radio reception on bike

[E Willson]

Reid,

Thanks for the comments.

I tried using the frame as an antenna, and it seemed to behave somewhat
like a long wire. It seemed to be directional and seemed to have the
best gain in the direction of travel. I also tried a dipole mounted on
the top tube and it seemed to be most sensitive in a direction
perpendicular to the direction of travel.

EJ in NJ

Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:42:05 -0400, E Willson wrote:
>
>>Gary,
>>Thanks for the comment. Is this any more unsafe than driving a car with
>>the radio on?
>
>
> EJ,
>
> Here's my take on the issue. I don't listen to music/radio while riding
> for a couple of reasons:
>
> 1. I find hearing to be a key sense in figuring out what's going on around
> me. For example, as a vehicle is passing me, I track its approach with
> occasional glances in the helmet mirror, and then I can see it as it pulls
> alongside and past. But, there's a time when the car gets close enough
> that I can track it by listening (even for fairly quiet cars), and I don't
> have to keep glancing in the mirror.
>
> Another example is if a car is following me, I can hear the engine rev --
> this gives me a cue that something is happening, and I know it without
> looking and before any visual cues regardless. And the pattern of revving
> can be a cue in identifying maniacs.
>
> In a car, these subtle cues are mostly moot because of closed windows,
> wind noise, engine noise, etc.
>
> 2. Listening to something decreases my situational awareness. Like others
> in this thread, I turn off my car radio when I need full concentration on
> the road. I think that appropriate situational awareness is greater on a
> bicycle than a car (due to lack of steel cage and other protective
> technology).
>
> To answer your actual question, I don't believe either FM or AM antennas
> are particularly directional. However, they may be polarized, i.e. a
> horizontal antenna would be practically useless. (The same applies for
> cell phones, which is why you should hold them roughly vertically in use.)
>
> Also, a portable device might be too small for a really effective radio. I
> believe FM and AM require longish antennas, on the order of a couple of
> feet. One thing you could try is using your frame as an antenna, or tape
> an antenna along your seat tube.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Reid
>

 

[gds]

E Willson wrote:

> I notice that when I encounter serious bikers on my route (on the
> roads), they usually are very aware of the surroundings. They usually
> have mirrors.

A bit of a thread hijack but: I have never ridden with a mirror. That
is not a value statement just a fact. However, I feel that I am very
aware of my surroundings and have no trouble looking around and back.

Do you notice that racers never wear mirrors. Yet riding in a large
pack at high speeds sees relativley few problems. And the better the
racers, the higher the speeds and still less problems (forget mass
sprints that is another story).

And these same racer/riders do not use mirrors when training either, so
that gets them into all the same issues of motor vehicle traffic, other
cyclists, runners, etc.

So, I guess my question is what impact does the mirror have? I'm not
arguing against using one as I have no personal experience- but I do
find it interesting that riders at the highest skill levels don't use
them.

Also interesting is that while I certainly use a mirror when driving a
car- in high tension situations I will always look over my shoulder to
get a direct look rather than use the mirror. I am sure some will argue
that is a bad practice as it takes my eys off the road in front. But I
was never good at multi tasking

 

[Roger Zoul]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:> Also, I'm very careful not to have the
:>> volume up too loud. A cyclist passing can talk and I can hear.
:>> Not long again a lady was running on my side of the road. I car
:>> came up from behind me and forced her onto the grass after passing
:>> me. I got over a bit as I got to her so she could get back on the
:>> pavement. She said thanks. No problem hearing any of it.
:>
:>
:> If you can still hear things around you as well or almost as well as
:> if
:> you were not listening I imagine that any extra risk is minimal.
:> However, I find it hard to imagine that if you can hear the music it
:> doesn't have some negative effect on hearing other things.

Well, Gary, some things will simply be hard for you to imagine. You have to
consider that listening to music while riding is something that I can choose
to do or not do, even with earbuds in. In other words, I can simply not pay
attention to the music and focus completely on something else. You're acting
as if the mere fact that you hear something with your ears means that you
must focus on it or block something else important out. Simply not the
case.

:>
:>
:>
:>>
:>> My point is that if I can be distracted by my own thoughts, then
:>> having an Mp3 player on my head ain' gonna make a whole lot of
:>> difference.
:>
:> Well that is true. But I guess my point is that it is the rider's
:> responsibility to remain not distracted and if listening to music
:> has
:> a negative impact on this I think it has a negative impact on safety.

If....do you think it's a good idea to completely zone out on a bike? I can
be lost in thought, enjoying far off scenery, or any number of things.

:>
:> I'm not trying to make a major case out of this but my personal
:> experience is that when I overtake cyclists who are listening to
:> music
:> using earphones that they "never" have a clue that I have come up
:> alongside until I am in their sight line. That said that is often
:> true
:> for cyclist not listening to music. However, I usually call out to
:> warn folks that I am overtaking and the folks with earphones seem to
:> never
:> hear the warning while most others do.

Well, I once passed a guy who seemed to be in that group. It was a hot
summer day and he was riding with a heavy jacket on, heavy ankle weights,
and a big set of headphones (not earbuds) on his head with an CD player in
this pocket. He was also in high gear going up a long hill, which is why I
passed him. Later I found out that he was trying to "sweat some fat out" -
his words, not mine.

 

[Roger Zoul]

Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
:>> E Willson wrote:
:>>
:>> :: I would support a total ban on cell phones while driving,
:>> :: although I have to admit I have taken calls on my bicycle.
:>>
:>> Now that takes balls, IMO. I keep my cell off almost all the
:>> time....
:>
:> Nah, it's especially easy if you've zip-tied a cell-holder to the
:> stem. SMS'ing definitely a little more challenging though.
:>
:> *cough*
:> Not that I would do that while I was riding the bike.
:> *cough*

Never thought of that. I like to be free from talking on the phone when
I'm out. I do carry in my top tube bag, just for emergencies.

 

[Chris Zacho The Wheelman]

I used to do this too whilst commuting, but I went "all out", with an
AM/FM Stereo cassette "walkman" in my handlebar bag with two mini
amplified speakers "mounted" in the side pockets.

But as to your question, I would get this problem as well, not because
of "directinality" (is that a word?) of the antenna, as most walkmans
use the speaker/headset wire as an antenna. The problem was a phenomenon
called, I believe, multiplexing. This is caused by reflected signals
interfering with the main signal.

Are there any buildings or hills on your route?

- -

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

"May you have the winds at your back,
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[gds]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>
> Well, Gary, some things will simply be hard for you to imagine. You have to
> consider that listening to music while riding is something that I can choose
> to do or not do, even with earbuds in. In other words, I can simply not pay
> attention to the music and focus completely on something else. You're acting
> as if the mere fact that you hear something with your ears means that you
> must focus on it or block something else important out. Simply not the
> case.
>

Of course you can choose. My question can be restated "don't you think
that when you choose to listen to music that to "some extent" it both
distracts you and makes it harder to hear other things?" If the answer
is yes I would then argue that the result is less safe.
And yes it will remain hard for me to imagine that to some extent that
is not the case.



..
>
> If....do you think it's a good idea to completely zone out on a bike? I can
> be lost in thought, enjoying far off scenery, or any number of things.

I think that is unsafe s well. Being lost in thought and thus less
aware of what is hapening around you while riding a bike is almost a
defintion of being unsafe. I'm not saying that this doesn't happento
all of us - but it sure is a less safe condition than when we are
focused on what is hapening. Don't you think?

 

[Roger Zoul]

E Willson <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Roger,
:>
:> I agree with your last paragraph completely. In fact I ride with
:> both a
:> bar end mirror and an eyeglass one.
:>
:> I am sure that the electronic gear you mention would work well,
:> however,
:> it is more expensive than I desire. Got any other ideas?

None come to mind now. Sorry.

 

[Dane Buson]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>
> :> Nah, it's especially easy if you've zip-tied a cell-holder to the
> :> stem. SMS'ing definitely a little more challenging though.
>
> Never thought of that. I like to be free from talking on the phone when
> I'm out. I do carry in my top tube bag, just for emergencies.

I agree with you for the most part. Unfortunately my employer doesn't,
and since they're paying for the cellphone and the bill and I suppose
they have some point there. Thankfully they haven't yanked my leash
too much in the last year or so.

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
"In Java, everything is an object! Oh...except for the basic types,
you need to use object wrappers for those." - Anonymous Coward on /.

 

[Rich Clark]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And these same racer/riders do not use mirrors when training either, so
> that gets them into all the same issues of motor vehicle traffic, other
> cyclists, runners, etc.

My experience with racing type cyclists is that they are often the most
ineffective vehicular cyclists on the road. I wouldn't use them as an
example.

The next time I see a cyclist on a racing bike, wearing full kit and
carrying no cargo, signal a turn, stop at a red light, or low down rather
than do something illegal will be the first.

RichC

 

[Neil Brooks]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>E Willson wrote:
>
>> I notice that when I encounter serious bikers on my route (on the
>> roads), they usually are very aware of the surroundings. They usually
>> have mirrors.
>
>A bit of a thread hijack but: I have never ridden with a mirror. That
>is not a value statement just a fact. However, I feel that I am very
>aware of my surroundings and have no trouble looking around and back.
>
>Do you notice that racers never wear mirrors. Yet riding in a large
>pack at high speeds sees relativley few problems. And the better the
>racers, the higher the speeds and still less problems (forget mass
>sprints that is another story).

Nascar drivers tailgate too. It's because they trust the person four
inches away. That's the antithesis of /my/ real world experience with
drivers /or/ cyclists.

>And these same racer/riders do not use mirrors when training either, so
>that gets them into all the same issues of motor vehicle traffic, other
>cyclists, runners, etc.

Find out why they don't. Bet it's vanity as much as anything else.

>So, I guess my question is what impact does the mirror have? I'm not
>arguing against using one as I have no personal experience- but I do
>find it interesting that riders at the highest skill levels don't use
>them.
>
>Also interesting is that while I certainly use a mirror when driving a
>car- in high tension situations I will always look over my shoulder to
>get a direct look rather than use the mirror. I am sure some will argue
>that is a bad practice as it takes my eys off the road in front. But I
>was never good at multi tasking

I use a h*lmet mirror and use it frequently (proactively). I don't
want anybody "sneaking up" on me, nor do I want to be in another
cyclists way if there's a choice. I wind up giving verbal cues to
other cyclists, IMO, far too often because they aren't aware that I'm
behind them (but not for long!).

YMMV.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[Rich Clark]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>>
>> Well, Gary, some things will simply be hard for you to imagine. You have
>> to
>> consider that listening to music while riding is something that I can
>> choose
>> to do or not do, even with earbuds in. In other words, I can simply not
>> pay
>> attention to the music and focus completely on something else. You're
>> acting
>> as if the mere fact that you hear something with your ears means that you
>> must focus on it or block something else important out. Simply not the
>> case.
>>
>
> Of course you can choose. My question can be restated "don't you think
> that when you choose to listen to music that to "some extent" it both
> distracts you and makes it harder to hear other things?" If the answer
> is yes I would then argue that the result is less safe.
> And yes it will remain hard for me to imagine that to some extent that
> is not the case.

Your lack of imagination is not the arbiter here, of course.

I do the same ride both with and without music, depending on my mood. There
is no discernable impact on my situational awareness. My habit of constant
visual scanning, and use of my mirror before making any lateral moves, is
the same whether I'm using headphones or not.

I don't rely on hearning because it's too variable. In the winter my ears
are covered anyway. At speeed the wind noise drowns out ambient sound.
Hearing is not reliable.

RichC

 

[Ron Hardin]

AM won't work directionally unless you use a capacitive probe antenna like cars used to.
Every antenna has a null direction, and the probe has its null aimed upwards, with uniform
response all around horizontally.

Aiming the null of a loop antenna (which is in every small AM receiver) upwards unfortunately
also produces a uniform horizontal null for vertically polarized signals, and AM signals are
vertically polarized.

Translation : you're stuck rotating the radio for best reception on AM all the time, on a bike.

FM ought to work except for the usual building reflections, as well as it does in a car, if
the antenna is vertical.

I use a Sangean DT200V, which is very sensitive on AM for its small size, into earphones,
and hang it from another pocket as necessary to reaim it. The chief handicap is wind noise.


--
Ron Hardin
[email protected]

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

 

[gds]

Rich Clark wrote:
>
> My experience with racing type cyclists is that they are often the most
> ineffective vehicular cyclists on the road. I wouldn't use them as an
> example.
>
> The next time I see a cyclist on a racing bike, wearing full kit and
> carrying no cargo, signal a turn, stop at a red light, or low down rather
> than do something illegal will be the first.
>

OK but that isn't my experience.
I ride racing bikes and wear pretty fancy kits and I stop at lights,
signal turns and believe that I ride in a generally safe manner.
It cannot be a fact that you have never seen a "racing type cyclist"
ride in a safe manner. It is just too statitiscally difficult as even
an unsafe rider will sometimes do something right.

Why the predjudice against a type of bike and outfit rather than actual
behavior?

 

[Roger Zoul]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
:> E Willson wrote:
:>
:>> I notice that when I encounter serious bikers on my route (on the
:>> roads), they usually are very aware of the surroundings. They
:>> usually have mirrors.
:>
:> A bit of a thread hijack but: I have never ridden with a mirror. That
:> is not a value statement just a fact. However, I feel that I am very
:> aware of my surroundings and have no trouble looking around and back.

I wonder how you can make comparisons when you haven't done both. Most who
ride with mirrors have done both. Hmm....One could certainly decide not to
ride with a mirror if you found no advantage to it.

:>
:> Do you notice that racers never wear mirrors. Yet riding in a large
:> pack at high speeds sees relativley few problems. And the better the
:> racers, the higher the speeds and still less problems (forget mass
:> sprints that is another story).
:>

I wonder how many times races crash compared to the average joe. You think
it's less or more over a lifetime of riding?

:> And these same racer/riders do not use mirrors when training either,
:> so that gets them into all the same issues of motor vehicle traffic,
:> other cyclists, runners, etc.

Think about this, Gary. If you're training to race, you do what you need to
do to do well in a race. Using a mirror to train for racing would be silly
since you don't need a mirror in a race. Racers don't race on roads where
cars are.

:>
:> So, I guess my question is what impact does the mirror have? I'm not
:> arguing against using one as I have no personal experience- but I do
:> find it interesting that riders at the highest skill levels don't use
:> them.

Which highest skill? Going fast or not crashing?

:>
:> Also interesting is that while I certainly use a mirror when
:> driving a car- in high tension situations I will always look over my
:> shoulder to get a direct look rather than use the mirror.

That's because a car has a huge blind spot. You'd better look over your
shoulder. With a mirror on a bike (glass mounted) you can see much than you
can with a car and by looking over your shoulder. You have greater
situational awareness, period, as you're not in a cage.

I am sure
:> some will argue that is a bad practice as it takes my eys off the
:> road in front. But I was never good at multi tasking

??? In a car or on a bike?

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Neil Brooks <[email protected]> writes:

> This is going to sound silly, but -- given the thread itself .... ;-)

Not at all.

> Does either radio have an external antenna jack? If so, Radio Shack
> probably has an antenna (car/cb radio/similar) that you could use by
> mounting it on a rear dropout eyelet, even sticking a 'visibility
> flag' on it....
>
> Just a thought.

A so-called "active antenna" just might do the trick.
But it would need its own power source (9V cell,) and
they typically use long, whip antennas.

I've seen some simple schematics on the Web; I expect
some electronics shops might even have inexpensive kits.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Rich Clark]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Rich Clark wrote:
>>
>> My experience with racing type cyclists is that they are often the most
>> ineffective vehicular cyclists on the road. I wouldn't use them as an
>> example.
>>
>> The next time I see a cyclist on a racing bike, wearing full kit and
>> carrying no cargo, signal a turn, stop at a red light, or low down rather
>> than do something illegal will be the first.
>>
>
> OK but that isn't my experience.
> I ride racing bikes and wear pretty fancy kits and I stop at lights,
> signal turns and believe that I ride in a generally safe manner.
> It cannot be a fact that you have never seen a "racing type cyclist"
> ride in a safe manner. It is just too statitiscally difficult as even
> an unsafe rider will sometimes do something right.
>
> Why the predjudice against a type of bike and outfit rather than actual
> behavior?

I'm talking mostly about commuting, and riding during commuting hours.

The lack of cargo is a strong indicator (not conclusive, certainly), that
the cyclist is not riding for transportational purposes. So are things like
lack of lighting in the dark months, ortheir presence in a paceline.

My point is that you are using professional racers as an exemplar when
discussing safe practices for transportational cyclists. I'm saying that
they have different standards and different goals, and are willing to take
risks that I never would.

I would also think that the radio chatter that pro teams listen to through
their earpieces could be considered a distraction too. And as a final note,
racers crash and sustain serious injuries at a far higher rate than I would
find acceptable for transportational cycling. So again, they are not an
example I have any interest in emulating.

RichC

 

[gds]

Roger Zoul wrote:
>> I wonder how you can make comparisons when you haven't done both. Most who
> ride with mirrors have done both. Hmm....One could certainly decide not to
> ride with a mirror if you found no advantage to it.

I wasn't making a comparison I was asking a question. Why so defensive?

>
> I wonder how many times races crash compared to the average joe. You think
> it's less or more over a lifetime of riding?

Outside of racing I think they crash very little. And most of the
riding mileage is notn racing.

..
>
> Think about this, Gary. If you're training to race, you do what you need to
> do to do well in a race. Using a mirror to train for racing would be silly
> since you don't need a mirror in a race. Racers don't race on roads where
> cars are.

Actually sometimes they do!
And they certainly train on the same roads we ride.


> Which highest skill? Going fast or not crashing?

Well it is certainly more difficult to ride fast than to buy a mirror
;-)
>
>> That's because a car has a huge blind spot. You'd better look over your
> shoulder. With a mirror on a bike (glass mounted) you can see much than you
> can with a car and by looking over your shoulder. You have greater
> situational awareness, period, as you're not in a cage.

Now that is the first answer to my question that you gave,
Thanks, it's a good one.

 

[Thomas Wentworth]

"E Willson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To most serious cyclists this may seem like blasphemy but I would like to
> listen to a radio on my daily trip. I have tried several portable radios,
> but none can keep a constant volume as the bike changes direction. It
> seems that the antennas are very directional, so that when the bike
> changes direction the signal strength changes drastically. This is true on
> either AM or FM. Any info on how to setup a radio so that the signal
> strength is adequate and uniform would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> EJ in NJ

How about wraping the helmet in aluminum foil? They, run the atenna into
that.

Or, buy one of those atenna's down at the radio shack and attach to helmet.

 

[Roger Zoul]

gds <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Roger Zoul wrote:
:>>
:>> Well, Gary, some things will simply be hard for you to imagine.
:>> You have to consider that listening to music while riding is
:>> something that I can choose to do or not do, even with earbuds in.
:>> In other words, I can simply not pay attention to the music and
:>> focus completely on something else. You're acting as if the mere
:>> fact that you hear something with your ears means that you must
:>> focus on it or block something else important out. Simply not the
:>> case.
:>>
:>
:> Of course you can choose. My question can be restated "don't you
:> think
:> that when you choose to listen to music that to "some extent" it both
:> distracts you and makes it harder to hear other things?"

And to that I answer NO. Because I don't allow distractions of that type.
The music is there primarily to spur me on and to help keep my mind
moving/thinking, not to lull me asleep.
I ride primarily long solo rides, over 60 miles on on Saturday and over 40
on Sunday (most times). Also, I'm on country roads without a lot of
traffic. It can be harshly boring out there and the fact of the matter is,
it doesn't take a whole lot of thought to see what's going on 99% of the
time. It's not techincal stunt riding, like what I saw some guy doing on TV
recently. That takes deep concentration.

If the
:> answer
:> is yes I would then argue that the result is less safe.
:> And yes it will remain hard for me to imagine that to some extent
:> that is not the case.

Well, then that's that.

:>
:>
:>
:> .
:>>
:>> If....do you think it's a good idea to completely zone out on a
:>> bike? I can be lost in thought, enjoying far off scenery, or any
:>> number of things.
:>
:> I think that is unsafe s well. Being lost in thought and thus less
:> aware of what is hapening around you while riding a bike is almost a
:> defintion of being unsafe. I'm not saying that this doesn't happento
:> all of us - but it sure is a less safe condition than when we are
:> focused on what is hapening. Don't you think?

Sure, assuming something is happening. You seem to be of the opinion that
you can and should be completely mentally focused on riding, even if there's
nothing happening that requires that kind of focus. What's most important
in my opinion is having the ability to react to the situation, and if the
situation just isn't that rapidly changing, there's little to react to. And
if it should become rapidly changing, music playing won't affect your
ability to react, because you can simply divert focus on the situation and
iqnore the music. I really don't know what's so hard to grasp about that.
It's almost as if you think one becomes a riding zombie, enslaved by the
music.

 

[Don Wiss]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, E Willson <[email protected]> wrote:

>To most serious cyclists this may seem like blasphemy but I would like
>to listen to a radio on my daily trip.

If you are using two headphones or two earplugs, doing so is illegal in
most states. This is the same for car drivers. You need to plug only one
ear, or have a radio attached to the handle bars.

Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom).