Cobbles

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

I've been reading interviews with riders who are commenting on riding
on cobbles. They speak of various techniques, proper gear selection,
and other things. One thing many seem to think is that being big
(relatively speaking) is a better starting point.

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

Joseph

I think they are conflating being big with being stupid. Stupid people are
more easily convinced riding over cobbles isn't so bad.

--
Bill Asher

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

I've been reading interviews with riders who are commenting on riding
on cobbles. They speak of various techniques, proper gear selection,
and other things. One thing many seem to think is that being big
(relatively speaking) is a better starting point.

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

Joseph

No, being big means not getting bounced all over the place on the cobbles.

Kyle Legate said:

No, being big means not getting bounced all over the place on the cobbles.

I agree Kyle. Ridng with my son, in particular, who was maybe 130,
when I was 185 made the difference clear. There were a couple of
serious stretches of cobbles on some of our favorite rides, and while
they weren't much of a hassle for me he got beat to death. I'm sure
you're an expert by now riding around Munchen.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Kyle Legate said:

No, being big means not getting bounced all over the place on the cobbles.

I agree Kyle. Ridng with my son, in particular, who was maybe 130,
when I was 185 made the difference clear. There were a couple of
serious stretches of cobbles on some of our favorite rides, and while
they weren't much of a hassle for me he got beat to death. I'm sure
you're an expert by now riding around Munchen.

Cobbles by Münchhausen...?

R

email hidden said:

Hi All,

I've been reading interviews with riders who are commenting on riding
on cobbles. They speak of various techniques, proper gear selection,
and other things. One thing many seem to think is that being big
(relatively speaking) is a better starting point.

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

The big guy has an advantage on rough ground. Here in Florida where 'cross
courses tend to be flat bumpy grassland (it's what we got) I see it on the fast
parts. Not sure why. Pretty sure it isn't just the rider to bike weight ratio.

<Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

Hi All,

I've been reading interviews with riders who are commenting on riding
on cobbles. They speak of various techniques, proper gear selection,
and other things. One thing many seem to think is that being big
(relatively speaking) is a better starting point.

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

The big guy has an advantage on rough ground. Here in Florida where 'cross
courses tend to be flat bumpy grassland (it's what we got) I see it on the
fast
parts. Not sure why. Pretty sure it isn't just the rider to bike weight
ratio.

Well it sort of is. A big guy flexes the frame and wheels more. In effect he
gets more spring effect than a smaller rider. Also the bike isn't tossed
around as much on rough ground and so the wheels are on the ground more for
handling and propulsion.

email hidden said:

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

Probably something to do with gravity. Big guys don't bounce as high.

Jeff

"Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

Is this true? And if so, why? Are they just conflating being big with
being powerful?

Probably something to do with gravity. Big guys don't bounce as high.

Jeff

It's really inertia (mass). The more you have, the higher the resistance
to movement and the smaller the amplitude of transverse (vertical)
deflection.

Phil Holman