[fukawitribe]

brooksby wrote:mike the bike

brooksby wrote:

mike the bike wrote:

Don’t use oily stuff on your chain and the problem goes away.

Erm – you mean, like, chain lube? What do you use?

[fukawitribe]

On the road side, Shimano and
On the road side, Shimano and SRAM 9/10-speed hubs are generally shorter than 11-speed ones and won’t take an 11-speed road cassette, the most noticeable exception being Mavic which have had longer freehubs for donkeys years due to compatibility with their own gear – seems like 11-speed compatible hubs are getting more common however. The table at the bottom on this article may help

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Cassette_Spacers_2013_3978.html

Easton do an 11-speed compatible freehub AFAICS, and you can fit an 11-speed Shimano/SRAM compatible cassette from EDCO which fits on a 10-speed road freehub (with their own lock-ring), but they’re pricey.

[fukawitribe]

Dup post
Dup post

[fukawitribe]

mike the bike wrote:Surely

mike the bike wrote:

Surely there’s a huge hole at the top?

True, but you can Marigold* the tops or wear them inside your walking trousers/waterproof cycling trousers/bib-tights.

* or some other stretchy rubbery garter.

[fukawitribe]

Last couple of lots they had
Last couple of lots they had were rebranded SealSkinz or Dexshell IIRC

[fukawitribe]

Paul J wrote:fukawitribe,
I

Paul J wrote:

fukawitribe,

I have read the paper. You’ll have to be more specific about what you mean.

Hi Paul, yep I kind of assumed you had read the paper even before i’d seen your blog and wasn’t really directed at you. It’s just that much of Otis Braggs post is spot on and this paper just seems to be brought out as some sort of talisman, sometimes by some who seem to not quite grasp the information in it – let alone that it’s a singular paper whose results are often taken out of context or quantified.

For example, if we were to give people of choice of overall difference in passing distance between a helmeted rider and non-helmeted one from the paper…

a. A little under 50%
b. A little over 20%
c. A little over 6%

..would they know which is correct ? Would they know the absolute value of that difference, in inches say ? Would they know about all the other factors in the paper such as the variance in passing distance between various vehicle types, apparent gender and road position and how that compares with the variance due to helmet wearing ? Would they be aware that one of the results indicates a greater passing distance past a helmeted rider ?… and so on and so on.

There are also other results which back up and others which differ from the ones in this paper – and it’s worth reading them even if to only understand the differences in testing environment and methodology. I’m not personally convinced that the paper shows no correlation – as some seem to have said – quite the opposite, but I think it’s worth people reading some of the discussions surrounding it, e.g. Gutierrez, to get a possibly more rounded view of the results than the headlines might otherwise give. I’m also of the view that it’s useful if people go and look for themselves and follow some of the directions the research goes and make up their own minds. Hope that clarifies things a tad.

[fukawitribe]

Paul J wrote:It’s hilarious

Paul J wrote:

It’s hilarious to read some comments claiming there is no science to the claim that drivers pass closer to helmeted riders, and that it would even be impossible to measure. Especially when the first comment mentions “University of Bath” a few times.

Given that first comment, I won’t link directly to that study by Dr. Ian Walker and the study he contacted at said university – googling will find it quite easily. Instead I will link to another (lesser known) study, conducted by Thobias Sando and Ren Moses with the University of North Florida and the Florida Dept. of Transportation, which found similar results using a completely different methodology to Dr. Walker: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1122764

In the spirit of scientific debate it would be good to mention it’s worth searching for some of the reviews of the University of Bath paper, in particular the influence of road position and relative and absolute distances involved with helmet/no helmet. It would also be good to actually read the paper, if people haven’t, before over stretching the quite reasonable conclusions.

[fukawitribe]

You can also try a slightly
You can also try a slightly bigger cassette with the compact – Miche do at least a 12-30 for Campag, although 2T more may not be worth it on its own, and I think IRD do higher (although they’re bloody expensive).

[fukawitribe]

Man of Lard wrote:fukawitribe

Man of Lard wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Of course it drains somewhere, that’s the point, and the thing with drainage is that you try and design it so it doesn’t get “waterlogged”.. which would rather defeat it’s whole purpose in life. You want that water as surface water or somewhere else ?

Almost like installing properly designed drainage in the first place then? But without the overhead of the regular suction pressure washing that will never happen (like drain maintenance rarely happens until the drains fail to deal with the water headed through them)

Exactly – however my point was that the fact that it does drain itself is not a problem. Proper drainage off an impermeable surface needs careful design of the road (shape, structure and material) but I agree it’s a more of a one-time thing and not the repeated technical cleaning this surface would need.

[fukawitribe]

Man of Lard wrote:So it’s

Man of Lard wrote:

So it’s permeable – it still drains somewhere – either a subsurface drain or into the ground (which once it is waterlogged means the permeable concrete will “fill up” and still get puddles forming)

Of course it drains somewhere, that’s the point, and the thing with drainage is that you try and design it so it doesn’t get “waterlogged”.. which would rather defeat it’s whole purpose in life. You want that water as surface water or somewhere else ?

Interesting point about the frost from P3t3- but i’d imagine there are some practical issues with fully impermeable surfaces as well (e.g. shape) – not an easy one to get right for all conditions either way..

[fukawitribe]

deejaysee wrote:No brainer

deejaysee wrote:

No brainer using a phone as your bike computer surely

All depends on what you want to do and what your phone can do.

[fukawitribe]

..some previous
..some previous computer/phone discussions which might be useful
http://road.cc/content/forum/108899-smartphones-and-long-rides-strategy
http://road.cc/content/forum/111842-gps-computer-or-smart-phone

..and DIY mount (Dave Atkinson comments and other links in the comments)
http://road.cc/content/review/131108-quad-lock-universal-bike-kit

[fukawitribe]

2 Wheeled Idiot

2 Wheeled Idiot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Road frames should be easily capable of 25 or even 28mm tyres. There is no significant reason why a frame should only take 23mm. By designing a frame with limited tyre capacity limits it s market and riders who would consider that particular frame

My road frame only takes 23’s. And its one of the best selling bikes ever I suspect.
oh and I’d happily buy it again, jus’ saying <:P

That’s fine but others might want a choice – and the evidence seems to suggest there are many practical benefits for 25-28mm tyres on general road bikes with no real down-side. There also seems little reason from a frame design point of view to un-necessarily restrict the tyre clearance… the Tin Lizzy was one of the best selling cars ever I suspect, great at the time but i’d never buy one these days, jus’ saying 😉

[fukawitribe]

Not really much I can add to
Not really much I can add to what abudhabiChris has already said, it really is well done, astonishingly addictive and good fun. I’ve been on since around last Christmas/New Year but only just starting going on some of the group rides/races- and they really do make a huge difference to me, can’t believe i’ve waited this long. FWIW I now really look forward to upcoming events and my times and efforts have been improving way faster than the normal circuits I was using the courses for before – nothing gets you working harder than competition whether inside or out. Cracking stuff, costs buttons to start, go for it.

[fukawitribe]

oldstrath wrote:Colin

oldstrath wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

It happens. But I think you have to put it in context. It doesn’t happen that much otherwise you’d see it all the time.

Unfortunately I do see cyclist going through on reds and admit I occasionally do it myself – though the lights at the Angel bike crossing are badly phased and do not respond in a practical way.

Glad you reported it.

Despite only having one set of lights on my commute, I see motons jump red lights at least twice a week. I also see essentially every one of them light up the speed sign at the start of a 30 mph zone, the fastest so far at 56mph. So please don’t try to excuse them, or claim cyclists are ‘as bad’.

I don’t think anyone was excusing them or claiming cyclists are ‘as bad’ – it’s just that blatantly going reds as described isn’t that common IME, and perhaps others – were not talking about nipping through on a ‘dark amber’ in town here, but speeding through a solid red on a major road. Unfortunately that junction is prone to exactly that – fast (often very fast) approach road, split light set, nice curve to take you onto the other road, half decent sight-line to the right to check it’s “clear” – so you do get more than the usual number of twats doing it… presumably they’re concentrating so much looking down towards Ashton Court (down and right on the map) for other cars etc they don’t hardly notice pedestrians and others trying to cross, especially when going from Beggar Bush Lane over to the Clifton side (if you go there, you’ll see why).

None of this is excusing it – it’s just that when you present the normal range of bell-ends with a easier way of not stopping, that’s invariably what’s going to happen.

[Author]

Replies