Recumbent Hill Climbing ??

[Edward Dolan]

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

> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:27:33 GMT, Howard <bishop(1199<<1)@yazhooz.com> wrote:
>
> >Please. Now.
>
> And I should add that I've killfiled Ed, so he could be singing the praises of NAMBLA and I
> wouldn't know. Forte Agent is great.

Jeez! Just because I called this guy an idiot, a jerk and a moron is no reason to kill file me!
Apparently it is my destiny to suffer fools, or else I could start kill filing some of these
dummkopfs myself. But that would be too easy. No, I need to know what the ordinary run of humanity
has to say about things that are way over their heads as I do not want to lose my common touch.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ... All this abbreviation that goes on here on ARBR is just plain rude. Write it
> > out for Heaven's sake....
>
> Mr. Dolan abbreviates "alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent" to "ARBR" in a statement complaining about the
> use of abbreviations. Now that is funny!
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

I think ARBR is the one abbreviation that we can all agree on because we all know it. But many of
the others are real mysteries to me. I wonder if there isn't perhaps a newsgroup or Internet
dictionary of abbreviations that would explain all of this. But still, by and large, I do not like
abbreviations. I love words too much to be abbreviating them. I think you have probably noted that I
never abbreviate anything (except ARBR). I want to be able to communicate to the widest possible
audience above all else. Unfortunately, everyone is kill filing me, so I have got other problems
having nothing to do with abbreviations.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

> On 17 Jan 2004 16:21:08 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Why can't I ever make any sense out of what this guy posts. He is way too constipated in his
> >language. Is there a shortage of words in which to express coherent and clear thoughts? What the
> >hell is blog for instance? All this abbreviation that goes on here on ARBR is just plain rude.
> >Write it out for Heaven's sake.
>
> Wellsir, god ferbid yuh'd bother ta take the 'nitiative ta larn anythin' new yerownself. But
> lookahere, take m' hand: this here's a blog (weblog): http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/
>
> A purdy durn good'un too.

It appears to be one man's take on all the politics in the land, but I still do not know what "blog"
means. Why not just give me a definition instead of referring me to a newsmagazine-like website.
Unless, it is in fact one man's web log. Is that what a blog is?

> >Is he saying that neocons are evil and that progressives are also evil? Who knows? We need to
> >learn to read
>
> Don't they got schools fer thatthere? I heard uv'um oncet, but it'uz a fer piece ta walk soz I jes
> listerned ta the idjut box.

All the greatest political idiots for the past 50 years have come out of Minnesota and South Dakota,
so it is indeed entirely possible that there is something seriously lacking in our schools here.

> >between the lines apparently in order to decipher any of this Freewheeling stuff. But why bother?
> >He is no doubt as confused about things as any of the rest of us.
>
> Jes vote, feller. Everthin' else is a-took care uv. Yew cud efen go fer a ryd on yer
> whurlygigwhatchmacallit.

Is this Welsh I wonder?

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

> On 17 Jan 2004 15:17:31 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >Hey, Freewheeling, leaving aside aerodynamics I am better off in my easy chair looking at the
> >latest idiocies on the **** tube. But I do regard it as a major concession on your part that
> >aerodynamics is about the only advantage of recumbents over uprights, besides the very major
> >comfort factor of course.
>
> What else is there besides aerodynamics, when it comes to speed on flat to rolling terrain?
> Rolling resistance, I guess. But DFs have no advantage there. So there's really only one advantage
> on flat to rolling ground, and it belongs entirely to recumbents. And although I hate to drag this
> old dead horse out of the barn once more, all we're really saying about recumbents on steep hills
> is that their disadvantage isn't as great as you make it out to be.
>
> But what's the point, eh? I'm sure I accused you of bias in there somewhere so you can take
> offense, or suggested you mount from the wrong side. Just has to be something to keep that light
> from flickering on. It's comforting to know some things never change, isn't it?

No, I believe we have finally clarified one issue. You have stated clearly that you do not believe
the disadvantage of a recumbent on hill climbing is as serious as I make it out to be. So it is all
a question of degree, and not of kind. That is real progress. Most on this newsgroup would not agree
with either of us. They claim all the time that recumbents climb hills just as good if not better
than uprights, once you get those leg muscles properly developed. You and I are disagreeing with
them. Or can't you stand to be out of sync with the old time regulars of ARBR.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Well for Heaven's sake, it is the arm and chest muscles that are enabling you to maintain that
> > bent over posture on an upright. And if it won't shock you all the way to hell and back, I do
> > agree with you that ultimately it is the back and abs that force you to eventually to give up on
> > an upright....
>
> For me, the discomfort on an upright was related to saddle pressure, carrying too much weight on
> my wrists, and finger numbness. Back pain was never an issue (surprising, since I have back
> problems from doing repetitive manual labor in a factory job I worked at 12 years ago).
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

I had all those problems that you relate above too, but I was able to eventually solve them mostly
through equipment or adjustment changes. But the back problem (neck, upper back around the shoulders
and lower back) was unsolvable by me. I was told that I needed to strengthen those back and ab
muscles with special exercises, but that I refused to do. After all, I was riding my bike for the
fun of it, not because I was into strength and fitness. A recumbent immediately solved all physical
discomfort and pain issues, although you can still get a sore butt on certain types of recumbents.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

> The single most important disadvantage of recumbents is their weight and the rider position on
> long steep grades.

Here it is at long last - the X factor! I too have often thought that the position of the body on a
recumbent going uphill is the number one factor that makes recumbents slower. But is it a gravity
effect or the body weight and angle distribution over the wheelbase or body mechanics and physiology
in the laid back position, again at an angle. I think it is the latter, but I never discount the
pull of gravity either.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Freewheeling wrote:
>
> > ...I daresay if I make a big enough thing of the fact that I'm a Bush supporter...
>
> What politician you support is your choice, but please discuss it in a more appropriate forum than
> alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent. Everyone will thank you for doing so.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

I had to look twice to see if Mr. Sherman had indeed posted this. Apparently, with the New Year, we
are all making resolutions to keep ARBR more on topic. I wholeheartedly support this effort. I think
recumbent posts are more fun anyway. I will do my part to keep the OT to a minimum.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

> On 17 Jan 2004 15:49:34 -0800, [email protected] (Edward Dolan) wrote:
>
> >And they are invariably know-nothings to boot! Believe me, I know these jerks backwards and
> >forwards.
>
> Yeah, you better believe him Tom. I know you will. Very wise fellah. I daresay if I make a big
> enough thing of the fact that I'm a Bush supporter he may decide to change his vote, just to
> outsmart me.

He mentioned Bush and I also know from a previous post of Mr. Sherman's that Freewheeling is a
political science academic. I could have a field day with this, but I have resolved not to be such a
******* all the time, and so I am going to let this pass. Everyone here, please note what a good boy
I am being!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Stay away from this moron Mr. Sherman! Anyone who is alluding to "Copperheads" and McClellan on
> > ARBR is a bona fide idiot. He knows nothing of context and fancies himself an intellectual.
> > These are absolutely the worse sorts in the entire world. And they are invariably know-nothings
> > to boot! Believe me, I know these jerks backwards and forwards.
>
> Mr. Dolan,
>
> I had a long discussion (okay, off-topic flame war) with Mr. Talkington about a subject that I
> will not mention, during which he complained about my debating tactics.
>
> I do not wish to engage in off-topic flame wars on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, but I also do not
> wish to have to see postings expressing views on off-topic subjects that I find abhorrent. I
> believe you feel the same way. However, as you well know (remember "OT and Flammable") I am
> willing to argue until everyone is sick of the argument and gives up if I have to. However, I
> believe we would all be happier if I keep the sheep suit on (Hi $kip) and stick to recumbents and
> smart-ass comments.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Mr Sherman:

I agree with your sentiments 100%. This Freewheeling guy pisses me off more than you ever did. Maybe
it is because he is a fellow conservative and therefore it takes one to know one. I believe overall
that ARBR has improved considerably since we have done our dance around the totem pole a number of
times. But like you, I can't stand to let abhorrent postings go unchallenged. Even smart-ass
comments have to done very judiciously or I can go off like a Palestinian suicide-bomber. Skip has
got exactly the right take on all of this but you and I are not like him. We both go for the jugular
every time, you in your more matter of fact way and me in my more passionate way.

I have gotten considerably more proficient (faster) in posting now then when I first encountered you
and I can probably outlast you in any conflict as you are a working man and I have literally 24
hours a day to vent my rage if required. But it is all foolishness of course, and so I am more than
willing to meet you half way.

I will admit I sometimes get into it with others on this newsgroup which is simply unavoidable. I
do not see how we can prevent that no matter how much we agree with one another about how to handle
any of this. There will always be someone around to **** you off and there will always be someone
around to **** me off no matter what. My recommendation is that if and when you get into it with
someone else, that I will stay out of it (as long as my name is not dragged into it) and you will
return the favor to me on the same terms. How well this will work out I do not know, but maybe we
should give it a try.

In other words, I agree to let you fight your battles without butting in and you agree to let me
fight my battles without butting in.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Here it is at long last - the X factor! I too have often thought that the position of the body on
> a recumbent going uphill is the number one factor that makes recumbents slower. But is it a
> gravity effect or the body weight and angle distribution over the wheelbase or body mechanics and
> physiology in the laid back position, again at an angle. I think it is the latter, but I never
> discount the pull of gravity either.

My subjective experience indicates that most recumbents have a too open hip angle for proper
climbing. If I were riding regularly in hilly areas, I would want BOTH a high BB and a fairly
upright seat.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
> berlin.de>...
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
>>>berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yeah, but you can't fool all the people all of the time. The Dems are going to lose big time in
>>>>>2004 because they are permanently out to lunch on national defense and security issues. If they
>>>>>could get their heads screwed on straight on these issues they might have a chance.
>>>>
>>>>You can fool a lot of them if you have electronic voting machines that record "Bush" when the
>>>>voter chooses the Democratic candidate.
>>>>
>>>>Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
>>>
>>>
>>>The ignorant Democratic voters have got to get up to speed on how to vote, whatever the method.
>>>This is not rocket science, but it probably does require that you have at least a high school
>>>education. Those who are too ignorant to know how to vote properly should not be voting at all.
>>>If that is your main argument for why the Dems are in such dire straits, you might as well throw
>>>in the towel now and be done with it.
>>
>>Mr. Dolan,
>>
>>This has nothing to do with individual voters learning to use a voting machine and everything to
>>do with electronic ballot tampering, and you are being disingenuous to try to claim otherwise. Of
>>course, since you rely on Faux News for your information, you probably do not realize the
>>potential for voting fraud if there is no printed backup to electronic voting machine tabulations,
>>and in addition do not care since the electronic voting machines are made by Republican supporting
>>corporations.
>
>
> Mr. Sherman,
>
> Both political parties monitor the voting process. If there is something amiss it will be noted
> and a mighty ruckus will be raised. Ballots can be tampered with regardless of the state of the
> technology. Voting fraud cuts in all directions, but if the monitors are doing their job it
> will not be easy for anyone to get away with anything. You are worrying about something that
> doesn't exist.

The only check on electronic voting machines without a printed confirmation backup is an exit poll.
It will be interesting to see what happens if the two seriously disagree (unless the exit poling
system breaks down due to computer failure as it did in 2002).

The other interesting possibility with an all electronic voting system is if it breaks down and it
is obvious that the results are invalid. There would be no recourse but to hold another election.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

 

[Edward Dolan]

Howard <bishop(1199<<1)@yazhooz.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> (Like I'm going to perpetuate this)
>
> If you two are going to fight like this in public again maybe you should figure out a way to
> become brothers in law or seek some counseling or something. Anything. Thorazine maybe or at least
> some benedril. Take it to another group.

What fight? Where? As far as I know we are just having our usual spirited discussion. Don't let a
few descriptive nouns put you off. That is how we show affection for one another on this newsgroup.
And why should we bother some other newsgroup with our folderol when it has taken us over a year to
get everyone used to us on this newsgroup.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Here it is at long last - the X factor! I too have often thought that the position of the body
> > on a recumbent going uphill is the number one factor that makes recumbents slower. But is it a
> > gravity effect or the body weight and angle distribution over the wheelbase or body mechanics
> > and physiology in the laid back position, again at an angle. I think it is the latter, but I
> > never discount the pull of gravity either.
>
> My subjective experience indicates that most recumbents have a too open hip angle for proper
> climbing. If I were riding regularly in hilly areas, I would want BOTH a high BB and a fairly
> upright seat.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Now that I think about it I think you are right about that. All my recumbents have a very laid back
seat angle resulting in an open hip angle. I have briefly ridden a P-38 and other recumbents having
a more upright seat and a closed hip angle and dang if I didn't think they climbed much better.
Unfortunately, I do not like a closed hip angle. It always feels as if my legs are coming back into
my gut. Also, an upright seat angle regardless of BB height will not contribute much to comfort, and
that is always my first and last consideration. I will just have to learn to not mind being slow
climbing hills on my recumbents.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Beastt]

Hi GcDoss.

I'm sure I'm a bit late in responding to your post but as I live right across Mingus Mountain from you and know the terrain I thought I might be able to help a bit.

The short answer is that recumbents are slower on climbs than standard bikes. I don't want to upset the recumbent crowd out there but facts are facts. My brother used to ride a standard bicycle but, due to the pressure from a standard saddle, had to switch to riding recumbents. Don't get me wrong. He loves the recumbent and has a blast on them. But he also has to resign himself to being last in group rides that involve hills. He just gears down and finds a steady pace that works. He can climb just about anything I can climb on a regular bike. It just takes him longer.

The reasons are simple. A recumbent gives the rider one position from which to pedal. A standard bike leaves the option of shifting forward and backward in the saddle or standing - all of which give muscle groups a chance to recuperate. The one steady position on a recumbent requires that the same muscles push and pull at the same angles throughout the duration of a climb. When a rider stands on a regular bike, gravity works with the rider's weight to help move the pedals down. I've never seen a recumbent that places the rider over the pedals so this advantage is also lost.

When you turn around at the top of that hill, be prepared to pull ahead of the standard bicycle riders, especially if you have a headwind. You're down lower than they can ever hope to get and that lessens the wind resistance.

 

[Edward Dolan]

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

> Hi GcDoss.
>
> I'm sure I'm a bit late in responding to your post but as I live right across Mingus Mountain
> from you and know the terrain I thought I might be able to help a bit.
>
> The short answer is that recumbents are slower on climbs than standard bikes. I don't want to
> upset the recumbent crowd out there but facts are facts. My brother used to ride a standard
> bicycle but, due to the pressure from a standard saddle, had to switch to riding recumbents.
> Don't get me wrong. He loves the recumbent and has a blast on them. But he also has to resign
> himself to being last in group rides that involve hills. He just gears down and finds a steady
> pace that works. He can climb just about anything I can climb on a regular bike. It just takes
> him longer.
>
> The reasons are simple. A recumbent gives the rider one position from which to pedal. A standard
> bike leaves the option of shifting forward and backward in the saddle or standing - all of which
> give muscle groups a chance to recuperate. The one steady position on a recumbent requires that
> the same muscles push and pull at the same angles throughout the duration of a climb. When a
> rider stands on a regular bike, gravity works with the rider's weight to help move the pedals
> down. I've never seen a recumbent that places the rider over the pedals so this advantage is
> also lost.

Yes, I agree with you in spades! We are potted plants on our recumbents and there cannot be much
variation in how we use our leg muscles. I normally never stood much when I was riding an upright,
but I think there always was much more variation in use of the leg muscles regardless. My upright
would occasionally feel like it was an extension of my body. I never get that feeling on any of my
many recumbents. I ride on them, but they are not part of me.

> When you turn around at the top of that hill, be prepared to pull ahead of the standard bicycle
> riders, especially if you have a headwind. You're down lower than they can ever hope to get and
> that lessens the wind resistance.

Yes, aerodynamics is what a recumbent is all about as far as speed is concerned. But I think
almost all of us if truth be told ride recumbents for the comfort factor, and anything beyond that
is a dividend.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota