Suspended chain ring

Quoted message said:

Garry Jones said:

Amazingly, this is not a joke.

http://tinyurl.com/4vnay

Quoted message said:

Can anyone explain the need for suspension springs in the chain
rings?

This is a joke, and obviously for oldsters who want to put a little
bounce in their stride on the bicycle. It goes with hair restorer and
other such gimmicks....

Judging from this thread, the crankset in question functions admirably
as a conversation piece.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:55:50 -0600, Tom Sherman

may have said:

Quoted message said:

Garry Jones said:

Amazingly, this is not a joke.

http://tinyurl.com/4vnay

Quoted message said:

Can anyone explain the need for suspension springs in the chain
rings?

This is a joke, and obviously for oldsters who want to put a little
bounce in their stride on the bicycle. It goes with hair restorer and
other such gimmicks....

Judging from this thread, the crankset in question functions admirably
as a conversation piece.

It's not heavy enough to use as a lamp base or a boat anchor, and it
would need a lot of work to make a decent pizza cutter.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

The mere fact that an idea has no valid basis and is nonsensical in fact
will not prevent some people from spending the money to prove that it was
not a good one...and denying the results.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm standing on my head trying to understand which way this was meant.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or the answer won't come out to be 42. However you want to

look at it.

Quoted message said:

Before you can get the answer to be 42, you must know what

base to use

Quoted message said:

for the problem. (13, in this case.)

Need help.
I understand "42", which is a reference to one of the
"Hitchhiker's Guide" books.
I don't understand the base 13 reference (or it's simply been
a while since I read Adams).

Take a look at the Web site: http://www.bikedrive.com/english/index.htm

"Olebiker" wrote: Take a look at the Web site (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just did. They claim that you store energy in the springs at top dead
center, and release it at bottom dead center. Evidently this system is
applicable only to one-legged riders, since, while the right foot is at top
dead center, the left foot would be at bottom dead center, if you had one.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:20:39 -0600, Werehatrack <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:44:14 GMT, RonSonic <[email hidden]>

may have said:

I consider it part of the monkey principle. If all of us monkeys don't go
banging our typewriters with enthusiasm, oblivious to the obvious nonsensicality
of monkeys banging on typewriters, then that Shakespearean sonnet will never get
written.

The more conventional approach (if you want Shakespeare, hire him) is
lost on the average tinkerer.

That's not his job as a type-monkey.

Or banging the rocks together. It's really little different in terms of being
primate behavior and having occasional positive results

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or the answer won't come out to be 42. However you want to look at it.

Before you can get the answer to be 42, you must know what base to use
for the problem. (13, in this case.)

Hrrruuuhhhh?

Ron

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:48:19 -0600, "Mike Kruger"

may have said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or the answer won't come out to be 42. However you want to

look at it.

Quoted message said:

Before you can get the answer to be 42, you must know what

base to use

Quoted message said:

for the problem. (13, in this case.)

Need help.
I understand "42", which is a reference to one of the
"Hitchhiker's Guide" books.
I don't understand the base 13 reference (or it's simply been
a while since I read Adams).

In the first book, 42 is revealed explicitly as The Answer To The
Great Question Of Life, The Universe, And Everything. In the second
book, it is much *less* explicitly revealed that the question is "What
do you get when you multiply 9 times 6?"...which, in base 10, is 54,
but if you shift up to base 13, then the answer is 42. I once had the
opportunity to directly ask Douglas Adams if he'd made it work that
way on purpose, having heard that he had not. He confirmed that
indeed, he'd intended for it *not* to work, and was a bit annoyed when
it was pointed out that it *did*, in base 13. I'd been prepared to
think that he was being clever, hinting that the real problem is that
most people just don't look at things in the manner that allows them
to see the answers that they need, but no, it was nothing so subtle
after all.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Leo Lichtman said:

The mere fact that an idea has no valid basis and is nonsensical in fact
will not prevent some people from spending the money to prove that it was
not a good one...and denying the results.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm standing on my head trying to understand which way this was meant.

Religion, and high-end audio, for two (one?) examples...

Leo Lichtman said:

"Olebiker" wrote: Take a look at the Web site (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just did. They claim that you store energy in the springs at top dead
center, and release it at bottom dead center. Evidently this system is
applicable only to one-legged riders, since, while the right foot is at top
dead center, the left foot would be at bottom dead center, if you had one.

I agree that the text is poorly worded, but this appears to have been
something worth trying, on a MtB anyway. I have at times came to a halt
while climbing steep hills when I lacked the momementum necessary to get
past the TDC/BDC pedal postitions. However, wether this actaully works
to solve that problem would have to be proven by actual testing. They
built it, and now people can test it. People pay to test things all the
time. That's certainly better then not trying new things.

Rich

"Rich" wrote: wether this actaully works to solve that problem would have
to be proven by actual testing. (clip) That's certainly better then not
trying new things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am also open to trying new ideas, when they appear promising. However,
this one just doesn't seem feasible. If you stall out on a steep hill with
your crank arms vertical, you will stop. Compressing a spring may let your
feet move a few millimeters but the bike will still be stopped.

On the other hand, I have a set of chain rings on one of my bikes that DOES
solve that problem. They are elliptical, and positioned so that you have a
lower gear when you are pushing down, and a higher gear at top-dead-center.
The effect is that you go through top-dead-center quicker, so there is less
chance to stall, and you have more time in the effective part of the
rotation. This works--I have used it.

"Garry Jones" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

The mere fact that an idea has no valid basis and is nonsensical in
fact will not prevent some people from spending the money to prove
that it was not a good one...and denying the results.

Amazing statement in a thread that's not about helmets....

(yet)

🙂

Or Iraq (yet)

"Olebiker" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Take a look at the Web site: http://www.bikedrive.com/english/index.htm

I'll bet you'd really fly with the version that uses feathers instead of
springs-

"Yesterday, for the first time a Bikedrive System was used for a profi race.
It was set up with the cycles of Jimmy Madsen and Marcellino Garcia, both
are members of CSC Tiscali. The Bikedrive is a crank system which is
produced by an Austrian factory. A system with two feathers which are
connected with the pedal crank, the dead point is being conquered easier,
and the driver is able to develop more power."

http://www.bikedrive.com/english/index.htm

trg said:

Or Iraq (yet)

Lol

Garry

Werehatrack said:

I once had the opportunity to directly ask Douglas Adams if he'd made it work that way on purpose,

I heard that he was 42 when he wrote it.

Garry Jones

Olebiker said:

Take a look at the Web site: http://www.bikedrive.com/english/index.htm

Rumours in Sweden are that this device is from 2002 and that the UCI
have already banned it. Any update on that?

Garry Jones
English Cyclist ResIDING in Sweden

Garry Jones said:

Can anyone explain the need for suspension springs in the chain rings?

Well, if the crank arms were connected to each other AND to the crank axle via the springs, then I assume it could be of some help for those who ride hardtails and keep messing up the interface between arm and axle...

Otherwise it looks like mostly gadget value.

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" wrote: wether this actaully works to solve that problem would have
to be proven by actual testing. (clip) That's certainly better then not
trying new things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am also open to trying new ideas, when they appear promising. However,
this one just doesn't seem feasible.

So because it doesn't seem feasible, it shouldn't even be tried?

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, I have a set of chain rings on one of my bikes that
DOES solve that problem. They are elliptical, and positioned so that you
have a lower gear when you are pushing down, and a higher gear at
top-dead-center. The effect is that you go through top-dead-center
quicker, so there is less chance to stall, and you have more time in the
effective part of the rotation. This works--I have used it.

How do you know it doesn't work? Have you tried it? No. How can anybody
know if it works if nobody tries it?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" wrote: How do you know it doesn't work? Have you
tried it? No. How can anybody know if it works if nobody tries it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Phil, the reason I posted a description of the elliptical chain rings was to
prove that I am willing to try things. But I went to school. I have a
degree in mechanical engineering. I don't have to try EVERYTHING. If the
science and engineering say it won't work, I'd rather put my money and
energy elsewhere. If you think it might work, YOU try it.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:50:32 GMT, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"

may have said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Rich" wrote: wether this actaully works to solve that problem would have
to be proven by actual testing. (clip) That's certainly better then not
trying new things.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am also open to trying new ideas, when they appear promising. However,
this one just doesn't seem feasible.

So because it doesn't seem feasible, it shouldn't even be tried?

He's saying that he's not going to try it. If you want to, you can
ignore his advice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, I have a set of chain rings on one of my bikes that
DOES solve that problem. They are elliptical, and positioned so that you
have a lower gear when you are pushing down, and a higher gear at
top-dead-center. The effect is that you go through top-dead-center
quicker, so there is less chance to stall, and you have more time in the
effective part of the rotation. This works--I have used it.

How do you know it doesn't work? Have you tried it? No. How can anybody
know if it works if nobody tries it?

It is not necessary to grab the flaming log to know that your hands
will be burnt. With sufficient experience, an individual's accuracy
of prediction of the outcome of relatively straightforward things will
increase. The collective experience of several posters here predicts
that this device will have no practical value. Please feel free to
buy one, test it, and report your results. We'll happily watch.

If I were inclined to bet, I'd almost be willing to wager that this is
an idea that's been tried before. It's amazing how many such
"marvelous new inventions" turn out to be neither marvelous nor new.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.