
> > uprights where the only real changes over the last half-century are
> > due to improvements in material technology. High level racing would
> > bring the budget for things like proper FEA and comparative testing
> > of rider positioning, which would further optimize the designs. Is
> > this a bad thing?

>
> What needs to be improved in conventional bicycle frames? I see only
> component reliability. We've seen improvements in seat posts, brakes,
> threadless steer tubes, pedals, BB's and other small changes. What is
> not getting the attention you would like to see?


Where is the conclusive proof that the upright bicycle frame within the
limits set forth by the UCI on April 1, 1934 is the optimum design?

> > What is wrong for having a design that is optimized for pavement?
> > If one lives in a "developed" nation, almost every destination can
> > be reached with most of the journey on paved roads.

>
> We have that already.


Really? The UCI legal bicycle is the ultimate design for all pavement
conditions? Even Holland or areas of the US Midwest where is relatively
flat and windy?

Where is the research to prove this?

> > (Not that the bikes upright racers ride work well off pavement - I
> > have observed a lot of punctures simply from riding on crushed
> > limestone surfaces).

>
> I keep hearing about these mysterious cherts yet have never seen one
> on the road or in a tire. I ride many miles of rocky roads here and
> in Europe and have not had a flat from these mysterious sharp rocks
> that don't seem to cut car tires or we could find examples of them
> embedded in the surface of car tires.


On numerous club rides in Illinois, it would not be uncommon for one of
the upright road bicycles with skinny tires to get a cut flat every
time we would take a section of crushed stone [1] surfaced road. When
removed, the cut in the tire and tube would be visible, but there would
be no foreign object present. For what its worth, I never received any
cuts to my 44-406 Avocet Freestyle and 47-406 Tioga Comp Pool slick
tread tires in these conditions, despite them being mounted to a
recumbent bicycle.

> > [1] 2000+ bicycles per year.
> > [2] Unlike DF uprights, this can be a significant factor in recumbents.

>
> I take it you think more people would choose recliners if they were
> better streamlined. Is that what you mean?


No, I was referring to some inferior recumbent designs of a couple of
decades ago such as the Hypercycle [2], which suffers from terrible
weight distribution, poor drivetrain component choice, excessive flex
in the pedal boom, poor seat design, awkward steering controls, and bad
steering geometry. Comparing the Hypercycle to a modern highracer such
as the Challenge Seiran SL [3], the Hypercycle is a VW Type 1 and the
Seiran is a Porsche Boxster.

I once met a person at a rest stop who told me that recumbents were
terrible performers. It turned out he had a ReBike, which was the
heaviest, ugliest, cheapest and slowest recumbent being sold at the
time. It was similar to judging all road bikes by the cheapest 1970's
Huffy 10-speed.

[1] Typically IDOT gradation CA-6, composed of either limestone or
dolomitized (calcium atom replaced by a magnesium atom) limestone.
[2] <http://www.ihpva.org/people/tstrike/shelco/hyperrs.jpg>.
[3]
<http://www.challengebikes.com/images/picture.php?filename=images/fotos/seiransl/foto-001.jpg&size=500&type=2&quality=87>.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
J

John Forrest Tomlinson

Guest
On 27 Oct 2006 02:04:29 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>I notice you got no volunteer pictures of such a device in a tire nor
>one seen from the inside of a tire casing. Locally, we have riders
>who constantly get flats in spite of liners and slime... and they ride
>the same routes that I and many others ride without problem.


I almost never get flats with a Tuffy liners. So what does that
prove?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >> As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> >> bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an
> >> athletic event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the
> >> sport already. The ideal is to level the playing field while at
> >> the same time not interfere with athletic competition....

>
> > This is an OPINION of what is ideal.

>
> > There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> > freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> > same standard.

>
> I see you deleted parallels in other sports, all of which have limits
> on equipment such as balls, bats, goal size, playing field size and
> others.


What do other sports have to do with this anyway? But since you bring
it up, which has produced more technical innovations, FIA Formula 1 or
NA$CAR racing?

> > Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> > arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.

>
> What makes you choose that date?


To quote Wikipedia: "When the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) met
in February, 1934, manufacturers of upright bicycles lobbied to have
Faure's one-hour record declared invalid. On 1 April 1934, the UCI
published a new definition of a racing bicycle that specified how high
the bottom bracket could be above the ground, how far it could be in
front of the seat and how close it could be to the front wheel. The new
definition effectively banned recumbents from UCI events and guaranteed
that upright bicycles would not have to compete against recumbents. For
all intents and purposes, the ban is still in effect." [1]

> I haven't proposed an ideal bicycle definition anywhere.


Well, Jobst, you appear to be contending that a bicycle design that
would fit within the rules set by the UCI April 1, 1934 is the ideal,
and there is no point in a competition open to all bicycle types, since
no better design will be found.

> There you go again putting words in my mouth!


At least I am not changing what you wrote when I quote it, without
putting brackets around the changes, in a way that significantly
changes the meaning.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle>.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
* * Chas wrote:
> ...
> In a good (bad) goathead year, I've seen some with horns up to 8mm long!
> Nothing short of steel belts are going to stop one of those suckers!...


You could motor-pace behind one of these:
<http://www.elginsweeper.com/CrosswindFury_1243.asp>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > ...OBW-do a google search and see what my 'name' really means in Italian....

> >
> > What does "Chisholm" mean in Italian?
> >
> > I have been unable to find "Campagnolo" on lists of world languages.
> >
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

>
> Somebody in this silly thread mentioned my 'name' with Campagnolo in
> it, I'm sure you know what I mean, just being typically diffucult.


Well Peter, since almost all of the posts on rec.bicycles.tech do NOT
mention recumbent bicycles, you should be able to ignore those that do,
instead of "pissing and moaning". There is no rule that EVERY post has
to be of interest to YOU, despite your being the most prolific lifetime
poster to the group.

I will point out again there is nothing in the rec.bicycles.tech
charter than prohibits the mention of recumbent bicycles.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
C

* * Chas

Guest
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> > ...
> > In a good (bad) goathead year, I've seen some with horns up to 8mm

long!
> > Nothing short of steel belts are going to stop one of those

suckers!...
>
> You could motor-pace behind one of these:
> <http://www.elginsweeper.com/CrosswindFury_1243.asp>. ;)
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>


YESSS! That's one hell of a durney!
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]>,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Jobst Brandt wrote:
> >
> > As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> > bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> > event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> > The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> > interfere with athletic competition....

>
> This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
>
> There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> same standard.
>
> Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.


In a time when cycling was game for innovation,
where are the recumbents?
<http://www.antiquemaps.de/cycling.html>

--
Michael Press
 
J

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > >
> > > As I said, it would get away from writing endless definitions of a
> > > bicycle to thwart making this a technical event instead of an athletic
> > > event. We have the HPVA for the technical side of the sport already.
> > > The ideal is to level the playing field while at the same time not
> > > interfere with athletic competition....

> >
> > This is an OPINION of what is ideal.
> >
> > There is no inherent reason why a competition that allows technical
> > freedom is better OR worse than one that restricts equipment to the
> > same standard.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt appears to believe that the "ideal" bicycle design was
> > arrived at on April 1, 1934, and no further improvement is possible.

>
> In a time when cycling was game for innovation,
> where are the recumbents?
> <http://www.antiquemaps.de/cycling.html>


<http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/2005/02/the_first_recum.html>?

Kirkpatrick Macmillan's first bicycle had a semi-recumbent riding
position:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Mccallvelos.jpg/451px-Mccallvelos.jpg>.

The bicycle and second rate professional rider Francis Faure breaking
Oscar Egg's long standing hour record, leading to the UCI banning
recumbents: <http://www.cyclegenius.com/images/faure.jpg>.

There are some more that appear in books, but are not easily (if at
all) found on the WWW.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 

Similar threads