Master's Fatties

Tom Kunich said:

If you think that Master's Fatties aren't everywhere check this one
out:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour0512/23

Yeah Tom, but even without his helpers, and the shape he's in now I'd
bet serious bucks he'd still kick everyone here's ass 4 out of 5 on
anything not pancake flat.
We're here because we suck, with a few noteable exceptions.
Bill C

What a fat ass. Lance will never let himself go like that.

RVD

Rik Van Diesel said:

What a fat ass. Lance will never let himself go like that.

RVD

I agree Lance'll be kicking ass in mastters MTB and triathlons forever.
We won't even talk about the carnage when he shows up to race a local
RR for the hell of it at 70 in the 35+ category.
Bill

Rik Van Diesel said:

What a fat ass. Lance will never let himself go like that.

RVD

Ah, I bet a year after he's off the bike he'll look very similar to
Spotty Richard, that puffy face and all. Remember he has this
penchant for beer and rich food.

jj

Rasmussen looks like a freeking scarecrow.

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

Quoted message said:

Rik Van Diesel said:

What a fat ass. Lance will never let himself go like that.

RVD

Ah, I bet a year after he's off the bike he'll look very similar to
Spotty Richard, that puffy face and all. Remember he has this
penchant for beer and rich food.

jj

Quoted message said:

Rasmussen looks like a freeking scarecrow.

I was gonna say that myself. Jesus, is that jersey the smallest one
they could find?

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you think that Master's Fatties aren't everywhere check this one
out:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2005/tour05/?id=tour0512/23

Standing next to Rasmussen, everybody looks like a MF.

Phil H

Bill, I'd like to know who you believe posts here that Virenque
couldn't beat hands down on ANY terrain fat, skinny or anything in
between?

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Tom Kunich said:

Bill, I'd like to know who you believe posts here that Virenque
couldn't beat hands down on ANY terrain fat, skinny or anything in
between?

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Lieswyn might have a shot at him, or Frankie, but it's been a while
since we've heard from them. I'd give an outside shot to Page too.
Bill C

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Hasn't it been around 500 years that Da Vinci showed that the weight of
objects have no effect on the rate of falling? You'd be "dead" even on
that fall.

Bill C said:

Tom Kunich said:

Bill, I'd like to know who you believe posts here that Virenque
couldn't beat hands down on ANY terrain fat, skinny or anything in
between?

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Lieswyn might have a shot at him, or Frankie, but it's been a while
since we've heard from them. I'd give an outside shot to Page too.
Bill C

Saul Raisin

gds said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Quoted message said:

Hasn't it been around 500 years that Da Vinci showed that the weight of
objects have no effect on the rate of falling? You'd be "dead" even on
that fall.

Galileo.

He dropped objects that had similar areodynamic profiles. I think
it is valid to assume that the average fat assed rbr denizen has
a rounder profile and thus might have a higher terminal velocity
due to increased aerodynamic efficiency.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Bob Schwartz said:

Quoted message said:

Galileo.

He dropped objects that had similar areodynamic profiles. I think
it is valid to assume that the average fat assed rbr denizen has
a rounder profile and thus might have a higher terminal velocity
due to increased aerodynamic efficiency.

Yes Galileo. All that trivia in my brain makes it hard to sort it out
right.

And I'm sure you're right on the aero efficiency. That very same effect
effect keeps improving my descending.

gds said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Hasn't it been around 500 years that Da Vinci showed that the weight of
objects have no effect on the rate of falling? You'd be "dead" even on
that fall.

Only in a vaccuum. When air resistance comes into play, heavier things
damn well do fall faster. Try dropping a bowling ball and a balloon
(filled with regular air) of the same size and "aerodynamic profile."
No prizes for correctly guessing which hits the ground first.

Torched Smurf said:

gds said:

Tom Kunich said:

>
That is unless you're thinking that if we dropped you out of an
airplane at 30,000 feet you could fall faster than him.

Hasn't it been around 500 years that Da Vinci showed that the weight of
objects have no effect on the rate of falling? You'd be "dead" even on
that fall.

Only in a vaccuum. When air resistance comes into play, heavier things
damn well do fall faster. Try dropping a bowling ball and a balloon
(filled with regular air) of the same size and "aerodynamic profile."
No prizes for correctly guessing which hits the ground first.

It's clear that we won't get to the bottom of this until
we drop Virenque and Tom Kunich out of an airplane. So what
are we waiting for?

Torched Smurf said:

Only in a vaccuum. When air resistance comes into play, heavier things
damn well do fall faster. Try dropping a bowling ball and a balloon
(filled with regular air) of the same size and "aerodynamic profile."
No prizes for correctly guessing which hits the ground first.

Well my original response wasn't intended to be serious science. But
wouldn't the effect of air (the non vacuum case) be more on aero
dynamics than on weight? My last physics class was in 1960, so I am
really fuzzy here but gravity would be a constant and thus the variable
in play would be aerodynamic profile.

I think your balloon/ bowling ball example isn't a good one. Perhaps
two bowling balls of differeing weights would be better.

Just a question as I claim no expertise in this area.

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

Torched Smurf said:

Only in a vaccuum. When air resistance comes into play, heavier things
damn well do fall faster. Try dropping a bowling ball and a balloon
(filled with regular air) of the same size and "aerodynamic profile."
No prizes for correctly guessing which hits the ground first.

Well my original response wasn't intended to be serious science. But
wouldn't the effect of air (the non vacuum case) be more on aero
dynamics than on weight? My last physics class was in 1960, so I am
really fuzzy here but gravity would be a constant and thus the variable
in play would be aerodynamic profile.

I think your balloon/ bowling ball example isn't a good one. Perhaps
two bowling balls of differeing weights would be better.

Terminal velocity comes into play. A heavier object would generally have
a higher TV, and would accelerate to a higher speed than a lighter object
would achieve.
--
Henning

gds said:

Torched Smurf said:

Only in a vaccuum. When air resistance comes into play, heavier things
damn well do fall faster. Try dropping a bowling ball and a balloon
(filled with regular air) of the same size and "aerodynamic profile."
No prizes for correctly guessing which hits the ground first.

Well my original response wasn't intended to be serious science. But
wouldn't the effect of air (the non vacuum case) be more on aero
dynamics than on weight? My last physics class was in 1960, so I am
really fuzzy here but gravity would be a constant and thus the variable
in play would be aerodynamic profile.

I think your balloon/ bowling ball example isn't a good one. Perhaps
two bowling balls of differeing weights would be better.

Just a question as I claim no expertise in this area.

Maybe you'd like a cycling example better. A flyweight like me will
coast downhill slower than a fatass on knobby tires, even though
presumably I have a smaller (better) aerodynamic profile than them, and
less rolling resistance.

-Smurf

email hidden said:

It's clear that we won't get to the bottom of this until
we drop Virenque and Tom Kunich out of an airplane. So what
are we waiting for?

Tom needs to shave first.

MT