Next best thing to a Brooks Pro

[JeffWills]

[email protected] wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that class:
> road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon see what
> design it the one best suited to the type of race.
>
<snip>

So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
easier to fit riders of small stature.

Jeff

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
> ...
> > However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
> > it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing series
> > where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is supplied
> > by the rider.
>
> 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?

The argument often appears on rec.bicycles.* that recumbents would be
slower/faster/competitive /uncompetitive overall in a UCI stage race
(assuming riders of similar ability). Anyone who approaches this
question in a knowable and unbiased manner will realize that is can not
be definitively answered at the present time. For the most part all we
read are "apples and oranges" comparisons with riders of unknown and
varying abilities, performance oriented bicycles of one group versus
comfort oriented bicycles or the other group, etc.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[[email protected]]

Jeff Wills writes:

>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon
>> see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.

> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
> Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
> advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
> easier to fit riders of small stature.

That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events (road
for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road stages. I
don't think you will find a team that would put their riders on small
wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain stages.

I believe we could arrive on a "standard" bicycle design much faster
than to try to outguess designers of marginally useful designs that
give benefit in certain races.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Jeff Wills wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jeff Wills writes:
> <snip>
> >
> > > FWIW: I've got two recumbents and 5 uprights in my garage. I like 'em
> > > all, for different reasons.
> >
> > That's to bad, I guess.
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> What's "too" bad? That I like bicycles? Or that I like different
> bicycles for different reasons?

Apparently Jobst Brandt has a long history of being annoyed by
"recumbent evangelists" [1], and is so hyper-sensitized he can not bear
to see others discussing them on rec.bicycles.*.

[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[[email protected]]

Tom Sherman writes:

>>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
>>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
>>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
>>> supplied by the rider.

>> 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.

http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/resultsSaturday.htm

> The argument often appears on rec.bicycles.* that recumbents would
> be slower/faster/competitive /uncompetitive overall in a UCI stage
> race (assuming riders of similar ability). Anyone who approaches
> this question in a knowable and unbiased manner will realize that is
> can not be definitively answered at the present time. For the most
> part all we read are "apples and oranges" comparisons with riders of
> unknown and varying abilities, performance oriented bicycles of one
> group versus comfort oriented bicycles or the other group, etc.

We don't need to answer that question. If professional teams were to
qualify a bicycle for the season (according to a suitable regulation)
they would soon sort that out.

> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.



Jobst Brandt

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Tom Sherman writes:
>
> >>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
> >>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
> >>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
> >>> supplied by the rider.
>
> >> 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 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. (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).

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

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

 

[* * Chas]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> * * Chas wrote:
> >
> > This thread certainly got side tracked. I wanted to share my
positive
> > experiences with a saddle that I like with others who have been
writing
> > about Brooks Pro saddles.
>
> Fighting "thread drift" on Usenet is a losing battle.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>

Especially in RBT!

Chas.

 

[JeffWills]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
panniers and sleeping bags, though).

Interestingly, there's been a similar discussion on the HPV maillist. I
thought John Tetz's comments were interesting:
http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/hpv/Week-of-Mon-20061023/038596.html
He talks about having to wait for riders *one-third* his age, and
riding all winter when the racers have put away their bikes. *That's*
"versatile".

Jeff

 

[[email protected]]

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?

> 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.

> (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.

> [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 means?

Jobst Brandt

 

[Helmut Springer]

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

It would bring designes optimized for highly trained athlets
competing in racing events. Not much gain for every day usage as
it's popular here (Europe), where recumbent design seems to be
advancing driven mostly by targeting every day riders (at least the
competing community is largely ignored outside of its followers).

For racing the crows seems to prefer seeing the rider's efforts, the
competition, the physical aspects...not to be hidden or limited.
Watching fully faired HPVs is like watching low power cars...


--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

[snip]

> 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.

Dear Jobst,

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

Since you insist that anything outside your experience can't exist,
would you please tell us what your experience is?

That is, how many flat bicycle tires have you had in the last year or
ten thousand miles?

In my last sixty 15-mile rides, I've had 15 flat tires, an average of a
flat tire every sixty miles.

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.

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.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[* * Chas]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Dear Jobst,
>
> Er, goatheads don't puncture car or motorcycle tires, but I hear
rumors
> that they can cause problems for bicycles.
<snip>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
>

We had some Texas sized goatheads down in NM. I recall someone with
extremely bald car tires with the cords showing through getting a flat
from one of these killers.

My first exposure to goatheads happened right after I arrived in NM. I
walked barefoot across what passed for a lawn in Albuquerque. I picked
up something like 27 goatheads in my bare feet!

Chas.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 26 Oct 2006 03:55:14 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Tom Sherman writes:
>
>>>> However, the UCI rules stifle technical innovation. In my opinion,
>>>> it is unfortunate that there is not a high level cycle racing
>>>> series where freedom of design is allowed, as long as all power is
>>>> supplied by the rider.
>
>>> 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.

There is one -- the small clip-on aero bar, like the Cinelli Spinacci.
Allows for faster riding in some circumstances and also more relaxed
riding than riding the drops -- versatile, effective and cheap. A
great item that's banned in mass-start racing now.

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

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 25 Oct 2006 21:46:06 -0700, "JeffWills" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
>that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
>local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
>panniers and sleeping bags, though).

Who? Are any results online?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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.

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

 

[JeffWills]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2006 21:46:06 -0700, "JeffWills" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm... I guess we know different sets of riders. I know of several
> >that did fully-loaded tours across the U.S., then were competitive in
> >local time trials on the same bikes in the same configuration (sans
> >panniers and sleeping bags, though).
>
> Who? Are any results online?

Nothing from the club time trials, but they were in the low-23-minute
range for the 10-mile time trial, IIRC. Here's their tale of
cross-country wandering: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/ER2005
Note that the average age of this group was about 50.

Jeff

 

[Pat Lamb]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jeff Wills writes:
>
>>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would soon
>>> see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.
>
>> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton style)?
>> Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely, might be an
>> advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would certainly make it
>> easier to fit riders of small stature.
>
> That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events (road
> for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road stages. I
> don't think you will find a team that would put their riders on small
> wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain stages.

I don't see the point for this proposed requirement. Right now, I think
most teams have separate bikes for TTs 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?

Pat

 

[[email protected]]

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

 

[[email protected]]

Pat Lamb writes:

>>>> I disagree. I prefer to see that a professional team qualify a
>>>> bicycle design for their team and ride it in all events of that
>>>> class: road racing, cyclocross and others. That way we would
>>>> soon see what design it the one best suited to the type of race.

>>> So why not allow small-wheel bikes with suspensions (Moulton
>>> style)? Smaller wheels would allow riders to draft more closely,
>>> might be an advantage on rough roads or cyclocross, and would
>>> certainly make it easier to fit riders of small stature.

>> That would be fine, but the team would ride them in all events
>> (road for instance) in TT's, hill climbs, criteriums, and road
>> stages. I don't think you will find a team that would put their
>> riders on small wheels, especially on rough roads and mountain
>> stages.

> 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.
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.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

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.