Shimano pedal hair-splitting tech question

[Tom Sherman]

Carl Fogel wrote:
> ... The University of Colorado at Boulder has always prided itself on its buffalo mascot, usually
> restrained on the field by a team of cheerleaders and quite tasty when properly barbecued....

Dear Carl,

Said mascot is a bison, not a buffalo.

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

 

[Tom Sherman]

Carl Fogel wrote:
> ... I'd read about bounce-off and slip-off being a problem on recumbents because the rider's feet
> aren't underneath, but I'd never heard about "leg suck" being the consequence and now have another
> reason to avoid those dangerous contraptions.

Dear Carl,

Are you referring to my bike [1] as a dangerous contraption?

We could start a long discussion (probably degenerating into a flame war at some point) on the
relative safety merits of upright bikes versus recumbent bikes, but it would be rather pointless as
there is little to no real data available to back up the claims of either side.

I think much of it is purely psychological. Most upright riders would feel terribly unsafe from
being too low on my bike, while I now feel terribly unsafe riding a bike with my head 7-feet in the
air. I do not believe that either position is entirely rational.

For what it is worth, I would not want to ride a recumbent bike where the seat is substantially
lower than the crank spindle [2] without some sort of foot retention system. I am now using Shimano
SPuD SH51 single-release "S" cleats after having several cases of accidental release with the SH55
multi-release "M" cleats.

[1] <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg > To put the height of the bike in
perspective, the wheel sizes are ISO 305-mm front and ISO 406-mm rear.
[2] Calling it a bottom bracket seems perverse when it is higher than the seat is.

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Tom Sherman writes:

>> The University of Colorado at Boulder has always prided itself on its buffalo mascot, usually
>> restrained on the field by a team of cheerleaders and quite tasty when properly barbecued....

> Said mascot is a bison, not a buffalo.

I think the whole subject of icon or mascot in the USA is a sad critique on our sports mentality.
The preference is for outlaws and vicious beasts, be that Renegades, Raiders, Pirates, Cougars,
Grizzly Bears, or Vikings. To make up for that, hockey is even worse in the action and the desires
of the spectators who yell encouragement to brutality. I guess that is one reason California elected
a governor who embodied this image in his acting. Once, long ago, ball clubs were named Orioles and
the like... but that's for bird watchers and pansies. Even bicycle clubs have taken up names with
violent attributes even though it isn't a contact sport.

I see it now, stampeding Bisons charging down the field.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[David Reuteler]

[email protected] wrote:
: Once, long ago, ball clubs were named Orioles and the like... but that's for bird watchers and
: pansies.

"Ave, imperator, morituri te salutant."

sheesshh, and here i thought we'd all gone soft since the time of Caesar.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:52:13 +0000, jobst.brand wrote:

> I think the whole subject of icon or mascot in the USA is a sad critique on our sports mentality.

My first job was at Texas A&M. The Aggies. Not a particularly violent image. Farmers fight! In fact,
I used to tell people that the half-time show was some guy on a tractor who plowed up the end zones.

Now, I work at Lehigh. Used to be the "Engineers", which was true to the school, plus they could
steal the MIT drinking song. (We are, we are, we are, we are, the mighty engineers, we can, we can,
we can, we can, demolish 40 beers...) But the previous president decided that the team name did not
adequately represent his image of the university, so, despite student opposition, he re-named the
team the "Mountain Hawks". No such thing exists, but it projected an adequately violent image.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | I don't believe you, you've got the whole damn thing all wrong. _`\(,_ | He's not the kind
you have to wind-up on Sundays. --Ian (_)/ (_) | Anderson

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:52:13 +0000, jobst.brand wrote:
>
> > I think the whole subject of icon or mascot in the USA is a sad critique on our sports
> > mentality.
>
> My first job was at Texas A&M. The Aggies. Not a particularly violent image. Farmers fight! In
> fact, I used to tell people that the half-time show was some guy on a tractor who plowed up the
> end zones.
>
> Now, I work at Lehigh. Used to be the "Engineers", which was true to the school, plus they could
> steal the MIT drinking song. (We are, we are, we are, we are, the mighty engineers, we can, we
> can, we can, we can, demolish 40 beers...) But the previous president decided that the team name
> did not adequately represent his image of the university, so, despite student opposition, he re-
> named the team the "Mountain Hawks". No such thing exists, but it projected an adequately
> violent image.

VA Tech seems to do fine with the Hokies (neutered male turkeys).

Matt O.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

> We could start a long discussion (probably degenerating into a flame war at some point) on the
> relative safety merits of upright bikes versus recumbent bikes, but it would be rather pointless
> as there is little to no real data available to back up the claims of either side.
>
> I think much of it is purely psychological. Most upright riders would feel terribly unsafe from
> being too low on my bike, while I now feel terribly unsafe riding a bike with my head 7-feet in
> the air. I do not believe that either position is entirely rational.

How tall are you? I'm 5'6" with a fairly normal inseam, and the only way I could get my head 7' into
the air on any of my bicycles would be to get about 18" of air between the ground and my tires.

In such a circumstance, I'm quite sure I'd rather be on my upright MTB than on almost any recumbent,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now, I work at Lehigh. Used to be the "Engineers", which was true to the school, plus they could
> steal the MIT drinking song. (We are, we are, we are, we are, the mighty engineers, we can, we
> can, we can, we can, demolish 40 beers...) But the previous president decided that the team name
> did not adequately represent his image of the university, so, despite student opposition, he re-
> named the team the "Mountain Hawks". No such thing exists, but it projected an adequately
> violent image.

Ugh. I hope he hasn't moved on to whatever school has the Blue Hens. But it could be worse, they
could be the "Fighting Quakers." (I think one of the Philly area school actually is that, could be
Haverford.) I used to be at Rutgers who are the Scarlet Knights. Obviously the women's teams should
be the Scarlet Ladies, but I guess somebody thought that was unacceptable, so they're the Lady
Knights instead. Only a little minded hobgoblin would complain that it doesn't make much sense - and
after all, why can't a lady be a knight in this day and age?

Now I work at UC Santa Cruz, where the sports teams are the Banana Slugs and kept even better hidden
than the actual banana slugs. But if we changed the name to the other campus denizen, mountain
lions, overprotective parents probably wouldn't send their precious ones here anymore. As for the
other UC bruins and bears, sadly the only grizzly left in the state is on the flag. It's like the
rule of subdivisions: they're all named things like "Kingston Woods" after whatever natural feature
got annihilated to make the subdivision.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3fe6b129$1@darkstar...

> Now I work at UC Santa Cruz, where the sports teams are the Banana Slugs and kept even better
> hidden than the actual banana slugs. But if we changed the name to the other campus denizen,
> mountain lions, overprotective parents probably wouldn't send their precious ones here anymore.

This hasn't hurt UC Irvine, whose teams are the Anteaters. UCI was built on a giant anthill. The
university and surrounding neighborhoods are completely infested with those little brown
California ants. So if there's an animal UCI people identify with, it's definately the anteater.
True story, I swear!

What sports do they play at UCSC? It always seemed like a frisbee golf and medieval swordplay kind
of campus to me...

Matt O.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> How tall are you? I'm 5'6" with a fairly normal inseam, and the only way I could get my head
> 7' into the air on any of my bicycles would be to get about 18" of air between the ground and
> my tires.
>
> In such a circumstance, I'm quite sure I'd rather be on my upright MTB than on almost any
> recumbent.

The top of my head is somewhere between 6½ and 7 feet in the air when standing on the pedals of a
normal upright bike, and about 3 feet on my lowracer.

Getting "big air" on a recumbent bike could well result in a spinal column compression injury so it
is best avoided. This is not a problem when riding on roads, as the probability of getting more than
a couple inches into the air is very remote.

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

 

[David Reuteler]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
: What sports do they play at UCSC? It always seemed like a frisbee golf and medieval swordplay kind
: of campus to me...

frisbee golf? i always thought that was a euphemism. when the little dear came home at 4am, pizza
stains all over his/her shirt along with other clear signs of the munchies, deep red eyes, slurred
speech and an inseparable attachment to their walkman one was said to have been "playing frisbee
golf." in saint paul there's a frisbee golf course that only supports this theory. if there's any
actual frisbee throwing it's merely a cover.

medieval swordplay otoh is pretty self-explanatory.

all of which probably goes on quite a bit in santa cruz, tho.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[David Reuteler]

Carl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:
: Short people got no reason to live.

well, they have one: climbing. i'm a pretty decent climber for my size but many people his size can
dust my 6'2" 175lb ass.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Carl Fogel]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl Fogel wrote:
> > ... I'd read about bounce-off and slip-off being a problem on recumbents because the rider's
> > feet aren't underneath, but I'd never heard about "leg suck" being the consequence and now have
> > another reason to avoid those dangerous contraptions.
>
> Dear Carl,
>
> Are you referring to my bike [1] as a dangerous contraption?
>
> We could start a long discussion (probably degenerating into a flame war at some point) on the
> relative safety merits of upright bikes versus recumbent bikes, but it would be rather pointless
> as there is little to no real data available to back up the claims of either side.
>
> I think much of it is purely psychological. Most upright riders would feel terribly unsafe from
> being too low on my bike, while I now feel terribly unsafe riding a bike with my head 7-feet in
> the air. I do not believe that either position is entirely rational.
>
> For what it is worth, I would not want to ride a recumbent bike where the seat is substantially
> lower than the crank spindle [2] without some sort of foot retention system. I am now using
> Shimano SPuD SH51 single-release "S" cleats after having several cases of accidental release with
> the SH55 multi-release "M" cleats.
>
> [1] <http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg > To put the height of the bike in
> perspective, the wheel sizes are ISO 305-mm front and ISO 406-mm rear.
> [2] Calling it a bottom bracket seems perverse when it is higher than the seat is.
>
> Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W

Dear Tom,

Perhaps "dangerous" contraption was ill-chosen.

Infernal contraption? Devil's lawn-chair? Satan's Laz-E-Boy? The basset-hound of the bicycle world?

Alas, the mot juste escapes me, just as the unspeakable notion of "leg-suck" on a recumbent had
escaped my nightmares--until this thread revealed it to me!

Cycling sofas?

More seriously, I gather that my prejudice may have lacked distinction.

That is, do some recumbents have their pedals low enough that the rider's feet stay on fairly
easily, while others like your low-slung version mount the pedals so high that foot-bounce would be
a problem without some sort of clip?

Or are all recumbents liable to foot-bounce, with some being more severe than others?

Elsewhere, Jobst Brandt suggested that shoe-cleats help old-fashioned, upright, decent--er, I mean
diamond-frame bicycles struggle up steep climbs by allowing the rider to pull up with one foot while
pushing down on the other.

Are cleats equally helpful on a recumbent?

That is, on climbs, can you, well . . . pull back (or down) with one foot while pushing forward (or
up) with the other? Or is this kind of strenuous maneuver ruled out by the recumbent posture,
leaving the cleats useful only for retention?

Carl Fogel

 

[Carl Fogel]

Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > We could start a long discussion (probably degenerating into a flame war at some point) on the
> > relative safety merits of upright bikes versus recumbent bikes, but it would be rather pointless
> > as there is little to no real data available to back up the claims of either side.
> >
> > I think much of it is purely psychological. Most upright riders would feel terribly unsafe from
> > being too low on my bike, while I now feel terribly unsafe riding a bike with my head 7-feet in
> > the air. I do not believe that either position is entirely rational.
>
> How tall are you? I'm 5'6" with a fairly normal inseam, and the only way I could get my head
> 7' into the air on any of my bicycles would be to get about 18" of air between the ground and
> my tires.
>
> In such a circumstance, I'm quite sure I'd rather be on my upright MTB than on almost any
> recumbent,

Dear Ryan,

Short people got no reason to live.

Randy Newman

 

[David L. Johnso]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:54:01 +0000, Benjamin Weiner wrote:

> Ugh. I hope he hasn't moved on to whatever school has the Blue Hens.

He moved to Arizona.

> But it could be worse, they could be the "Fighting Quakers." (I think one of the Philly area
> school actually is that, could be Haverford.)

Penn, actually.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a _`\(,_ | conclusion. --
George Bernard Shaw (_)/ (_) |

 

[Ajames54]

David Reuteler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
> : What sports do they play at UCSC? It always seemed like a frisbee golf and medieval swordplay
> : kind of campus to me...
>
> frisbee golf? i always thought that was a euphemism. when the little dear came home at 4am, pizza
> stains all over his/her shirt along with other clear signs of the munchies, deep red eyes, slurred
> speech and an inseparable attachment to their walkman one was said to have been "playing frisbee
> golf." in saint paul there's a frisbee golf course that only supports this theory. if there's any
> actual frisbee throwing it's merely a cover.
>

There is even a Pro -Tour for frisbee golf, the dope smoking aspect is only a side... it's like the
guys who can't go a round of stick golf without a half case of Bud light. Every one knows they exist
but don't believe they are representative.

It is also pretty darn hard to play at night...

 

[David Reuteler]

ajames54 <[email protected]> wrote:
: It is also pretty darn hard to play at night...

it appears to be okay if you're at the business end of a six foot bong with a lighter.
--
david reuteler [email protected]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

"ajames54" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> There is even a Pro -Tour for frisbee golf, the dope smoking aspect is only a side... it's like
> the guys who can't go a round of stick golf without a half case of Bud light.

So, I guess it's just another kind of "bud light"...

Matt O.

 

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:52:13 GMT, [email protected]
wrote:
>To make up for that, hockey is even worse in the action and the desires of the spectators who yell
>encouragement to brutality.

Actually, my understanding of the hockey fighting tradition is that by allowing players to fist-
fight, they avoid the real carnage that would be caused if they suppressed it and it boiled over
while they're wearing ice skates and holding big fiberglass sticks. Those sticks can get pretty
dangerous...

>Even bicycle clubs have taken up names with violent attributes even though it isn't a
>contact sport.

Depends which type of bicycling, I suppose.

>I see it now, stampeding Bisons charging down the field.

Cool. Come in with a shotgun, go home with dinner.

>Jobst Brandt [email protected]
--
Rick Onanian

 

[Tom Sherman]

Carl Fogel wrote:
>
> Dear Tom,
>
> Perhaps "dangerous" contraption was ill-chosen.
>
> Infernal contraption? Devil's lawn-chair? Satan's Laz-E-Boy? The basset-hound of the
> bicycle world?
>
> Alas, the mot juste escapes me, just as the unspeakable notion of "leg-suck" on a recumbent had
> escaped my nightmares--until this thread revealed it to me!
>
> Cycling sofas?
>
> More seriously, I gather that my prejudice may have lacked distinction.
>
> That is, do some recumbents have their pedals low enough that the rider's feet stay on fairly
> easily, while others like your low-slung version mount the pedals so high that foot-bounce would
> be a problem without some sort of clip?
>
> Or are all recumbents liable to foot-bounce, with some being more severe than others?
>
> Elsewhere, Jobst Brandt suggested that shoe-cleats help old-fashioned, upright, decent--er, I mean
> diamond-frame bicycles struggle up steep climbs by allowing the rider to pull up with one foot
> while pushing down on the other.
>
> Are cleats equally helpful on a recumbent?
>
> That is, on climbs, can you, well . . . pull back (or down) with one foot while pushing forward
> (or up) with the other? Or is this kind of strenuous maneuver ruled out by the recumbent posture,
> leaving the cleats useful only for retention?

Dear Carl,

Cycling sofa is the translation of the Danish term for a recumbent bicycle.

I would classify any bike with the pedals low enough for not needing some type of foot retention
system to be either semi-recumbent (e.g. Giant Revive) or upright.

Foot retention systems are also a necessity on a recumbent for proper climbing in my opinion. While
one can develop much force on the pedals of a recumbent (think leg press machine) this will lead to
rapid muscle fatigue and possibly knee damage. A reasonably fast spin with a pull on the "return"
side is the fastest way to climb anything but a very short hill. Lower gearing than an upright bike
would have is useful hear, my bike has a low gear of 18" (compared to the low of ~30" on a road bike
with a 30T granny and a 27T large cog). Conversely, due to the lower drag "performance" recumbents
(not the ones you commonly see on the bike trail) can use higher gearing downhill. (We will ignore
the argument over which type of bike is faster on Mr. Brandt's "technical descents".)

Tom Sherman - 41 N, 90 W