What is the ideal cycling jacket (for UK commuting)

[Pete Biggs]

ship wrote:

> Polypropylene vs Polyester vs Nylon
> What's the difference in terms of how they absorb/wick/repel
> water? Anyone know?

I don't know, but all of them are good in regards to not absorbing water. I
think that's because the individual fibres don't absorb anything so the
water stays sitting on the outside of the fibres where it evapourates
easily.

Coolmax dries extremely quickly regardless of how much wicking is going on -
as long as there is /some/ ventilation, which there will be unless wearing a
tight plastic bag over the top. Not as comfortable as cotton to wear all
day sitting around, though.

~PB

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

> You speak of my judgments on advertising campaigns? These campaigns
> are designed to elicit feelings. What I feel is subjective. When I
> note the feeling, that is objective.

No, that's still subjective.

> When the campaign successfully elicits the same feelings in a
> multitude of people, is that not objective?

No, it's still subjective. Objective would be whether the ad campaigns
measurably affect sales. Feelings are anecdotal. The plural of
anecdote is not data.

Of course, none of this is getting the OP a new jacket.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"ship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Hi

What is the best cycling jacket for commuting (at reasonable speed in
UK)

I am looking for something that is:


The coldest winter I have ever spent was when we were scheduled to go to the
Artic and had prepared for artic weather but our destination changed mid
flight to take us to England. It took us a very, very cold month to get the
necessary clothing.


b) HIGHLY BREATHABLE
a) Bright in colour /reflective at night
c) ultra-Compact
d) nearly(+) waterproof
e) COOL

Plus ideally:
f) aerodyamic/elastic??
g) fairly durable?

Budget: upto GBP 300.

So far I can't find ANYTHING on the market that is remotely
satisfactory.


For completely waterproof, the best I can find is Gore Paclite.
Costs about GBP120-160, which is fine.
The problem is it ISNT VERY BREATHABLE.

But on most days commuting in London I dont actually need
100% waterproof - just VERY shower resistant would do.

The big problem is keeping cool & getting rid of *SWEAT*
because I dont have a shower at work.


I have a Paramo (Model: "Alta"??) jacket that is very durable,
*massively*
breathable and though not *technically* waterproof it will keep
out even a down-poor. It has no membrane and is thus
implicitly resistant to puncturing and is highly durable...
It has vents for the armpits which is helpful too.
It's a fabulous jacket in the cold season in the scottish
mountains.

....BUT it's not elasticated and thus flaps around rather
and in any case it is FAR TOO HOT (& too heavy).
i.e. you cant compress it to fit into a pack very easily,
and you get far too hot when wearing it.
AND they dont make a bright yellow/pale orange varient
nor anything with reflectors on for night time use.

- So... any recommendations?


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

P.S.
There are some very expensive (GBP 250-350 ) Gore jackets which I
havent been
able to find in any shop (in Central London) e.g. Evans Waterloo
didnt have them... But on their website at least they didnt seem
to have them in BRIGHT colours (just dark blues and blacks...)
e.g. "Gore Bikewear Concept Jacket" £349.99
e.g. "Gore Bikewear Fusion Jacket" £259.99
....

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press writes:

>> And making a subjective judgment that you appear to think is
>> objective.

> You speak of my judgments on advertising campaigns? These campaigns
> are designed to elicit feelings. What I feel is subjective. When I
> note the feeling, that is objective. When the campaign successfully
> elicits the same feelings in a multitude of people, is that not
> objective?

I hear ads that directly address the appeal of elitism on a local
classical music station (KDFC 102.1 in SF) which say that if you buy
this car with dual chrome exhaust pipes (or other product) it will
turn heads and get admiration. Although I like their music, their ads
have the most insulting tone, appealing to basest instincts. The same
is true in bicycle shops, although less blatant, with allusions to
world fame with racing equipment.

In one a large local bicycle shop, large wall posters with pictures of
touring in grand landscapes have been replaced by grimacing racers
looking deadly serious as they suffer for fame. It seems to sell to
today's bicyclists, not a good sign for bicycling.

Jobst Brandt

 

[dvt]

[email protected] wrote:
> In one a large local bicycle shop, large wall posters with pictures of
> touring in grand landscapes have been replaced by grimacing racers
> looking deadly serious as they suffer for fame. It seems to sell to
> today's bicyclists, not a good sign for bicycling.

Why is that "not a good sign for bicycling?"

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[[email protected]]

Dave who? writes:

>> In one a large local bicycle shop, large wall posters with pictures of
>> touring in grand landscapes have been replaced by grimacing racers
>> looking deadly serious as they suffer for fame. It seems to sell to
>> today's bicyclists, not a good sign for bicycling.

> Why is that "not a good sign for bicycling?"

It generates unreal expectations that ultimately disappoint potential
riders and it fosters the elitism in people who essentially need a
larger (more expensive) SUV than their neighbor to "turn heads".

Jobst Brandt

 

[Don Whybrow]

ship wrote:
>
> Don
>
>>Possibly real science as touched on here
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception
>
> Which bit in particular?

Try the sections headed Unconscious inference, Gestalt theory &
Ecological psychology for a start and then follow up on some of the
references

>>>Nothing beats a bit of 1st hand empirical experiment!
>>
>>I look forward to seeing your full report. I am particularly interested in:
>>
>>1. sample size
>
> One
>
>
>>2. use of randomising to select the colour to appear
>
> Like I say I have two identically shaped LED bike lights which
> I shuffle well with my eyes closed. I put one on top of the other
> place in just out of sided and turn them both on.
> I then bring into peripheral vision and the question I ask myself
> is this: is the red on top of the white or the other way round.
> And I wcan SEE the answer with 100% certainty.
> And I was right 10 times out of 10.
> Case closed.
>
>
>>3. was the coloured light introduced from the front of vision of from
>>the rear?
>
> No (see above)
>
>
>>4. what controls were in place to ensure the subjects head was immobilised
>
> None
> But I am intelligent enough to know when I've moved my head more than
> 1 mm
>
>
>>5. what controls were in place to ensure the subject did not move their eyes
>
> Will-power
>
>
>>6. effect of environment
>
> None
>
>
>>7. control group data
>
> None.
>
>
>>It would help if you could get a few people with a scientific background
>>to do a peer review.
>
>
> Probably.
>
> Yes, yes, yes scientifically these questions are valid.
>
> But sometimes the evidence is so BLINDINGLY obvious that you
> just have to try it out for yourself - irrespective of what dogma you
> have read in however many textbooks.
>
> Still dont believe me?
> Still refuse to try the experiment for yourself.

How do you know that I havn't been subjected to these tests in a
controlled environment where some of these things were taken into account.

>
> Sorry to upset your cosy little world-order view of the world
> but you are starting to enter the realms of philosophical doubt!
>
> Look, although I have no idea whether anyone else is wired up like me
> I'll bet you GBP 1000.00 that I can see red out of the corner
> of both my eyes.
>
> I know it as certainly as I know that I exist.

At least you have managed to prove to yourself that you are unique.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Question _your own_ authority.

 

[ship]

> At least you have managed to prove to yourself that you are unique.


No, I have proved that either I am unique OR you are incorrect
in this matter.

Don you are starting to sound like a bigot.

i.e. You have made your own mind up.
Hang the 1st hand empirical evidence.
You know best. And NOTHING will change your mind.
At least not until it's a peer-reviewed, double-blind,
placebo controlled study.

Don, have you actually *tried* the experiment yourself?
All you need is a pair of LEDs after all!


Okay this is your last chance.
I just tried it again for the third and final time.

This time what was particularly interesting was that I managed to
fool myself. I started at the very corner of my vision (i.e. < 90+
degrees) and then
gradually moved it forwards, this time I was sure that that I had
pressed
the on button for the white LED... and then when I slowly got to about
80-85 degrees of axis, I thought: strange - that white it really does
look rather red!

How much more "proof" do you need flat earth man?

It was also interesting how - in the very VERY corner of my eye
at about say 80 or 85 decrees I *definitely* couldnt tell you which
colour it was.

In fact when *flashing* red I noticed that it was quite hard to tell
which colour
it was even relatively quite *close* the the direction of vision - in
fact
it wasnt until I moved it to less than say 20 or 30 degrees off axis
I could see for 100% sure that that it was red.

HOWEVER, when the LED was on *constant* red (i.e. not flashing)
it immediately became VERY much clearer that it was red from all
angles.
In fact it remained pretty clearly red even until about 70 or 80
degrees.

* * *

All of which I have just realised conveniently backs up 'my' theory
(in fact some other scientist whos article I read several years ago)
that red cones respond very *slowly* to change - i.e. it's hard to
see that something is RED when it is moving across
the field of vision.

I can certainly *see* it flashing away - it looks bright enough
but its *colour* is harder to see when flashing.
And of course from a perceptual point of view, it is the perceived
intensity
of the colour is what will draw one attension to something
(e.g. the driver perceiving the a cyclist wearing a red coat,
particularly out of the corner of the eye - which as you may recall
was how the thread originally started!)

Ship

 

[Pete Biggs]

ship wrote:

> All you need is a pair of LEDs after all!

Try it with coloured paper. Maybe using LEDs is cheating if they scatter
some light into your central vision.

~PB

 

[Don Whybrow]

ship wrote:
<... home science 101 ...>

I will leave you to your delusions.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"So tell me, just how long have you had this feeling that no one is
watching you?" (Christopher Locke: Entropy Gradient Reversals)

 

[ship]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> ship wrote:
> <... home science 101 ...>
>
> I will leave you to your delusions.
>

Your arrogance is gob-smacking.


Ship

 

[ship]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> ship wrote:
>
> > All you need is a pair of LEDs after all!
>
> Try it with coloured paper. Maybe using LEDs is cheating if they scatter
> some light into your central vision.

Yes a fair point.
It's hard not to have back-scatter/reflection from other objects in the
the field of view - which tends to give the game away!

When looking straight ahead I can see red bouncing off my nose!
Although theory says that that too is impossible.

So perhaps the answer would be to use a laser.
(Or a pair of differently coloured lasers.)
And to do it on someone else - afterall I dont want my retina cooked
by
someone stranger's stubbornness in a some newsgroup...!

It's certainly true that one could build VERY much better experiments.

Actually I know what I'll do I'll ask my er optometrist (if that's the
correct
word) and see what he says on the subject. Peripheral vision is
presumably
something that he has to test regularly - and he will have all the
equipment
needed to do so.

* * *

As an aside, one of the fascinating things for me about newsgroups
is how human nature works. I mean we all form these entrenched
positions and start to get emotionally involved when something
threatens
or challenges our world view.

In cognitive tests it turns out that I have the sort of mind that tends
to see
both sides of an argument (believe it or not) i.e. I process
information
in a visual & auditory plus logical & intuitive way with almost equal
emphasis, which apparently is fairly unusual.

(It's good for being a chairman, bad for being a decision
maker/executive
because it means people like me learn slowly and make decisions slowly
whereas sometimes a business just needs some rapid & consistent
decisions)

Okay but what's so interesting about newsgroups is how often I turn out

to be wrong - i.e. incorrect about something. The great joy of a
newsgroup
is that you can express whatever opinion you care to, and although you
may get heavily flamed in the end it doesnt matter. No bones get
broken.
You just waste your plus several other users' time.

But I do find it fascinating how in a large newsgroup there will be an
astonnishing plethora of different opinions (on just about any
subject).
And I mean they they can't ALL be right. But they all THINK they are.
And it can take a HUGE amount of counter-evidence to make someone
change their mind.

In fact if they have ENOUGH intellectual baggage invested into a body
of "knowledge" it's quite easy to get beyond the point of being
'persuadable'.
It's easy to smugly poke fun at the "flat-earth" early Christians, and
all the
medics who refused POINT BLANK to believe that bacteria could live in
the
human stomach (let alone cause ulcers, let alone have ulcers be curable

by an antibiotic) etc etc

But what interest me is how ALL of us are narrow minded "bigots". It's
just
a question of HOW bigotted and in WHICH subject areas.

I live near mountains beside the sea and if I look out to Sea on a
clear day I can literally see
the curvature of the earth. Near Sea level boats & islands are cut off
e.g. at their
middles but the higher you climb up a mountain the more of them you can
see.
If you do the sums it's EXACTLY the amount of curvature that is
predicted by
a planet of the size that the scientists tell us we are. It happens in
all weathers
irrespective of temperature gradients (though mirages will
occassionally mess things
up JUST above the water)

And yet there are those who still believe in the flat earth.

Because with enough time and enough mental energy you can probably
construct
a detailed argument to support any case you chose. (Hence the need for
Occam's
rasor...)

But aren't we humans weird?

Whoops better do some work


Ship

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Oct 2006 05:55:55 -0700, "ship" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Actually I know what I'll do I'll ask my er optometrist (if that's the
>correct
>word) and see what he says on the subject. Peripheral vision is
>presumably
>something that he has to test regularly - and he will have all the
>equipment
>needed to do so.

[snip]

Dear Ship,

Optometrists test your vision, prescribe glasses, will refer you to an
ophthalmologist if they spot eye disease, and are found mostly next to
optical shops that sell the glasses that they prescribe, not in an ER.

The ophthalmogist can do all that, too, but is an eye surgeon who can
treat glaucoma, cataracts, detached retinas, and other problems. One
may be on call for the ER, but it's unlikely that any but the largest
ER will have such specialists around full-time.

The specialists are down the hall in the hospital, doing surgery, or
in their offices, seeing patients, or at home and hoping that the
phone doesn't ring at 3 a.m.

Visual eye-testing can be surprisingly tricky, since it requires tiny,
well-focussed dots of light on a background that lets the patient
focus steadily.

Twenty years ago, I tried to rig up a cheap, simple pin-point light
for my beloved, an eye-surgeon, in order to test for the arc of blind
spots that grows with glaucoma.

I achieved utter failure in the pre-laser-pointer era.

Nowadays, blind-spot testing is done automatically at the
optometrist's shop with a computer, a pleasant background, and a
faint, tiny light that hops around the screen while you click as if
playing a video game whenever you notice the light.

Fail to notice the light, and the program will return to that area a
few times to double-check and define the blind spot.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:20:39 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>Optometrists test your vision, prescribe glasses, will refer you to an
>ophthalmologist if they spot eye disease, and are found mostly next to
>optical shops that sell the glasses that they prescribe, not in an ER.
>
>The ophthalmogist . . .

[snip]

Drat.

The -phth- was burned into my brain many years ago by an irritated
eye-surgeon--"Off-, not opp-, dammit!"

But my lazy fingers contracted -mologist to -mogist on the second
pass.

"Eye doctor" is easier.

CF

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 27/10/2006 20:57 +0100:
>
> The -phth- was burned into my brain many years ago by an irritated
> eye-surgeon--"Off-, not opp-, dammit!"
>

opth- is a recognised spelling in the biggest Oxford English Dictionary
- presumably because it occurred so often as a spelling mistake that it
became accepted.

Forms: 18- ophthalmology, (irreg.) opthalmology.

The branch of medicine that deals with the diseases of the eye and
defects of vision.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote on 27/10/2006 20:57 +0100:
> >
> > The -phth- was burned into my brain many years ago by an irritated
> > eye-surgeon--"Off-, not opp-, dammit!"
> >
>
> opth- is a recognised spelling in the biggest Oxford English
> Dictionary - presumably because it occurred so often as a spelling
> mistake that it became accepted.
>
> Forms: 18- ophthalmology, (irreg.) opthalmology.
>
> The branch of medicine that deals with the diseases of the eye and
> defects of vision.

Ophthamologists are trained in ophtics.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:56:10 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote on 27/10/2006 20:57 +0100:
>>
>> The -phth- was burned into my brain many years ago by an irritated
>> eye-surgeon--"Off-, not opp-, dammit!"
>>
>
>opth- is a recognised spelling in the biggest Oxford English Dictionary
>- presumably because it occurred so often as a spelling mistake that it
>became accepted.
>
>Forms: 18- ophthalmology, (irreg.) opthalmology.
>
> The branch of medicine that deals with the diseases of the eye and
>defects of vision.

Dear Tony,

That's news that I could have done without, but it's the way of the
world.

I try to be tolerant of spelling diversity after my mis-spent youth
grading freshman essays, but I still dread the day when "nickle"
becomes officially recognized as a legitimate variant of "nickel"--I
know that the word sounds the same either way, but somehow the
dyslexic spelling seems to debase the five-cent piece.

Incidentally, the truly degenerate trend is toward op-tha-mology, not
only changing the -ph- to a mispronounced -p-, but also dropping any
attempt to make the second -l- sound before the -m-.

As my beloved once said in the flat MidWestern twang that we
Coloradoans pump out of the well of English previously undefiled,
dintcha no-thet naowun sez op-thal-mologee, them ells cost tew much?

I never had the heart to tell her that -d-'s are cheap, so she dint
know how difernt we sound then some folks.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:39:32 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote on 27/10/2006 20:57 +0100:
>> >
>> > The -phth- was burned into my brain many years ago by an irritated
>> > eye-surgeon--"Off-, not opp-, dammit!"
>> >
>>
>> opth- is a recognised spelling in the biggest Oxford English
>> Dictionary - presumably because it occurred so often as a spelling
>> mistake that it became accepted.
>>
>> Forms: 18- ophthalmology, (irreg.) opthalmology.
>>
>> The branch of medicine that deals with the diseases of the eye and
>> defects of vision.
>
>Ophthamologists are trained in ophtics.

Dear Tim,

I just replied to Tony about how oph-thal-mology has become not just
opp-thal-mology, but even opp-tha-mology, with one -l- vanishing.

Call 'em eye-doctors. I did until I began watching one put her
contacts in at the bathroom sink, muttering that only fools put
foreign objects in their eyes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Tony Raven]

Tim McNamara wrote on 28/10/2006 00:39 +0100:
>
> Ophthamologists are trained in ophtics.

ITYM Ophthics

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 28/10/2006 02:00 +0100:
>
> Dear Tony,
>
> That's news that I could have done without, but it's the way of the
> world.
>
> I try to be tolerant of spelling diversity after my mis-spent youth
> grading freshman essays, but I still dread the day when "nickle"
> becomes officially recognized as a legitimate variant of "nickel"--I
> know that the word sounds the same either way, but somehow the
> dyslexic spelling seems to debase the five-cent piece.
>

That is the way of language unless you would prefer to be reciting the
Lord's Prayer as:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice.

which is how it would have been said and written in England a thousand
years ago. UK spelling only started to standardise with Samuel
Johnson's dictionary in 1755 and in the US with Noah Webster in 1828.
Indeed many of the differences between UK and US English spelling are
because of the different approaches to spelling that these two
individuals took in their dictionaries of conservative etymological and
and simplified phonetic respectively and the differences in meaning
from the divergence of the languages from the c17th.

Even as recently as 1996, the German speaking nations completely
overhauled their spelling system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996

See what an education you get from visiting urc Carl ;-)


--
Tony

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw