Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
A juggernaut thunders up behind you. Suddenly it veers sharply to the right and crashes, causing untold damage to the country(side). Someone slowly emerges from the cab, it’s the current leader of the Conservative Party (whoever that is this week). When questioned they claim to have no knowledge of who has been driving the vehicle for the last 13 years. It is suggested that perhaps it would be better if somebody else drove for a while, but they dismiss this as woke nonsense.
It couldnae have been Richi as he is captaining a vast oil tanker into the reefs so that all about can have a wonderful oil-drench, which will do them good in so many ways, despite their complaints to the contrary.
The only difficulty is finding a reef that doesn’t already have other HMS Toryspiv tankers oozing out vast amounts of other stuffs to the great benefit of
shareholdersBwitish serfs everywhere.
105 crankarms are only 45 g heavier than Ultegra. That’s a small energy bar or a mouthful of whatever’s in your water bottle.105 weight is in the arms not the rings7000: 713 g
8000: 668 g
9100: 614 ghttps://road.cc/content/review/248560-shimano-105-r7000-groupset
Most of the weight is on top of the saddle. Excess body mass is the biggest restriction on performance; it stifles the engine and holds you back on climbs (among other things).
Just so. In addition:
The obsession with the weight of bike and parts is almost entirely an unholy alliance of cycling = nothing-but-a-competitive-sport and advertsing of the new! improved! ilk. In reality, little bits of marginal gain-got weight decrease will make hardly any difference at all … and none of any significance to everyday cyclists. Only those at the very top of competitive cycling will see any benefits from lighter-by-a-few-grams stuff.
Even those top-end competitive cyclists may suffer, as the lightweight stuff can easily become the too-flimsy stuff. Alright if you have a car full of bikes you can exchange your broken down bike for. For the hoi-polloi, your race is at an end.
For a data-driven back-up to this notion that bike weight is not as important as is generally assumed by avid purchasers of the “30 gms lighter than that other brand” stuff (and the drillers of gubbins, mercifully now a rare breed) have a read of the following:
************
As you say, for a better power to weight index, lose some plump from the person, which can also add power from less-clagged-up body body functions. Or stop worrying about going as fast as you can on a bike for as little energy as possible. The cycling will possibly become a better experience without such angsts.
The majority of drivers do want to be safe and considerate, but too many of them don’t realise the problems with not leaving enough space around vulnerable traffic.There are all sorts of driving sins. Some are deliberately performed, such as close-passes, speeding beyond the ability to deal with the unforseen and so forth. But there are many times that number of driving sins that are due to the incompetance of drivers. The latter don’t intend harms; and, unlike the loons, do care about doing harm unintentionally. But ….
From the point of view of the victims, the harm done to them is what matters most. Being crushed and having your onward life hugely degraded by a nice fellow who was just inept at driving is as bad as if the crusher was a car loon who also eats live puppies and beats his mother for fun.
Our justice system (such as it is) pays far too much attention to intent. As a result, those who do serious damage to others “accidently” are let off without victims being recompensed for the incompetance of those who damaged them. But when freedom to be incompetant is widespread, so are “accidents”.
In some other justice systems, those who harm another must pay recompense no matter what their intents or lack of them. Incompetance, from the victim’s point of view, is just as damaging as an evil intent. A judge might add to the penalty if there’s evil intent too, as a protection against others being subject to deliberate loon acts by the loon in question.
But surely all victims should be awarded a real recompense from the person who damaged them if that damage was avoidable by way of the damager becoming competant, and acting as such, before going out to indulge in a potentially dangerous activity?
Penalties should also seek to dissuade the incompetant from assuming, or pretending, or not actioning, competance. If you’re incompetant with a car to the extent that you’re a serious risk to others, you should be banned from accessing one. Ditto for chainsaws, dog-owning and even riding a bike – although in each case the competance required (and measured) should be related to the potential damages of incompetance.
Personally I’d require tests and licenses for a lot more than cars. And serious re-checking of competance for the more dangerous stuff, such as driving a motorised vehicle. This will be regarded as a nanny state …. which it is. But infantile people need their nanny. When we all grow up (ha!) perhaps more general freedoms could be justified. At present, far too many infantile adults have far too much freedom; and we use it to do some very bad stuff to each other.
So many drivers clearly think they have to absolute right to do whatever they want. The village hall committee could try locking the gates for a few weeks, people would soon find an alternative.Vast rights but no duties, especially to others. This is no equation on which to base a civil society. In the end, rights are only created by others following their duties to allow and enable them. And to not-enable them when the rights demanded consist largely of actions obliterating the rights of everyone else.
But oligarchies aren’t concerned by civility but rather by dominance. There are the favoured few and the rest. Sometimes the rest can be fooled into thinking that they’re one of the favoured by being given a sop-right, such as, “Feel free to drive like a maniac”.
These foolish drivists feel that their vast drivist rights are protected so vote eagerly for their masters, despite the fact that the drivists too are being gassed slowly to death and may easily be car-squashed as they step from the voting station or anywhere else.
Welcome to the Third World.
Quite clearly the BBC need to invite a male guest onto the show (possibly from West Wales) to tell them where they’re going wrong.I am relieved that you at last have seen sense and come to appreciate my pearls. Perhaps you have been reprogramed with a better notion-grasping algo (that from the Mark VI c)?
Or perhaps your operator has noticed your generally hopeless and content-free comments so supplied a proper one whilst you were being recharged with the steam-driven alternator or having your stiff neck oiled? 🙂
chrisonatrike wrote:
You keep saying that but I’m still not sure you’ve had the pleasure of Scottish road surfaces. Or perhaps gravel – with added rocks – is your cup of grog? Quite right that the proliferation of driving is it though. Social norms must ultimately be the reason why more UK men cycle than women but I’m certain it’s not as simple as you set out. Pretty sure eg. in NL such “protecting women” attitudes are similar yet vastly more women cycle there – and indeed slightly more women than men! I wonder what else could explain that? ?Segregation isn’t needed as the roads are excellent for cycling, technically.Do you feel that the existing cycling infrastucture (shared paths with peds and white-line murder gutters, for example) are better than the roads for cycling? If so, we must disagree. At least the pot-holed roads go places cyclists might want to go. The potholes might even keep the drivist mad speeders to the limits!
Perhaps you should have a word with the Scotty road menders, to tell them to come to West Wales so as to learn how to do it. The roads out here really are excellent. Oh and with very low traffic, 99% of which is very considerate to cyclists. Coo – cyclist heaven. Suprising, then, that so few are seen about the place. I must have done 20,000 km since moving here 4+ years ago and have seen about 12 cyclists in total when out on the back roads.
**********
What could explain all them Dutch lady cyclists? Well, nice cyce paths might play a small part (but would also appeal to the blokes, so it doesn’t seem a likely differentiating factor). Perhaps the greatest factor is that the Dutch, like many other Northern Europeans, aren’t so saddled with the over-dominant boy-racer culture that we suffer from in Blighty and other Anglo nations? The Dutch ride bikes primarily for transport rather than “to train” or pose as faux racing cyclists.
Women, being generally more sensible than we hormone-maddened blokes, tend to be more attracted to the practical than to the infantile. I know GCN, for example, has the odd female presenter (just one, is it?) but most of them are 11 year old silly boy-childs with some bike industry PR scripts about the latest bike-toys, eh? I watch them briefly about once a month. Gawd, they give me the cringe (a sort of empathetic embarressment at their utter inanity) 🙂
[snip]As to such segregation being particularly important for women ….. [snip]
Part of the issue seems to be men telling women that they ought to be frightened of traffic when cycling; and the daft buggers believing what they’re told! Once women were told they couldn’t be doctors, engineers, soldiers or prime ministers. Cuh! to that, eh? Let the husbands change the bairn’s nappy and do the hooverin’ whilst the womenfolk go out on their bikes to the cafe, where they will tell risque jokes about blokes. 🙂
Except my post was about an item on Woman’s Hour about transport priorities for women with a woman presenter and a female guest (and, indeed, a contribution from a female listerner). Other than me reporting what I heard, there wasn’t a male voice anywhere.
You heard one voice on that programme say something about seperate cycing infrastructure and, presumably ‘cos you like the notion yourself, mentioned only that element of the programme.
In doing so, did you represent the full range of views expressed by all the participants in the discussion – or did they only discuss seperate cycling infrastructure? Seems unlikely.
Segregation isn’t needed as
Segregation isn’t needed as the roads are excellent for cycling, technically. What’s needed is segregation of incompetant and dangerous drivers from their cars, which should be taken away from them because they are four-wheeled blunt instruments with such a useless or aggressive drivist (male or female) in ’em.
Think how much money’ll be saved by not having to build cycle paths paralleling every road! And those roads go everywhere, they do – unlike cycle paths, now or ever.
As to such segregation being particularly important for women ….. all the women cyclists I know and ride with are just as able to cycle well and with due care & attention to traffic as the menfolk. In fact, many of them are better, possibly due to a lack of certain hormones or their eschewing a cultural upbringing full of mad Victorian assumptions about the various equally mad classes of folk those Victorians loved to imagine and the imaginary relative abilities or lack of them across these classes.
Part of the issue seems to be men telling women that they ought to be frightened of traffic when cycling; and the daft buggers believing what they’re told! Once women were told they couldn’t be doctors, engineers, soldiers or prime ministers. Cuh! to that, eh? Let the husbands change the bairn’s nappy and do the hooverin’ whilst the womenfolk go out on their bikes to the cafe, where they will tell risque jokes about blokes. 🙂
Schwalbe spiked Marathons
Schwalbe spiked Marathons work well on black ice, frosted roads and even on the wet-green-slime backroads. That’s what they’re designed for. The studs are steel jackets around TCT cores, which TCT is very hard so punctures the black ice and similar to get a grip. Don’t be leaning at extreme angles around the black-iced corners, mind!
Also, when the grip of the studs gives you confidence, don’t get all unaware when you get off the bike on to the ice, as your shoes will slip & skid immediately. 🙂
These tyres don’t work in deeper snow, which needs something more like studs used on MTB tyres for very muddy conditions. But new snow isn’t too slippy – it’s the older and slushy stuff that’ll get you.
******
Personally I avoid high winds and heavy rain, especially if the temperature is below about 8 degrees C. Wind can blow you off course or even drop a heavy or speedy thing on you. Heavy and cold rain will suck the heat out of you very quickly, especially if it’s windy too.
Wind also creates lots of road detritus. Some of this is hazardous, especially bits of wet branch, which can slide you off when leaned over or even get picked up on a wheel and jammed in your stays or forks. The latter will give you a very rapid face-plant.
Some drivists also ignore weather conditions and drive far outside their safe speed and control abilities. If they see you late and brake heavily or rive at their steering wheel, the car might just slide into you anyway on wet and detritus-laden roads.
Monday – 8-9 getting great results with paint stripper – with StaceyTuesday – 2.45-3.45 How the Ben Hur chariot race was filmed – a live demo by film freak Ron Adams
Wednesday 8-9 You and your tame seagull – interimediate class with the Herne Bay Seagull fanciers – all welcome
Any seasider no that the tame seagull is no such thing and is merely awaiting the chance to eat your sausages or fish & chips as you glance elsewhere for a second or two; or your eyeballs, if you stay still long enough.
A greater blackback gull may even eat your children – whole – if you let it into the playroom in the hope that it’ll agree to being a pet! I have noticed them eyeing-up bairns in prams as the mothers queue for an icecream at the beach kiosk. They eat puffins on the wing whole so could certainly manage a small dog or even a mid-sized cat, if they can avoid the claws and teeth. Them poor bairns are defenceless, though.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I sold my DSLRs recently. I use 2 cameras, a Panasonic Lumix TXZ90 and an FXZ82. They are very similar in software terms so no issue switching. The TX90 is pocket sized the FZ82 is a bridge camera. They are both micro 4/3s and I shoot in RAW then run stuff through Lightroom with a custom preset to boost contrast, saturation and clarity a bit. They both have massive zoom range 40x zoom on the TX90 and 60x on the FZ82. In most conditions get high quality pictures and either the camera or Lightroom successfully deal with distortion – I’ve never noticed any significant issues. So when I don’t want bulk I use the TX90 and have it as a backup when travelling, say going out in the evening when I don’t want a bag with me. The FZ82 is a bit heavier, but not as heavy as a GH3 or Canon 60D. Can carry it all day hiking. I have a couple of cases that I put on my belt, though I will pop the FZ82 on a neck strap. Neither are waterproof but the price performance of the FZ82 is, I think, amazing. The only real negatives I find are that the focusing on low light is a bit temperamental and a bit fussy for flying birds. It does have burst modes though. Also, low light is quite noisy – for night time shots a smart phone with modern processing is far better. This is off the TX90:Another vote for a Panasonic FZ82 – it has compromises but (especially using RAW, Lightroom & Topaz editing software) can produce amazing images for such a tiny sensor.
It isn’t immune to dust, wet and shock, though, so I would only take it out on a bike wrapped up in swaddling clothes in the pannier, which doesn’t make it swiftly usable.
As another mentions, using a
As another mentions, using a standard camera one-handed to take pics on the move is asking for a crash.
But if you want a camera that’s easy to take with you on a bike but tough enough to survive the rigours of cycling (damp, vibration, dust and a possible drop) I suggest an Olympus Tough TG6 or 7. This won’t get you the image quality or tele-range of an interchangeable lens camera but it will get you decent quality pictures (and movies) without costing loads and being vulnerable to those cycling rigours.
The Olympus Tough TG6/7 also has built-in anti-shake that allows it to get decent images via being mounted to your handlebars with a small clamping gubbins, via the tripod mounting thread of the camera. It’s not as good as a Go-Pro for that but it does make watchable movies (and pics). On the other hand, it does take RAW images, which gives you a lot of scope to use image improvement software.
There’s also a wide range of accessories and use-modes. The microscope mode, for example, makes amazing macro shots via all sorts of features such as focus-stacking and use of a ring-light accessory.
The image quality from small sensors and “lesser” cameras can, these days, be dramatically improved with software such as that of Topaz and similar. Dramatically.
Worth a thought – but not if you’re wanting to make top quality images for printing or other high-qualiy purposes. Very good for making prosthetic memories you would otherwise probably lose as the years go by, though.
we must start to discuss the elephant in the room around town – speeding and rule compliance.Please explain how cyclists can be speeding when speed limits don’t apply to them?
Let me explain.
Speeding, to the pedant, means something closely defined by a definition involving hard & fast quantities (velocity) determined by a measuring instrument (a speedometer) and enforced by a law. If you haven’t got a speedometer, you can thus never be speeding. This is probably why cyclists are exempt from being prosecuted for speeding but not exempt from riding recklessly or dangerously. (Quaintly called “furiously”).
A better definition of speeding is: going faster than a pace that is safe by way of the person controlling their velocity being able to see and avoid unanticipatable but possible dangers that may manifest in their path. That is, for a cyclist, not riding “furiously” (i.e. too fast and without attention, for the conditions).
There are many stretches of road where the first definition of speeding, with its speed restriction signs, is not a sufficient guide as to what may be “true” speeding for that section of road.
I already gave you the obvious example of the 60mph limit applied to many narrow and bendy country roads, contained in high hedges, where doing anything over 15-20mph around a tight blind bend would be “speeding” since you’d hit even a stationary thing just around that bend, never mind another such as yourself also speeding ’round it towards you.
Similar judgements can and should be made by cyclists and drivists who are riding or driving along roads on which there are numerous driveways, gateways, junctions, pavements and other features from which unanticipated hazards may emerge only a few yards in front of you.
The legal limit might be 30mph or 20mph for cars. Why would you assume that, because you weight less than a wankpanzer, you and your bike can’t hit something and badly damage both what you hit and yourself if you’re going full-tilt faster than those maximum speeds in pursuit of your strava boast? In practice, you’d be wise to restrict your speed to the stopping distance required should a child, dog, agile granny or carelessly driven wankpanzer emerge suddenly from the next tangential blind opening.
They do so emerge, see? Just because they didn’t do so the last 21 times you went along there doesn’t mean that they won’t tomorrow.
In many cases, drivists and cyclists would really need to be doing a lot less than the indicated maximums to avoid such possibilities.
Yes, a car will do more damage. That doesn’t mean that you have no responsibilty to avoid doing lesser damages with your bike & body just to satisfy your speed-lust.
If you can’t be bothered to consider the potential damage to others, think of how inconvenient it will be to have bad gravel rash, a broken wrist and hip and a bent bicycle you just paid a few thousands for.
Shooly sum mush-take. There
Shooly sum mush-take. There’s no mention of how much UPF is in the gelly. It might even be 100% UPF, for all we know! It’s important to understand how much cancer and other ill health-causing goo one is sucking from the piece of litter.
Which reminds me. How much ecological and biological damage is the gel-litter going to cause? We need to know so we can arrange a personal cucumber-offset planting schedule for each and every gel-wrapper tossed to the verge, as we picture ourselves winning the Tour de Nowhere.
It depends, in part, on the
It depends, in part, on the bearing type and quality. But also on the amount and type of use you put the wheels to.
Cup & cone bearings, as used by Shimano and in many older wheelsets, are most likely to get problems unless they have some sort of sealing to prevent the ingres of water and grit. Many cup & cone designs are relatively open to the elements but others have sealing caps or flexible rings/grommets to keep the wet & muck out.
You can check two things: any tightness or play when you spin the wheel or push it side to side when tight in the dropouts; any noise or feeling of graunch when you use a finger or (better) listen to a screwdriver by placing its blade on the hub-end and the handle on your ear as you spin the wheel.
Wet, rust and grit have to be dealt with quickly in cup & cone bearings as, if they aren’t, the bearing surfaces that are an integral part of the hub shell in many designs will wear/pit. These can’t be replaced except by replacing the whole hub and rebuilding the wheel.
Wheels using cartridge bearings can more easily survive a bearing going bad as the whole bearing can be removed and replaced with new cartridges, of the same or perhaps better brand but same size. Although cartridge bearings come sealed (the balls and races protected with thin rubberised shields on both sides) some seals are better than others; and some conditions of riding more readily overcome the protection of the seals against dust and water.
Although you can carefully remove/replace the out-facing seals to clean and regrease such bearings that you feel may have got water or dust in, its easy to damage those seals. Replacements can be got, if so. For example, Hunt wheels will provide new seals if you damage those on their wheels whilst cleaning and regreasing the bearings.
You can feel or listen for cartridge bearing wear in the same way as you can with cup & cone bearings. Many people avoid cleaning/regreasing them, as mentioned above, if wear or graunch is detected, since they can be relatively inexpensive to replace. A commonly-used good quality 6802 wheel bearing cartridge costs about £6, although you can easily pay a lot more for better quality. Whether such better quality gives you much advantage is a moot point. They’ll still wear if wet or dust get in and aren’t quickly cleaned out. But they may have much better seals.
To take apart and reinstall cup & cone bearings, you really need only one special tool type – cone spanners, which are very thin and sized for a variety of nut and cone sizes found in such bearings.
To take out and replace cartridge bearings, you need either a drift and a hammer or a bearing puller, as well as a correctly-sized bearing press to put in the new bearings. No need to remove the bearings, though, if you think you can bring them up to spec with a clean and regrease – i.e. before any significant wear or damage has occured after they feel stiff or noisy (graunching or squeaking). Take off the seals and clean/regrease the balls & races carefully, in situ within the wheel hubs.
Using a drift and hammer to remove bearings is likely to damage the races (brinneling or denting the races with the balls from the hammer-shocks). You might be able to re-use extracted bearings if you use a puller (which still needs some hammer taps) as the hammer taps are more controlled, as is the distribution of the removing-force on the bearing, so the bearings might survive. But it’s safer to replace them with new, once knocked out.
If you do regrease bearings, don’t pack the grease into every space available, as this causes a lot of drag on the bearings. The general recommendation is to fill 1/3 – 1/2 of the air spaces around the balls and races; and with a grease that isn’t thick but not so thin that it becomes an oil when the bearing goes ’round and heats it up.
***************
If you’re an obsessive 🙂 you can perform on ongoing wheel-spin test for bearing wear.
When new, the wheel will spin for the same initial impetus for N revs before coming to a stop.
As the bearings “bed-in” and the grease distributes in them, the same intial impetus will see the wheel gradually spin a few more revs before stopping. This condition should be reached in a couple of hundred kilometres from new.
Later on, the same impetus might start to see the wheel rev even more before coming to a stop. This is due to the grease begining to degrade, lessen, migrate off the bearings interfaces, etc. so that it ofers less resistance to the still-good bearings as they spin. It would be a good time to consider ading a bit of extra grease, if you can be bothered to prise off the seals to get it in, then replace the seals without any damage to them being done.
Even later, if the number of revs begins to decrease again, the liklihood is that grease is insufficient and the bearing is “drying out”; or rust and dust have got in and worn the bearing. Time to replace them.
https://ceramicspeed.com/en-eu/pages/bearing-cleaning-maintenance?mdApp_countryCodeDomain=GB
Bike Bearing Grease: A Practical Guide to Bearings and Assembly for Bikes