UK and Europe · Public discussion

Wurfitt?

Started by Martin Bulmer · · Last activity · 142 posts · 3,352 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
9 May 2007
Last activity
14 May 2007
Original author
Martin Bulmer
Posts
142
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,352
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 101–120 of 142
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Nick Maclaren said:

    See another of my postings. That is orthogonal to the diamond frame
    versus other issue. The "one size fits all" design is PRECISELY why
    I cannot ride any currently available folding bicycles that I have
    heard of!

    But your balance problems are an exception, not a rule. For /most/
    people, /most/ of the time, a one size fits many makes a huge
    amount of sense. Just like cars.

    Quoted message said:

    Grrk. No. On a recumbent tricycle, yes. On a long wheelbase,
    partially. On a short wheelbase one, only a few people can.

    See above, you're the exception, not the rule.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  2. Alan Braggins said:

    But the extra space created by using a small wheel allows for more
    flexibility in suspension design, so the two aren't totally independent.

    And also a bigger wheel will mean more unsprung weight, though I
    won't pretend to know the significance.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> > See another of my postings. That is orthogonal to the diamond frame
    |> > versus other issue. The "one size fits all" design is PRECISELY why
    |> > I cannot ride any currently available folding bicycles that I have
    |> > heard of!
    |>
    |> But your balance problems are an exception, not a rule. For /most/
    |> people, /most/ of the time, a one size fits many makes a huge
    |> amount of sense. Just like cars.

    Not at all. It is extremely rare for people with balance problems
    like mine to still ride bicycles, yes, but a good 20% of the potential
    riding population have significant balance problems. However, that
    wasn't actually my point.

    I am fairly tall (6'2"😉 and cannot practicably ride [censored] over [censored] or
    with knees round my ears - and both characteristics are decidedly
    common, possibly even occurring in a MAJORITY of potential cyclists.
    This means that my centre of gravity is high. Now, on a typical
    folding bicycle, you are VERY close behind the front wheel, and
    therefore cannot brake at more than a very gradual rate without
    coming off. And, in an urban street, you have to expect pedestrians
    to step out immediately in front of you.

    For decent braking, you need to be a distance behind the front wheel
    pro rata to your height. Simple physics.

    |> > Grrk. No. On a recumbent tricycle, yes. On a long wheelbase,
    |> > partially. On a short wheelbase one, only a few people can.
    |>
    |> See above, you're the exception, not the rule.

    No, that was the experience of the recumbent company that ran a
    course I went on. The majority of people had trouble with short
    wheelbase ones even when riding in a straight line, and a good half
    took some hours to get used to even a long wheelbase one. Remember

    that you said:

    Once you change style (e.g. go recumbent)

    You sit on bike, turn pedals and go. ...

    That is NOT the experience of the majority of people who try them.

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  4. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Alan Braggins) writes:
    |>
    |> >Ah, but a suspended big wheel would do better still :-)
    |>
    |> But the extra space created by using a small wheel allows for more
    |> flexibility in suspension design, so the two aren't totally independent.

    I never said that they were :-)

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  5. Nick Maclaren wrote on 12/05/2007 14:59 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    I am fairly tall (6'2"😉 and cannot practicably ride [censored] over [censored] or
    with knees round my ears - and both characteristics are decidedly
    common, possibly even occurring in a MAJORITY of potential cyclists.
    This means that my centre of gravity is high. Now, on a typical
    folding bicycle, you are VERY close behind the front wheel, and
    therefore cannot brake at more than a very gradual rate without
    coming off. And, in an urban street, you have to expect pedestrians
    to step out immediately in front of you.

    For decent braking, you need to be a distance behind the front wheel
    pro rata to your height. Simple physics.

    I don't dare go out again on my folding bikes now that I know it was
    only ignorance of these facts that kept me, at 6'6", from falling of
    them ;-) You don't half talk a load of tosh at times Nick.

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  6. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> > For decent braking, you need to be a distance behind the front wheel
    |> > pro rata to your height. Simple physics.
    |>
    |> I don't dare go out again on my folding bikes now that I know it was
    |> only ignorance of these facts that kept me, at 6'6", from falling of
    |> them ;-) You don't half talk a load of tosh at times Nick.

    Frankly, I don't think that you should. From your postings, you are
    probably the sort of cyclist who is absolutely loathed by pedestrians.

    I have NEVER understood why the psychling dogmatists believe that the
    laws of physics don't apply to them, but that is definitely the case.

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  7. in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren

    (') said:


    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> > See another of my postings. That is orthogonal to the diamond frame
    |> > versus other issue. The "one size fits all" design is PRECISELY why
    |> > I cannot ride any currently available folding bicycles that I have
    |> > heard of!
    |>
    |> But your balance problems are an exception, not a rule. For /most/
    |> people, /most/ of the time, a one size fits many makes a huge
    |> amount of sense. Just like cars.

    Not at all. It is extremely rare for people with balance problems
    like mine to still ride bicycles, yes, but a good 20% of the potential
    riding population have significant balance problems. However, that
    wasn't actually my point.

    I am fairly tall (6'2"😉 and cannot practicably ride [censored] over [censored] or
    with knees round my ears - and both characteristics are decidedly
    common, possibly even occurring in a MAJORITY of potential cyclists.

    I think all the regular promoters of Bromptons on this group are taller
    than you. OK, not Peter Clinch...

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

  8. Nick Maclaren said:

    For decent braking, you need to be a distance behind the front wheel
    pro rata to your height. Simple physics.

    So how come people at least as tall as you ride about on
    conventional folders without undue incident? "Simple physics"
    /should/ apply to everyone, not just the people who've sat down and
    done some calculations to prove what they're doing is impossible.

    Quoted message said:

    No, that was the experience of the recumbent company that ran a
    course I went on. The majority of people had trouble with short
    wheelbase ones even when riding in a straight line, and a good half
    took some hours to get used to even a long wheelbase one. Remember

    that you said:

    Once you change style (e.g. go recumbent)

    You sit on bike, turn pedals and go. ...

    That is NOT the experience of the majority of people who try them.

    You're jumping to the conclusion that it's all about balance, but
    IME of seeing people try them (quite extensive, having one I'm
    happy for folk to borrow) is that nerves and an over-used habit of
    pulling on the handlebars account for most initial failures. Take
    Jo, for example, who called in here on her Corner to Corner and
    fancied trying the 'bents. She couldn't do mine *at all* in an
    extremely benign environment. A short while later she bought her
    own and didn't exhibit particular trouble riding it.

    People experienced in the ways of typical bikes have terrible
    trouble steering trikes when they first get on them. That's not
    because it's intrinsically hard, but becuase they're used to doing
    something a different and incompatible way. Many/most cyclists are
    used to being able to put a lot of power through their handlebars,
    and on a 'bent that's just a recipe for veering off course and
    falling over.

    Another good illustrtaion of how it's not about balance but is
    about handling differences is if I ride otherwise identical SWB
    recumbents, one with tiller steering and one with Superman
    steering, I find the Superman steering one far, far more stable and
    easier to control (though I can spend a day on a tiller barred bike
    okay).

    Once you are used to the differences, just as with the differences
    between trikes and bikes, you /can/ just get on either and off you go.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  9. Nick Maclaren said:

    I have NEVER understood why the psychling dogmatists believe that the
    laws of physics don't apply to them, but that is definitely the case.

    Since the empiricists amongst us see people over 6'2" not making a
    habit of falling off folders the whole time, our conclusion is that
    the laws of physics have been used mistakenly in your back of an
    envelope calculations that say they must do other than they
    actually experience.

    There's another bee flying around the garden. I must go and point
    out to it that it can't actually do that...

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  10. Peter Clinch wrote on 12/05/2007 17:08 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    There's another bee flying around the garden. I must go and point out
    to it that it can't actually do that...

    Beat me to it! ;-)

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  11. Nick Maclaren wrote on 12/05/2007 16:25 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    Frankly, I don't think that you should. From your postings, you are
    probably the sort of cyclist who is absolutely loathed by pedestrians.

    Yes they absolutely loathe me denying them their schadenfreude by not
    falling off in front of them.

    Quoted message said:

    I have NEVER understood why the psychling dogmatists believe that the
    laws of physics don't apply to them, but that is definitely the case.

    Perhaps its because, like the bumble bee, we carry in blissfully
    ignorance of the fact that the laws of physics say we can't do what we
    are doing. Or perhaps your application of the laws of physics is wrong
    because your hypothesis fails a basic empirical test.

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  12. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> > For decent braking, you need to be a distance behind the front wheel
    |> > pro rata to your height. Simple physics.
    |>
    |> So how come people at least as tall as you ride about on
    |> conventional folders without undue incident? "Simple physics"
    |> /should/ apply to everyone, not just the people who've sat down and
    |> done some calculations to prove what they're doing is impossible.

    I AM surprised that YOU deny the relevance of physics to cycling :-)

    But my observation is that the reason is typically either that they
    ride very slowly, or they avoid braking even when they should. Some
    doubtless avoid situations where braking is ever necessary, but I
    have seen few of those situations.

    The simple fact of the matter is that braking on a bicycle with good
    all-weather brakes (or good rim ones in dry conditions) is limited
    by the ratio of the composite centre of gravity height to its
    distance behind the front wheel. Also, going down even quite slight
    slopes makes the effect a lot worse, and some riders will come off if
    they take ALL the weight of their rear wheel.

    For a tall rider on a typical folder, the limit is likely to be
    about g/2. I can stop at up to 3g/4 with my much higher position,
    but I am MUCH further back from the front wheel.

    For heaven's sake, this is all in Whitt - not that you should need
    to look it up! And you can perfectly well measure the distances
    with a take measure - you know roughly where your personal centre
    of gravity is, I assume?

    |> > > Once you change style (e.g. go recumbent)
    |> >
    |> > You sit on bike, turn pedals and go. ...
    |> >
    |> > That is NOT the experience of the majority of people who try them.
    |>
    |> You're jumping to the conclusion that it's all about balance, but
    |> IME of seeing people try them (quite extensive, having one I'm
    |> happy for folk to borrow) is that nerves and an over-used habit of
    |> pulling on the handlebars account for most initial failures. ...

    No, I am not. It is YOU who are jumping to conclusions. I know what
    MY problem was, and I could ride the long wheelbase ones but it needed
    a lot of concentration. However, I was and am making no judgement of
    what OTHER PEOPLE'S reasons were - I am merely quoting what I was told
    by the people running the recumbent company and course about THEIR
    experience with running such courses.

    And, if you read what YOU said again (quoted above), you were claiming
    that people could ride them without any form of acclimatisation. Yet
    you are now referring to "initial problems"!

    WHATEVER the cause of their problems, the fact is that recumbent
    tricycles really ARE no problem, and the majority of people do need a
    little practice to get used to even long wheelbase ones (and a few
    hours IS a little). Remember that riding a bicycle safely also needs
    the ability to indicate while steering (and preferably while braking
    gently, too), and the ability to turn fairly tight corners without
    falling off.

    Admittedly, traffic dangers excluded, falling off a recumbent isn't
    a big deal :-)

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  13. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> I think all the regular promoters of Bromptons on this group are taller
    |> than you. OK, not Peter Clinch...

    Look, this has nothing to do with falling off - it has to do with not
    endangering pedestrians in the typical situations that urban utility
    bicycles are used in.

    From another transport group, from memory: "When an idiot cyclist
    pulls out in front of me, I don't see why I should stop, because I
    am driving a steel box weighing a ton, and he is the one that's going
    to get hurt."

    Alternatively: "When a senile pedestrian stumbles in front of me,
    I don't see why I should stop, because I won't break bones and will
    recover quickly from mere bruises and he won't."

    My observation is that the WORST cyclists for endangering pedestrians
    are not the wannabe racers, not the riders of clapped-out heaps of
    junk, but the taller and faster riders of folding bicycles. I have
    more often seen them swerve between pedestrians (often elderly ones)
    at speed to avoid stopping than any other group of cyclist (pro rata
    to numbers, of course). And the reason is simple physics; they CAN'T
    stop in a hurry, so they don't TRY to.

    But are YOU joining the chorus of "the laws of physics don't apply
    to cycling"?

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

  14. Nick Maclaren wrote on 12/05/2007 17:52 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    My observation is that the WORST cyclists for endangering pedestrians
    are not the wannabe racers, not the riders of clapped-out heaps of
    junk, but the taller and faster riders of folding bicycles.

    As a taller faster rider of many folding and full size bikes I can
    state your observation is wrong. I have no more difficulty stopping on
    my Bromptons or Bike Friday than on my full size bikes equipped with
    similar brakes. It noticeable that there were many complaints from
    owners of earlier Bromptons that the brakes were not powerful enough and
    they have now been replaced with perfectly adequate dual pivot brakes -
    hardly a complaint from people that daren't brake. You can even get
    Steve Parry Bromptons with disk or V-brakes and people have fitted
    Magura hydraulic rim brakes too. Hardly worth the effort if the physics
    says you daren't use them.

    --
    Tony

    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
    is no good evidence either way."
    - Bertrand Russell

  15. in message <[email hidden]>, Nick Maclaren

    (') said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> I think all the regular promoters of Bromptons on this group are
    |> taller than you. OK, not Peter Clinch...

    Look, this has nothing to do with falling off - it has to do with not
    endangering pedestrians in the typical situations that urban utility
    bicycles are used in.

    From another transport group, from memory: "When an idiot cyclist
    pulls out in front of me, I don't see why I should stop, because I
    am driving a steel box weighing a ton, and he is the one that's going
    to get hurt."

    Alternatively: "When a senile pedestrian stumbles in front of me,
    I don't see why I should stop, because I won't break bones and will
    recover quickly from mere bruises and he won't."

    My observation is that the WORST cyclists for endangering pedestrians
    are not the wannabe racers, not the riders of clapped-out heaps of
    junk, but the taller and faster riders of folding bicycles. I have
    more often seen them swerve between pedestrians (often elderly ones)
    at speed to avoid stopping than any other group of cyclist (pro rata
    to numbers, of course). And the reason is simple physics; they CAN'T
    stop in a hurry, so they don't TRY to.

    But are YOU joining the chorus of "the laws of physics don't apply
    to cycling"?

    No, I'm joining the chorus that's singing 'Nick Maclaren can never admit
    when he is wrong'. Of course the laws of physics apply to folding bikes.
    However, your implied hypothesis that the contact patch of the front wheel
    of a folding bike (e.g., Brompton) is closer to the centre of gravity than
    the contact patch of a conventional bike is, in fact, wrong. The Brompton
    has in fact a (slightly) longer wheelbase than an average bike; hence,
    there is no relative braking disadvantage.

    Obviously, on any given bike, a taller rider has a higher CoG; however, for
    any given rider, the maximum stopping force on a Brompton vs a
    conventional 700c wheeled bike is the same.

    To be precise, a Brompton has a wheelbase of between and 1015mm and 1045mm
    depending on model. Compare that to the wheelbase of a conventional 60cm
    framed Cannondale road bike (that's a large size, to you): 1009mm, or 6mm
    shorter than the wheelbase of a short wheelbase Brompton. Of all my bikes
    (and I'm as tall as you) only one of my mountain bikes has a wheelbase
    longer than a Brompton.

    So you're not merely wrong, your claim is the opposite of the truth.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
    the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

  16. Peter Clinch said:

    There's another bee flying around the garden. I must go and point out
    to it that it can't actually do that...

    Not in the rain we've got in Walsall, it can't. 😉
    --
    A

  17. Nick Maclaren said:

    I AM surprised that YOU deny the relevance of physics to cycling :-)

    I deny no such thing, simply noting that people cannot actually
    defy the laws of physics even if they want to, so if you think the
    law dictates it's ridiculous to even try riding a Brommie if you're
    6'2" then clearly the reality of physics and your perception of it
    are at odds.

    Quoted message said:

    But my observation is that the reason is typically either that they
    ride very slowly, or they avoid braking even when they should. Some
    doubtless avoid situations where braking is ever necessary, but I
    have seen few of those situations.

    How tall is Guy? Is he reknowned for either hanging about or
    crashing into things? Neither, IIRC.

    You are aware it's /much/ easier to go over the bars of an MTB when
    ridden down a very steep bank and needing to brake, yet people
    still manage to not do that? It's even easier to come off a
    unicycle under braking, but people manage not to do that as well.
    Technique, placing one's weight rearwards to counteract the
    tendency for it to be thrown forwards. Simple physics says this
    works, and reality concurrs.

    Quoted message said:

    For heaven's sake, this is all in Whitt - not that you should need
    to look it up!

    I don't need to look it up, but furthermore I know from *direct
    empirical experience* that I can place my weight backwards from its
    normal position quite instinctively when heavy braking is needed.
    I go MTBing about once a year on average, but it's something you
    soon learn if you need to learn it. If you want to insist you must
    stay sat on your saddle and won't move from it that's your
    prerogative, but it's hardly a hard limit on the general use of the
    bike.

    Quoted message said:

    And, if you read what YOU said again (quoted above), you were claiming
    that people could ride them without any form of acclimatisation. Yet
    you are now referring to "initial problems"!

    I made no such claim, I simply said that the basic action is the
    same: you get on, you turn the pedals, you go. It's the same on a
    unicycle and a tricycle too, though beyond getting on, turning the
    pedals and going there are other differences to account for. There
    are differences between an upright trike and bike that I personally
    find greater than between upright and recumbent bikes, but I don't
    claim they're fundamentally different and incomparable forms of
    cycling.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  18. In article said:
    Simon Brooke said:

    Have a look at the Cannondale Silk Road. A complex and expensive solution
    to a problem that most people don't even see as a problem


    [...]

    Quoted message said:

    And as for problems, it's amazing how selective blindness can make
    them go away... "Bikes don't need suspension, they're comfortable
    enough as they are. You should wear these special padded trousers
    and mitts, they make your bike much more comfortable on a long ride".

    To be fair, a pair of padded mitts and trousers costs a lot less
    than a Silk Road. I'm not claiming they do the job as well, but
    if they do it adequately then selective blindness is not the only
    reason to choose them over a complex and expensive solution.

  19. Alan Braggins said:

    To be fair, a pair of padded mitts and trousers costs a lot less
    than a Silk Road. I'm not claiming they do the job as well, but
    if they do it adequately then selective blindness is not the only
    reason to choose them over a complex and expensive solution.

    Quite so. However, you should be saying "without these the bike
    won't be too comfortable", rather than "bikes have no need of
    suspension, they're perfectly comfortable as it is".

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  20. In article <[email hidden]>,
    Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:
    |>
    |> As a taller faster rider of many folding and full size bikes I can
    |> state your observation is wrong. I have no more difficulty stopping on
    |> my Bromptons or Bike Friday than on my full size bikes equipped with
    |> similar brakes. ...

    Yes, you have said that the laws of physics don't apply to you before.

    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.