A quick question for you all

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with a
good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly than
on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Thanks

Colin McKenzie

Given my experience on paths of varying widths, I'd say I'd only be
happy to cycle at any given speed on a path of 2m or wider. Any less
than that and I find I'm normally cycling slower - simply because I feel
hemmed in and constrained, though much depends on what borders the path.
If it's a wall, for example, that's slightly worse than prickly/stingy
hedges or water. Best case is relatively flat and not very long grassy
areas to each side - probably cos I subconsciously view them as bale-out
areas that might actually not hurt/be feasible to stay on the bike
whilst negotiating them.

Certainly I do find I restrict my speed on a path much less than that,
and a lot of the time find it very uncomfortable/unnerving to do even
10mph on a path that's less than 1.5m wide.

I've not cycled at night yet, but I would imagine that my overall speed
would drop unless the path was very well lit, in which case it'd
probably be roughly the same on the 2m wide, and almost certainly quite
a lot less even on the 1.5 and definitely slower on the less than 1.5m.

Of course, the last is theoretical, as I can only go by how I would
react, which is in part based on how I drive on unfamiliar roads at
night of varying widths.

--

Velvet

In news:[email hidden],
Colin McKenzie <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

With no other users, 0.6-1 m, I'd have thought. But I'd be pushing it
slightly at that narrowness. That's assuming it's just the path surfacing
that's narrow. If there's a drop on each side, then I'd go for say 8 or 9m

A

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

That depends entirely upon the environment. I have gone flat out (30-40mph)
down singletrack only inches wide on open, easily read ground. Equally I've
gone a lot slower on many wider, more difficult (terrain-wise) to read
tracks.
It also depends very much on how well aquainted with a particular track you
are.

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

For me it would, as I suspect for most people. What gives you the confidence
in the daylight is the ability to see and adust for upcoming
obstacles/changes
in plenty of *thinking* time. At night, this is much reduced, even with a
good
set of lights.

--
Alex
BMW R1150GS
DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8
http://www.team-ukrm.co.uk
Windy's "little soldier"

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the
vicinity.

Much too difficult to put a figure on it. It depends on my speed (which
depends on gradient and conditions), what's at the sides of the path. In
other words, on how much risk I'm at and would be prepared to take.

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

That's a tricky/trick question because I'd already be more cautious just
because of the redcuced vision, that often means being slower. Not so
much width required at slower speed.

What do I win? :-)

~PB

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Thanks

Colin McKenzie

With my Lumicycles, there is no reason to slow down at night ...

Colin McKenzie said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

I'll explain further when I've had a few answers.

Depends completely on the circumstances. Assuming there is no one at all
around, that there are no animals or wildlife that need consideration etc and
you don't have kamikaze rabbits running across the track then daytime would be
OK for speed. At night it would depend on how good your lights are and what
you can see to be clear because outside of that distance you cannot say its
clear and there are no other users or a gate/dumped rubbish etc on the track
that you might need to stop quickly for. The width is purely an issue in the
mind. You rarely take up more than 6" width cycling in a straight line but
being constrained makes you feel less confident. Look at what the North Shore
riders ride on logs above ravines for what you can do.

Tony

"Colin McKenzie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

As others have said, up (or perhaps, rather, down) to a certain point it's
not the narrowness that makes the difference, it's factors like what's on
either side and the terrain. You've said good sightlines and no other
users, so we can assume there are genuinely no concealed gaps or crossings
where people or animals might come out that would limit choice of speed, but
still there would have to be something delimiting the path to define it as
'narrow', so what would that be - fences? Then it would have to be at least
a bit wider than the bars! Drops on either side? Then it could be narrower
than the bars but it would depend on how steep and deep the drop.

Quoted message said:

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

Would the figure be different at night?

Yes, because your 'sightlines' would be shorter and you could be less sure
about other users in the vicinity. How much slower also depends on the
degree of familiarity with the path.

Rich

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack that is barely wider
than footsteps .. though a lot depends upon terrain and fitness level of
course .. 😉 In fact the narrowness of track isn't a limiting factor on
speed at all for me.

Quoted message said:

In other words, assume there is no other reason to slow you down apart
from the width - there are no bends, hills or other users in the vicinity.

In that case, then narrowness of track has absolutely no limiting factor on
my speed, so long as there _is_ a visible track to follow .. Height and
encroachment of undergrowth may slow me down a tad, but if I can actually
see the track then no worries .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

Probably not much if at all .. though it would also depend on which lights I
had fitted, and whether there was a moon out, what horror film I'd watched
recently etc etc .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have replied so far.
I should have been clearer that it would only be the riding surface
that was narrow, with grass or something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

Colin McKenzie

Paul - censored said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack that is
barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot depends upon terrain and
fitness level of course .. 😉 In fact the narrowness of track isn't
a limiting factor on speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and crocodiles to the
right? More realistically: trees?

Yes it's all in the mind but the mind makes most of us take more care.

~PB

Pete Biggs typed:

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack that is
barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot depends upon terrain and
fitness level of course .. 😉 In fact the narrowness of track isn't
a limiting factor on speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and crocodiles to the
right? More realistically: trees?

Nope, we race through woodland regularly. The limiting factor on speed, for
me, is tightness of turn, general terrain and how good my legs feel. What's
at the side of the track is of no consequence .. I don't intend to fall off
and hit it .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Yes it's all in the mind but the mind makes most of us take more care.

If there were landmines and crocodiles to consider where I race / ride /
practice then I would slow down, but that's theoretical anyway as I don't
intend going anywhere near where either potential danger may be ... except
maybe Salisbury Plain or a bombing range where I ride (Donna Nook)
occasionally, though when we go to Donna Nook it's mostly slow riding,
watching the wildlife etc .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Colin McKenzie typed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have replied so far.
I should have been clearer that it would only be the riding surface
that was narrow, with grass or something similar either side.

No limits at all on my speed, though I don't go flat out all the time .. 😉

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

A lot would depend upon if you also mean there may be on-coming cyclists.
I'd still say no limit to my speed, providing there was, as you suggest, no
limit to available lines of sight. I _would_ slow down for others though, I
trust myself implicitly, but I don't trust others as I simply don't know
them, their riding abilities, or what they're going to do to 'miss' me .. 😉

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Colin McKenzie said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have replied so far.
I should have been clearer that it would only be the riding surface
that was narrow, with grass or something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

It would work because cyclists prefer to stick to the best surface.
Making it narrower than comfortable means concentration would have to
increase to stay on it at the same speed. It's more pleasant to slow down
and relax instead. Most cyclists will do this.

I think 1 metre wide is comfortable for me at 25 mph, 75 cm at 15 mph.

Same answer I posted before about night time.

~PB

in message <[email hidden]>, Colin McKenzie

(') said:

This one is to get ammo to correct a misconception, so I'll ask the
question as neutrally as I can.

Imagine an off-road route, reasonably flat, good sightlines etc, with
a good but narrow surfaced path.

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Very narrow indeed. Last night I was cycling on a poorly surfaced path
less than 300mm wide, in the dusk, in the rain. Admittedly I was
cycling up the path which is steepish, but the width didn't cause me to
ride any more slowly than I normally would. I frequently cycle deer
paths through the woods which are unsurfaced and typically under 450mm.
Technical obstructions do cause you to slow down but if the path is
visibly clear for a good distance then there's no need to slow.

Quoted message said:

Would the figure be different at night?

This does depend on lighting. On singletrack at night I use a 20 watt
lamp with quite a broad cone, and another with a much narrower cone.
With both lights on I rarely have to slow down just for path width. I
do have to slow down on twisty paths where the spot beam is not
illuminating the path ahead.

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Paul - censored said:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack that is
barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot depends upon terrain and
fitness level of course .. 😉 In fact the narrowness of track isn't
a limiting factor on speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and crocodiles to
the right? More realistically: trees?

No. Provided you've got about 200mm clearance for your handlebars trees
in themselves are not a problem. Wet slippery roots, particularly it at
an angle to the track, are another matter altogether...

Having said this, on a bit of trailbuilding I've been doing recently
there was a big log - about 450mm diameter - down across the path, and
the kids persuaded us older types not to cut it but to route the main
path ('chicken run'😉 around the butt end of it and set up a log ride
across it. The log ride is about nine or ten metres long and the
ridable surface is about 200mm wide. I don't plan to ride it because
the log is about 1.5 metres off the ground and in my opinion that's too
far to fall. But the kids can and do. And that's a real demonstration
of the fact that you can ride on very narrow tracks indeed.

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

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

in message <[email hidden]>, Colin McKenzie

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie posted:

Quoted message said:

How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have replied so far.
I should have been clearer that it would only be the riding surface
that was narrow, with grass or something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

That would not affect experienced cross country riders at all.

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

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

Colin McKenzie said:

Thanks to all the night owls and early birds who have replied so far.
I should have been clearer that it would only be the riding surface
that was narrow, with grass or something similar either side.

Anyone want to change their view?

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

If it truly is as you describe then no speed change. I ride those all the
time and stray onto the grass frequently just from not needing to stick to the
line or to cross to another parallel track. If it was a log or a deep rut
that you had to jump the bike out of or something with a steep drop to one
side then I would slow down but part surfacing an area would not make any
difference.

Tony

Colin McKenzie said:

I am testing the theory that cyclist speeds can be reduced by
deliberately surfacing only part of the available width.

Sustrans already do that. They also spread gravel on blacktop paths to slow
cyclists down.

I can't think of any other reason.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Pete Biggs

(') said:

Paul - censored said:

>How narrow would the path have to be to make you cycle more slowly
>than on a path of infinite width, in daylight?

Extremely narrow .. I ride/race off-road on singletrack that is
barely wider than footsteps .. though a lot depends upon terrain and
fitness level of course .. 😉 In fact the narrowness of track isn't
a limiting factor on speed at all for me.

Even if there are landmines immediately to the left and crocodiles to
the right? More realistically: trees?

No. Provided you've got about 200mm clearance for your handlebars trees
in themselves are not a problem. Wet slippery roots, particularly it at
an angle to the track, are another matter altogether...

Having said this, on a bit of trailbuilding I've been doing recently
there was a big log - about 450mm diameter - down across the path, and
the kids persuaded us older types not to cut it but to route the main
path ('chicken run'😉 around the butt end of it and set up a log ride
across it. The log ride is about nine or ten metres long and the
ridable surface is about 200mm wide. I don't plan to ride it because
the log is about 1.5 metres off the ground and in my opinion that's too
far to fall. But the kids can and do. And that's a real demonstration
of the fact that you can ride on very narrow tracks indeed.

Hmm, something occurs to me here.

Are you taking into account the *type* of bikes being used on these
paths of varying widths?

This would, I think, make a big difference - I'd be happier riding a
mountainbike type at greater speed on a narrower path if I know a slight
detour onto grass on the side isn't going to part me and the bike,
whereas the bike I *actually* ride has skinny (in my books, I know
they're not uberskinny) 700x25 tyres, which means I find it just about
unrideable on grass/gravel/loose stuff.

--

Velvet