Disc Brakes Are Amazing!!!

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then get
> >> back to me on the comfort issue.
> >
> > Dear Ed,
> >
> > The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
> > day for 30 years.
> > He seems fairly comfortable with it.
> >
> > "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
> > mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
> > you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
> > something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
> > 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
>
> The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
> all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
> tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use to
> putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists are
> not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is because
> we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill and
> therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
> ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
> hurts.

How does a typical recumbent bike perform on descents?

Technical descents?

Steep straight descents?

How nimble are they on quick corners?

--
Michael Press

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> Ride your upright for about 8 hours a day for an entire week and then
>> >> get
>> >> back to me on the comfort issue.
>> >
>> > Dear Ed,
>> >
>> > The well-known Freddie Hoffman has been riding an upright 8 hours per
>> > day for 30 years.
>> > He seems fairly comfortable with it.
>> >
>> > "For what it's worth, the few folks who put in a multiple of that
>> > mileage mostly ride bikes that you probably think wouldn't hack it for
>> > you. Freddie Hoffman, just to name an extreme example, has /averaged/
>> > something like 100 miles per day over the last 30 years. He rides a
>> > 50-pound Schwinn with roadster bars."
>> >
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/1238df6e59563c92
>>
>> The person you describe above is obviously an iron man and not typical at
>> all of the kind of cyclists who each summer embark on week long supported
>> tours on their upright bikes. They suffer enormously as they are not use
>> to
>> putting in 70 or more miles each day for a week. We recumbent cyclists
>> are
>> not used to that either, but we do not suffer like they do. That is
>> because
>> we have comfortable and sensible bikes. Yes, we are slower going uphill
>> and
>> therefore slower over all, but who cares about that. I certainly don't. I
>> ride at my own pace, enjoy every mile and at the end of the day nothing
>> hurts.
>
> How does a typical recumbent bike perform on descents?

Better than uprights.

> Technical descents?

Worse than uprights.

> Steep straight descents?

Much better than uprights.

> How nimble are they on quick corners?

Much worse than uprights.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Jon Meinecke]

<[email protected]> wrote

> [quote myself from another thread]
>
> It's common to assume that recumbents have an aerodynamic
> advantage over the traditional diamond frame, but the
> advantage is actually limited to fairly extreme recumbents.
>
> [...]
>
> http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
>
> [...]
>
> mph frontal type
> 17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base
> 17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
> 18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base
> 19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
> 20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
> 21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
> 22.3 2.0397 df superman position
> 23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer
>

Again, the numbers above are apples to oranges, or at least
apples to pears because they use different tire choices.

I quote from my previous response:

[...] the default tire choices on the kreuzotter website for
[non-race configured] recumbents are medium and wide.
The df tire choices are all high pressure, by default.

Here's the list with the high-pressure tire choices for the
LWB and SWB added**. [Also note that the modeled non-racer
SWB and LWB are less aero underseat steering style.]

mph frontal type
17.1 4.3433 recumbent long wheel base (medium slick tires)
17.3 4.7889 df hands on tops
18.0 3.8777 recumbent long wheel base (high-pressure tires)**
18.5 3.3781 recumbent short wheel base (wide slick tires)
19.4 3.2559 df hands on drops
19.5 2.8408 recumbent short wheel base (high pressure tires)**
20.5 2.7111 df triathlon bars
21.2 2.1748 recumbent short wheel base racer
22.3 2.0397 df superman position
23.1 1.5504 recumbent lowracer

I can confirm anecdotally a measurable speed difference in coast
down between a non-extreme SWB "highracer" and a df with
hands on drops.

I agree these numbers do not show the overwhelming aerodynamic
advantage that some may expect. Fast df riders who switch to
recumbents expecting 20% improvements, will be disappointed
almost certainly.

But perhaps a 5% to 8% difference is not unreasonable. And
you don't have to go extreme to gain some advantage and
retain still some comfort.

Jon Meinecke

 

[Jon Meinecke]

[newsgroups trimmed]

> I tend to think of my upright as a touring bike, not a
> racer. Someone will probably remind us that one advantage of
> an upright touring bike is that you can ride on the drops,
> on the hoods, on the bars, or sitting up no-hands, while a
> recumbent offers pretty much only one position.

That's true. However, there may be much more cause to
consider multiple hand positions an "advantage" on the
upright than it's lack a "disadvantage" on a recumbent.

In my experience (10,000+ miles recumbent) there is
little if any fatigue related to hand position on many
recumbents.

More of an issue is the lack of ability to recruit different
muscles (.e.g., to stand) for different modes or for relief.
And we haven't mentioned "recumbent butt" condition
which bothers some people (mostly new to recumbency).
Nor mentioned suitability for mixing with pacelines...

There are *many* things DF bikes do better than recumbents.
And vice versa. And there's much variation within the recumbent
category.

Jon Meinecke

 

[Peter Clinch]

[email protected] wrote:

> I tend to think of my upright as a touring bike, not a
> racer. Someone will probably remind us that one advantage of
> an upright touring bike is that you can ride on the drops,
> on the hoods, on the bars, or sitting up no-hands, while a
> recumbent offers pretty much only one position.

But a lot of the reason drops are used on classic tourers is so the
rider can move around to adjust the compromise between loading on the
arms, neck and shoulders and the degree of aerodynamics. On a recumbent
that's basically irrelevant as there's no load taken by the arms, the
neck isn't being forced up and the rider aero position is usually pretty
good to start with.

Looking at professional drivers who spend far more time in their seats
more often than most cyclists and in greater numbers, and with room to
spare in a truck cab for the driver setup and weight a non-issue, seats
aren't made to move around to numerous positions on the go because
there's nothing much to gain by doing so. Better to have one single
comfy position that can be set up carefully to start than lots of
compromises to move between. And so it is with a recumbent touring bike.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Michael Warner wrote:
>
>
> Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
> be a loner to enjoy it?
>
> --
> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw


There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.

Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place, and
'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature. Many build their own;
such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.

I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
this current car culture of ours. Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.

A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
homogenization of thought and values. Whoever heard of a biker
listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.

A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.

We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance. Such a nation
would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
comes with speed by fiat.

Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
is a man, after all.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Michael Warner wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
>> be a loner to enjoy it?
>>
>> --
>> Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>
>
> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>
> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place, and
> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature. Many build their own;
> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>
> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
> this current car culture of ours. Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>
> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
> homogenization of thought and values. Whoever heard of a biker
> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>
> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>
> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance. Such a nation
> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
> comes with speed by fiat.
>
> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
> is a man, after all.

Excellent post NYC and I couldn't agree with you more. But this should have
been an original post so that others could not miss it. Never bury a really
great message in an ongoing thread. Most will not see it there. When you are
inspired, make it an original post.

Keep up the good work!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place

They do? That must explain the complete absence of cycling clubs... ;-/

> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.

No, just rarer. I never have problems cycling mine in company of upwrongs.

> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.

There are a great many cyclists who just get on and get to where they're
going because it's the most practical method available. The nobility
thing might sound nice but it's rather over-egging the pudding in a lot
of cases.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> Michael Warner wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
> > be a loner to enjoy it?
> >
> > --
> > Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>
>
> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>
> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place,

And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)

> and
> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.

They are rare.. I doubt they are loners

>Many build their own;

How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
bikes.

> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>

Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance

Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
strengths and flaws as everyone else.

> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
> this current car culture of ours.

Danmark and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
certainly not a better government.

Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
strengths and flaws as everyone else.

> Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>

*Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
> homogenization of thought and values.

*Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

> Whoever heard of a biker
> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>

So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
subliminal advertising?

> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>

I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.

> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance.

If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
carbon ride.

> Such a nation
> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
> comes with speed by fiat.
>

LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^

> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
> is a man, after all.

Naive art indeed.

I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
Ubermenschen... we aren't.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place
>
> They do? That must explain the complete absence of cycling clubs... ;-/

Bike clubs are quite rare and are mostly for the racing crowd.

>> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
>
> No, just rarer. I never have problems cycling mine in company of
> upwrongs.

Cyclists are loners as NYC correctly surmises. We can only get together on
special rare occasions.

>> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
>> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
>> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
>
> There are a great many cyclists who just get on and get to where they're
> going because it's the most practical method available. The nobility
> thing might sound nice but it's rather over-egging the pudding in a lot of
> cases.

Talk about over-egging, take a gander at his signature below. Does not your
disgust runneth over?

> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter should strive for a modest and indeed humble signature like mine.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Michael Warner wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there such a thing as recumbent group riding, or do you have to
>> > be a loner to enjoy it?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw
>>
>>
>> There is, but it's rarer than a good inexpensive recumbent.
>>
>> Basically, most cyclists seem to be loners in the first place,
>
> And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)

You bet, sitting alone in a car is just like riding your bike alone. Keep up
the good thinking teaser!

>> and
>> 'bent-riders seem even more solitary by nature.
>
> They are rare.. I doubt they are loners

I am the ultimate loner. In fact, I am so alone that I consider myself to be
one of the last of the hermits on this earth. I once went ten years without
hardly talking to anyone, other than the most basic types of
acknowledgments. Needless to say, I did not bother to listen to anyone
either. That is the best part of being a hermit.

>>Many build their own;
>
> How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> bikes.

Only complete jerks work on their own cars. Are you such a jerk yourself?

>> such folks seem inherently inclined towards independence.
>>
>
> Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance

Jeez, I have already told you I am a charter member of this group.
Independence is my middle name.

> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.

No, that is not true. We cyclists are far superior to run-of-the-mill people
like you.

>> I think a society of bicyclists will make for more varied politics than
>> this current car culture of ours.
>
> Danmark and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> certainly not a better government.

Most cyclists are left wing nut jobs, but as you can so plainly see, I do
not fall into that category myself. By the way, neither Denmark nor the
Netherlands is what I would call a cycling society. Are you from Mars?

> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.

Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!

Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them.

>> Every ride I go to I'm amazed and
>> heartened by the great diversity of bikers I meet -- real diversity,
>> not au currant diversity that comes in and out of fashion like high
>> school cliques. I think there's something about "bike culture" that
>> encourages self-sufficiency and, frankly, character and values.
>>
>
> *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

"Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!

Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them." - Ed Dolan

>> A motorist is someone who simply has things handed down to him, like an
>> enfant terrible of the noveau riche. This can only make for
>> homogenization of thought and values.
>
> *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

"Damn it all to Hell! Cyclists are not just people like you. We are far, far
superior. How many times do I have to tell you this before it sinks in!

Generalizations are very useful and I do not trust anyone who does not make
them on a regular basis. Only intelligent people should make generalizations
however. If you are stupid, then you should never make them." - Ed Dolan

>> Whoever heard of a biker
>> listening to hate radio? But rush-hour talk shows are all the rage for
>> frustrated drivers stuck in traffic. All the while, their passive
>> minds are fertile ground for advertisers' subliminal messages.
>>
>
> So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> subliminal advertising?

Car users are stupid period! Their blood has all settled in their dead
asses. Cyclists, on the other hand, are physically in motion and so their
blood is circulating. They are not brain dead like motorists - whose blood
has all settled in their dead asses.

>> A bicyclist, by contrast, is a nobler man. It is his own work which
>> earns him the wind in his hair. He is also more resourceful, having to
>> weave together a route out of the constantly changing road conditions.
>> His independence is much encouraged by being able to ride on sidewalks
>> and against the traffic, given his status as a half-pedestrian --
>> indeed, his good, God-given feet carry him like any pedestrian. The
>> bicyclist is the ultimate pedestrian. He is someone with a tool. A
>> motorist is someone inside a tool, and consumed by it.
>>
>
> I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.

The only one giving anyone any creeps here is yourself. God, I knew you
were a weirdo right off the bat. You need to get your blood circulating as
it has all settled in your dead ass from too much motoring.

>> We bicylists love our machines, but I don't think we are as suspectible
>> to the kind of idolatry the way a typical motorist seems to be, since
>> the very activity of our sport makes for self-reliance.
>
> If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> carbon ride.

Cycling should be more about utility than anything else. It is insane to get
in a vehicle that weighs a ton to go get a pack of cigarettes that only
weighs a few ounces. Just another reason why we cyclists are so superior to
slobs like you.

>> Such a nation
>> would be less lazy and less crazy than the psycho-aggressive pride that
>> comes with speed by fiat.
>>
>
> LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^

Racers are few and far between and have nothing in common with 99% of all
cyclists, although some few misguided fools like to talk about bicycle
racers. But talking about it and doing it are two different things.

>> Hard things make for maturity. What is easy induces infantilism. The
>> bicycle is a great combination of man and his machine, making things
>> easier but not so easy that the man forgets his humanity, and that he
>> is a man, after all.
>
> Naive art indeed.

Teaser, please get a brain. That will be the hardest thing you will ever do
in your life. Once you have achieved a brain, you will have gotten some
maturity. Maybe by then you will be able to post a message that others will
want to read.

> I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> Ubermenschen... we aren't.

Well, maybe you aren't, but I sure am. And I think NYC is too. After all,
we have read our Neitsche and we know whereof we speak. Hells Bells, I am
always saying as a conclusion to my brilliant posts and sage sayings ...
Thus Spake Zarathustra!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[[email protected]]

> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
> aka
> Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Too bad I never owned a motor vehicle ^^

But a good try nonetheless

 

[NYC XYZ]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)

No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.

A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.

A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.

> They are rare.. I doubt they are loners

Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.

> How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> bikes.

Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.

The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
carbon fiber for their frames.

> Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance

Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.

> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.

That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
others.

Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
sensibility, overall, than a boxer.

> Danmark and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> certainly not a better government.

Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
enlightened.

And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian ****
don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.

> Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> strengths and flaws as everyone else.

LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
generalization with another??

Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
tend to be true -- at least in context!

> *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.

> *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.

You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.

> So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> subliminal advertising?

Does it, in your mind?

> I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.

Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.

> If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> carbon ride.

Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.

> LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^

Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.

> Naive art indeed.

What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
masturbation.

> I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> Ubermenschen... we aren't.

You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
intelligence??

 

[[email protected]]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> > in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
>
> No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.
>
> A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
>
> A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
>

Seriously. A guy on a bike is a guy on a bike... no more, no less.
maybe we Dutch are a bit more utilitarian in our bicycle use ^^. A
bicycle doesn't equate a lifestyle here.

> > They are rare.. I doubt they are loners
>
> Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.
>
> > How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> > their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> > disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> > bikes.
>
> Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
>
> The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> carbon fiber for their frames.
>

I really fail to see the difference. Then again, I do not own a car,
and I do build bikes^^

> > Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
>
> Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.
>

That is not a cross section of bicyclists, but at best a sub group

> > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
> others.
>

And you imply all Dutch and Danish are better than other people.
Because yes, most of use bikes for mundane stuff. I refute this..
cycling hasnt changed us. So the implication that cyclists are better
people fails.

> Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
>

1. proof is in the pudding
2. it's dangerous to earmark it with qualitative grades. A cyclist
doesn't make someone superior

> > Danmark and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> > as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> > certainly not a better government.
>
> Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
> enlightened.
>

The Danish ARE scandinavians. Dutch aren't.

> And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
> them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian ****
> don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
> so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.
>

Swedes aren't that known for cycling, but they are known for being
car-users. Whats your argument here?

> > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
> generalization with another??
>
> Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> tend to be true -- at least in context!
>

And I blow away your context so you remain with? What exactly?

> > *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> > same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.

Maybe, just maybe a real utilitarian bike country as the Netherlands
doesn't have your praised "bike culture"? We don't use our bicycles as
badges of honor ^^

>
> > *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> > with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
>
> You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
> wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.
>

Nope, I see what you say and I vehemently disagree with it. It's not a
bicycle that makes someone good, wise or a good example.

> > So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> > subliminal advertising?
>
> Does it, in your mind?

Nope^^

>
> > I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> > going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> > wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
>
> Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.
>

It makes me think of how Communists and Fascists tended to depict their
heroes (and no, I am not dumping you in that camp, but I do point out
that your romanticism has some paralels in over romanticising, naive
art.

> > If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> > all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> > carbon ride.
>
> Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.
>

A bicycle is a tool for transport or sports... a lifestyle? Like a
Ipod?

> > LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
>
> Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
>

Here I agree

> > Naive art indeed.
>
> What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
> masturbation.
>

Ad hominem?

> > I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> > Ubermenschen... we aren't.
>
> You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
> chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
> intelligence??

I do have a problem with your over romanticising view of cyclists. We
have problems in this world and a Bicycle can be part of the solution.
Elitarism or angering/scaring others doesn't help A bicycle is for
everyone, not just the overbearing idealists.

 

[Peter Clinch]

NYC XYZ wrote:

> A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.

Since cars typically come with passenger capacity, and bikes typically
don't, this strikes ne as pretty dubious reasoning...

> A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.

Most of them are just getting from A to B.

> Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
>
> The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> carbon fiber for their frames.

But they're still highly reliant on others to provide them materials.
It's not like they're smelting the metal themselves.

> Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> sensibility, overall, than a boxer.

I think you'd find enough variation in boxers and pianists within their
own groups that the fact they box or play piano ultimately won't mean much.

> Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> tend to be true -- at least in context!

Only if they're established. "Cyclists are loners" is a new one on me!

> Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.

Depends how much they worked on the switch... Not everyone just rides
around in cars as delivered.

"cycle culture" as you paint it exists, certainly, but it is certainly
/not/ inclusive of all (or probably even the majority of) cyclists.
Which is why Velovision isn't exactly a mass-market cycling magazine.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[NYC XYZ]

Semantics.

'Nuff said.



[email protected] wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And you come to this conclusion because??? Car owners often sit alone
> > > in a car... we could call them loners too (would be just as flippant)
> >
> > No. There are loners, and then there are failed-joiners.
> >
> > A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
> >
> > A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
> >
>
> Seriously. A guy on a bike is a guy on a bike... no more, no less.
> maybe we Dutch are a bit more utilitarian in our bicycle use ^^. A
> bicycle doesn't equate a lifestyle here.
>
> > > They are rare.. I doubt they are loners
> >
> > Again, there are true solitaries and there are accidental loners.
> >
> > > How many people serviced their own cars compared to those who serviced
> > > their bike? nowadays with computer controlled engines this is
> > > disapearing, but tbh I saw more people tinkering with engines than with
> > > bikes.
> >
> > Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
> >
> > The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> > carbon fiber for their frames.
> >
>
> I really fail to see the difference. Then again, I do not own a car,
> and I do build bikes^^
>
> > > Romanticisme, you identify a group of wich I contest it's existance
> >
> > Check out crazyguyonabike.com, then, to start with.
> >
>
> That is not a cross section of bicyclists, but at best a sub group
>
> > > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > That's true -- but some people are stronger and less flawed than
> > others.
> >
>
> And you imply all Dutch and Danish are better than other people.
> Because yes, most of use bikes for mundane stuff. I refute this..
> cycling hasnt changed us. So the implication that cyclists are better
> people fails.
>
> > Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> > other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> > sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
> >
>
> 1. proof is in the pudding
> 2. it's dangerous to earmark it with qualitative grades. A cyclist
> doesn't make someone superior
>
> > > Danmark and the Netherlands are just as narcistic right wing xenophobic
> > > as the rest of the first world... bikes don't make better people and
> > > certainly not a better government.
> >
> > Heck, no! The Scandanavians, on the whole, are light-years more
> > enlightened.
> >
>
> The Danish ARE scandinavians. Dutch aren't.
>
> > And just 'cause they're right about the obnoxious mooslims doesn't make
> > them narcisistic or xenophobic. I don't say that Scandanavian ****
> > don't stink, mind you, but they do have much better environmental laws
> > so they know how to clean up after themselves, generally.
> >
>
> Swedes aren't that known for cycling, but they are known for being
> car-users. Whats your argument here?
>
> > > Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the same
> > > strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > LOL -- why do people fail to see the irony of refuting one
> > generalization with another??
> >
> > Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> > tend to be true -- at least in context!
> >
>
> And I blow away your context so you remain with? What exactly?
>
> > > *Rolls eyes* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people, with the
> > > same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > Hand-fanning-yawning-mouth: bike culture is different from car culture.
>
> Maybe, just maybe a real utilitarian bike country as the Netherlands
> doesn't have your praised "bike culture"? We don't use our bicycles as
> badges of honor ^^
>
> >
> > > *Repeat ad infinitum* Broad generalisations: Cyclists are just people,
> > > with the same strengths and flaws as everyone else.
> >
> > You can write that a thousand times for a homework assignment if you
> > wish, but you'll be missing the whole point of what I'm saying.
> >
>
> Nope, I see what you say and I vehemently disagree with it. It's not a
> bicycle that makes someone good, wise or a good example.
>
> > > So car users who listen to cd's are better people as they miss out on
> > > subliminal advertising?
> >
> > Does it, in your mind?
>
> Nope^^
>
> >
> > > I am getting flashes of naive art: A square faced farmer on his bike
> > > going against the wind, on his way to feed his children and lovely
> > > wife. A description like that really gives me the creeps.
> >
> > Actually, that's what some Amish do. Sounds positively charming to me.
> >
>
> It makes me think of how Communists and Fascists tended to depict their
> heroes (and no, I am not dumping you in that camp, but I do point out
> that your romanticism has some paralels in over romanticising, naive
> art.
>
> > > If you talk about cycling as a sport: Technique, flash, gadgets... its
> > > all there. We love to poke out our competitors eyes with the newest hot
> > > carbon ride.
> >
> > Obviously, I refer to cycling as a lifestyle, not mere weekend hobby.
> >
>
> A bicycle is a tool for transport or sports... a lifestyle? Like a
> Ipod?
>
> > > LMAO.... psycho aggresive pride fits about every racing peloton^^
> >
> > Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> > equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
> >
>
> Here I agree
>
> > > Naive art indeed.
> >
> > What can I say...you don't know the difference between sex and
> > masturbation.
> >
>
> Ad hominem?
>
> > > I'm sure you mean well, but the wordings you use make Cyclists
> > > Ubermenschen... we aren't.
> >
> > You needn't take it that way...if someone called you the flower of
> > chivalry, would you take offense for being compared to a thing with no
> > intelligence??
>
> I do have a problem with your over romanticising view of cyclists. We
> have problems in this world and a Bicycle can be part of the solution.
> Elitarism or angering/scaring others doesn't help A bicycle is for
> everyone, not just the overbearing idealists.

 

[NYC XYZ]

That's the funny thing about poetry...no other way to communicate the
truth short of direct insight, but the easiest way to mislead and
confuse!



Peter Clinch wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> > A fella in a car by himself couldn't round up a crew or a girl.
>
> Since cars typically come with passenger capacity, and bikes typically
> don't, this strikes ne as pretty dubious reasoning...
>
> > A guy on a bike is Don Quixote running at dragons.
>
> Most of them are just getting from A to B.
>
> > Servicing your car is like putting together your own Wintel machine.
> >
> > The folks who build their own 'bents actually weld metals or mold
> > carbon fiber for their frames.
>
> But they're still highly reliant on others to provide them materials.
> It's not like they're smelting the metal themselves.
>
> > Surely any given activity forms its adherents differently than some
> > other activity. A pianist will have a discernably different sense and
> > sensibility, overall, than a boxer.
>
> I think you'd find enough variation in boxers and pianists within their
> own groups that the fact they box or play piano ultimately won't mean much.
>
> > Fact of the matter is, generalizations are generalizations because they
> > tend to be true -- at least in context!
>
> Only if they're established. "Cyclists are loners" is a new one on me!
>
> > Even so, you have to admit that the pride is earned through sweat
> > equity, unlike motorists who simply flick a switch.
>
> Depends how much they worked on the switch... Not everyone just rides
> around in cars as delivered.
>
> "cycle culture" as you paint it exists, certainly, but it is certainly
> /not/ inclusive of all (or probably even the majority of) cyclists.
> Which is why Velovision isn't exactly a mass-market cycling magazine.
>
> 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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Sorni]

NYC XYZ wrote:
> That's the funny thing about poetry...no other way to communicate the
> truth short of direct insight, but the easiest way to mislead and
> confuse!

Please stop top posting. Also, please trim your quoted material properly.

Polite Bill

 

[Edward Dolan]

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

"Get into the habit of trimming both headers and article body as topics
drift. And threads can diminish."

I used to observe these very elementary rules to perfection. In fact, I did
it better than anybody else on ARBR. As a former professional librarian I
have a natural genius for classifying and editing. But I have since changed
my mind about much of this. I now believe it is better to have several
newsgroups involved in almost all threads as well as not to do much editing
at all.

The reason for the above is that I saw a rather small newsgroup destroyed by
a criminal vandal troll. Some of us fought the good fight, but the newsgroup
was just too small to withstand an extended campaign of criminal vandal
trolling. If a newsgroup has many threads and other newsgroups involved, it
is far less likely it will be destroyed by a criminal vandal troll.

This is not to say that we should not use discretion when considering which
newsgroups to post to nor does it mean that messages can run on and on and
get overly long. But on balance, I believe it is better to error on the side
of too much rather than too little. I believe especially if the topic is
general and not specific that it is OK to post to multiple newsgroups. I
also believe that too much editing is far worse than too little editing or
no editing at all.

The messages of Vandeman and Curtiss are quite instructive in this matter of
editing. They do no editing at all and it does not slow me down. It means we
can linger over a single post or just quickly get to the new material if we
want. But in any event, everything on their posts is open and above board. I
never get the impression that one is being unfair to the other. This is very
important as most editing is done for exactly that purpose, i.e., to make
you look good and the other person look bad.

I do commend both Vandeman and Curtiss for their courage in not doing any
editing. They do not behave like cowards and scoundrels like so many do who
are heavily into editing. That was always my one and only complaint about
Tom Sherman (other than being wrongheaded about everything under the sun -
except recumbents). He knew how to edit to make you look bad, yet was
intelligent enough to know that it was wrong.

NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple newsgroups
and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can have wide
applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a topic or
subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The general is
always more interesting than the particular and will attract more posters. A
newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[G.T.]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>
> NYC has had a very good influence on ARBR by posting to multiple newsgroups
> and also by being somewhat general in his comments which can have wide
> applicability. We do not want to get so narrowly focused on a topic or
> subject that it becomes exclusive to a particular newsgroup. The general is
> always more interesting than the particular and will attract more posters. A
> newsgroup that is too small is not worth much.
>

If the rest of the ARBRers are like you and NYC then you psychos deserve
a tiny part of Usenet. In fact, the tinier the better for your demented
raves.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons