Two wheels does it

In article
<[email hidden]>
,
"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > > Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> > > logistical vehicles.
> >
> > Hatred does not become you Jobst.
> >
> > -- Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
>
> C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
> unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't
> hate anything.....or maybe he does..

Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage
to their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle
in comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?

I have two friends with severe arthritis of the neck, who can ride
recumbents comfortably but not regular bicycles. So that seems to be a
good answer to their question.

But I thought proper fit on an upright bicycle cures ALL discomfort
problems - at least that is what the upright bicycle evangelists claim!

Not what is claimed, and you know it.

--
Michael Press

In article
<[email hidden]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/

I showed this to my wife, who grew up in China, and she was
unimpressed, saying "Stuff like that is very comon where I used to
live."

Unimpressed, sure. Is she not respectful of her
heritage? I would point with pride.

--
Michael Press

Ted who? said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Taxes are bad, public facilities need to be privatized.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seriously, what is your solution to poor road surfaces, all toll
roads?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Collect taxes and use them to maintain roads (and other public
facilities). Our taxes are currently being used to run a corrupt
government with "no child left behind", "homeland security" and other
such Newspeak shams, not to mention war.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your question seems to believe that there is no money for such things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We are living Orwell's 1984.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Quoted message said:

Jobst, YOU wrote "taxes are bad, public facilities need to be
privatized," not me. I asked what you would suggest to improve the
roads. If they need to be privatized then the only way to get enough
money is by making them all toll roads. YOU then say collect taxes and
use them to maintain roads ...
Make up your mind.

Oh get off it! You ought to recognize George Bushisms when you see
them. As I said we need to use the gas tax monies to maintain roads,
not to build new ones that have ribbon cutting displays for local
politicians.

We need to use tax monies for our facilities, not to wage wars that
alienate us to the entire world. That's what keeps terrorism alive
and aimed at us.

Jobst Brandt

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

Quoted message said:

Oh get off it! You ought to recognize George Bushisms when you see
them.

We all OUGHT to recognize George Bushisms, but obviously George W. Bush was
able to fool some of the people (about 50%) some of the time (November 2000
and November 2004) that what he was saying wasn't just meaningless cliches.

I got the joke, but frankly, Jobst, if I hadn't read many, many of your
posts over the years I probably would have thought you were seriously
proposing privatizing the roads too, just as Ted thought.

This is at least in part because I live in Illinois. In Illinois this year
they converted the tolls roads so you no longer stop for tolls if you have a
transponder (probably RFID based, but I haven't looked into it). It's
probably only a matter of time before currently free expressways are
converted to this. The city of Chicago also sold one expressway (the Chicago
Skyway, Interstate 90) to a private firm.

I'm not saying this is a good idea -- but is it one that has some wheels.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
:: logistical vehicles.
::
:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
::
:: Jobst Brandt

I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

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

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: [email hidden] wrote:
::::: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
::::: logistical vehicles.
:::::
::::: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
:::::
::::: Jobst Brandt
:::
::: I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't
::: count. Please explain.
::
:: Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
:: comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
:: shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
:: "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.
::
Thanks for the info.

:: I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
:: you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].
::
:: [1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.

Some of the statements here are worth my attention, I think. I'm not
getting this bike because I can't ride my DF. I intend to ride both. I
just think the recumbent is a fun bike to have. I do wonder if I'm going to
automatically and forevermore be slower on it compared to the DF. Is it a
foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see why,
frankly)? I'm getting a LWB not a SWB that Jobst slams. I like the idea of
two 26-inch wheels, too. The models with the smaller wheel seem fine for
tooling-around bikes, but I want to ride centuries in different locals (I
get my greatest enjoyment in cycling doing this) and they don't impress me
as being best for that (albeit, based on my *very* limited exposure). Going
faster is not a goal of mine, but going in comfort is. The sweating back
comment is interesting.

I didn't mention that when I was testing the SXP in that parking lot last
weekend, there was a lot of broken pavement, potholes, and tree dropings in
certain sections of that lot. One place like this was at the low end of the
lot. I wanted to ride down into the low spot so that I could test climbing
back up from the low spot. The lot was pretty messed up around there and I
could see only about a 2-foot section that I could get through on. However,
I would have to make a sharp turn to the left while decending to get though
that 2-foot section. The first few times I did that I made it fine. But
once the guy from the bike shop came back from the shop to the lot on his
bike (he rode with me to answer various questions I had), I guess I got
nervous because maybe I wasn't treating his bike so nicely by trying to ride
it through the rough patch with only a 2-foot section of safety. Well,
after he showed up I could no longer make the decent and the sharp left to
get through. I didn't fall over, though, but I had to get off the bike and
push it up the incline because I could not get started. 🙂 I don't think
this would have been an issue for me on my DF, but then again I have many
more hours on it.

I guess that link does explain why Jobst doesn't think recumbents aren't
"logistical" vehicles, what ever that means. I think he's wrong, though.
Even a DF will have some issues to deal with on the road. An agressive
riding position isn't always best, either. 'Bents simply have certain
disadvantages compared to uprights, but they also have some advantages, too.

:: [2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
:: [3] Hey, I resemble that remark.
::
:: --
:: Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Peter Chisholm said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Jobst Brandt wrote:
> Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> logistical vehicles.

Hatred does not become you Jobst.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

C'mon, why must you put such a spin on it..'hatred'?? Stoopid,
unnecessary design, poor answer to any question, but he doesn't hate
anything.....or maybe he does..

Poor answer to ANY question? So, for example, if a person had damage to
their wrists that prohibited them from riding an upright bicycle in
comfort [1], you would suggest they live with the pain or give up
cycling instead of riding a recumbent bicycle?

No, just walk..I got hit 4 years ago, from behind, while riding a bike,
by a pickup truck. Burst fracture of L3, broken L1, cracked C-5...back
brace, lost of physical therapy, still get my back worked on once a
week by massage therapist. Before I started riding again(I did start
riding while still in a back brace, an upright), somebody mentioned a
'bent might be in my future, nope, I would rather walk.

But Jobst doesn't hate 'bents..I don't get that from his posts at all.

Quoted message said:

[1] I am aware of actual cases of this.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
:: logistical vehicles.
::
:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
::
:: Jobst Brandt

I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].

[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
[2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
[3] Hey, I resemble that remark.

hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
cranky.

Quoted message said:

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Roger Zoul said:

Is it a
foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't see why,
frankly)?

No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
disadvantage for anything moderately steep.

Robert

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Is it a
::: foregone conclusion that climbing will always be slower (I don't
::: see why, frankly)?
::
:: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
:: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
::

Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will stand
while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on a flat or
downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of uprights over bents.

However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs, though I
do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there. I'd guess on a
century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being slower.

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/

I showed this to my wife, who grew up in China, and she was
unimpressed, saying "Stuff like that is very comon where I used to
live."

Unimpressed, sure. Is she not respectful of her
heritage? I would point with pride.

I would not be proud of a cable bridge that is dangerous only because
the tribe/government/locals could not pungle up a few more planks. That
is a social failure. On the other hand, I would be impressed with some
of the balancing acts with cars/fish/fowl on bikes -- so long as none
of that [censored] fell on me. -- Jay Beattie.

Quoted message said:

I've always figured that more freeze-thaw cycles must make it more
difficult for a road to hold together. IOW, places like my NE Ohio
where winter temperatures oscillate above and below freezing would be
worse than places further north or south. Aside from that, is it
primarily asphalt thickness? Base compaction?

I'm guessing, yeah. According to a documentary on the AutoBahn, originally
intended to become the Transport Of The Future for the Thousand Year
Reich, was made twice as thick[1] as highways in other places, notably the
Interstate system. This was supposed (according to the documentary) to
lead to an expected lifetime of 100 years, as opposed to 20 or *maybe* 30.

When you spread asphalt concrete in thin layers on a thin layer of maybe
10-30 cm of sand, as is/was[2] typically done for cheapo bike/pedestrian
paths and driveways, you (observationally) get things like root intrusion
and more surface degradation quicker than on most real roads.

It's also simply a question of maintenance. All asphalt concrete roads
will develop cracks and ptholes over time, but how long they exist depends
on the maintenance frequency and how much you tolerate before you actually
do the resurfacing.

Jasper

[1] In particular, the base substrate foundation. The things were made in
prefab concrete slabs as topcoat, which means those kinds of road still go
ka-thump, ka-thump, ka-thump when you drive over them -- at least if they
haven't been resurfaced significantly since (just adding a thin asphalt
coat isn't good enough). Post-WWII concrete prefab often goes kathunk...
kathunk... kathunk, as opposed to pocca-pocca-pocca-pocca that the WWII
era stuff does, though -- presumably they just got better at making really
large bits of concrete.

The concrete topcoats are pretty much vanishing as we type, though. I most
recently encountered it in the no man's land between .nl and .de, both
sides had repaved around it (.nl much better than .de, though -- for us
it's a main highway into europe, for them it's a highway to that small
insignificant country to the left).

[2] These days they're usually paved with 30x30 cm concrete paving tiles.
Red for bikes, concrete-grey for peds.

Quoted message said:

The difference is sub-grade, and repaving when the surface begins to
fail. Bike paths are notorious for being paved on almost no subgrade
preparation because "they are only bicycles". These fall apart
without use as soil moisture changes and vegetation grows. Obviously
heavily loaded vehicles can serve the final blow.

You can get away with just as little preparation much better simply laying
paving tiles, apparently (this is, I think, why asphalt concrete bicycle
poaths are pretty much disappeared) -- sure, they will grow bumps if a big
root grows under it, but you don't usually get the giant crack between two
surfaces that have erupted from either side, and the paving material has
much less tendency to disappear away from the side where vegetation
encroaches. It just disappears under the soil, rather than disappearing
altogether.

Jasper

god bless asia

brought tears to my eyes. beautiful collection. thanks

mario

G.T. said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
:: logistical vehicles.
::
:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
::
:: Jobst Brandt

I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

Does everyone have an interest in questions on how to make Campagnolo
brifters work with Shimano cassettes, folding upright bicycles,
mountain bikes, loaded touring, cycle cross, fixed-gear, single-speed,
etc? Obviously not, yet do they have fits when these topics are
mentioned? Why the double standard?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Mr. Peter Chisholm said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
:: logistical vehicles.
::
:: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
::
:: Jobst Brandt

I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't count.
Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

I suggest ignoring Jobst's and Peter's anti-r*c*mb*nt comments unless
you are a Usenet crank that likes contentious debate [3].

[1] <http://yarchive.net/bike/recumbent.html>.
[2] < http://www.vecchios.com/>.
[3] Hey, I resemble that remark.

hear, hear!!! But, there ya go again, the mention of 'bent doesn't get
me cranky, YOU mentioning just about anything about anything, gets me
cranky.

Until rec.bicycles.tech becomes moderated and you [Mr. Chisholm] are
appointed moderator - DEAL WITH IT!

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...

Roger Zoul said:

[email hidden] wrote:
:: No option of pedaling while standing, a huge
:: disadvantage for anything moderately steep.
::

Quoted message said:

Noted! I did realize this point. Sometimes on my upright I will stand
while climbing and I'll also stand on the pedals to coast on a flat or
downhill. So those are without doubt advantages of uprights over bents.

The standard response to that is that with a recumbent you can press
your back against the seat and essentially do leg presses against the
pedals as an alternative to climbing out of the saddle.

As Pat Robertson showed, leg presses can move a lot of weight :-):

http://www.slate.com/id/2142567/

Quoted message said:

However, I'm not sure that means I'll always be slower on climbs, though I
do see that bents are naturally at a disadvantage there. I'd guess on a
century with lots of climbing that I'd end up being slower.

Personally, I don't use the leg press technique when climbing on my
recumbent. I tend to gear down and spin without noticeably pushing
against the seat back more.

Climbing steeper inclines is definitely less satisfying on my recumbent
bikes than it is on my DF bikes (my fixed gear with a 35-559, 48x18 gear
is especially satisfying). I tend not to be able to get my heart rate
up into a good climbing zone. One one particularly steep/long climb
last year though, I managed to go beyond my comfort zone on a climb on
my recumbent and felt like [censored] later in the day (though zooming down
that climb on my way home was very satisfying).

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
> :: logistical vehicles.
> ::
> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
> ::
> :: Jobst Brandt
>
> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't

count.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Please explain.

Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
"r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
doesn't make them so.

Greg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

Isn't there already a newsgroup specifically for recumbents?

Just wonderin'.......

jj1075

G.T. said:

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Roger Zoul wrote:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>> :: Skip over the recumbents in this web site, they don't count as
>> :: logistical vehicles.
>> ::
>> :: http://aistigave.hit.bg/Logistics/
>> ::
>> :: Jobst Brandt
>>
>> I didn't see any recumbents and don't understand why they don't

count.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Please explain.
>
> Jobst Brandt [1] and I have orthogonal positions (literally) when it
> comes to appropriate riding position on a bicycle. Jobst and a bike
> shop owner in Boulder, Colorado [2] get cranky when the word
> "r*c*mb*nt" is used on rec.bicycles.*.

It's not just Jobst and a bike shop owner in Boulder, believe me.

I am still waiting for someone to point out where in the
rec.bicycles.tech charter it prohibits mention of recumbent bicycles.

It should be self-evident that r.b.t. is for discussing bicycles, not those
funky ass monstrosities. Just because you tack on bicycles to recumbent
doesn't make them so.

Try looking up the definition of bicycle in a dictionary.

--
Tom Sherman - If you think I am a jerk on Usenet...