Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
pastyfacepaddy wrote:
Just Google lithium production ffs! There is minimal commercial production from seawater. Most comes from onland salt deposits, using huge amounts of water to extract, which in Chile is stealing water from agriculture. Tibet has large scale pollution from chinese effluent.Anyone who thinks they can drive an electric car with a clear conscience needs to read up on the environmental damage being done in Tibet and Chile by lithium mines, and in central Africa through cobalt mines.Have you got a link to that as I understood that modern Lithium was extracted from sea water with an increasing amount of energy provided by solar.
< .
Rich_cb wrote:
Apparently, yes, it does take all that CO2 in to account.
Depends who’s data you believe. No need to go into the detail here as there are some very detailed analyses online supporting both sides of the debate, all of course generated by bodies with vested interests in one side or the other. One of the biggest points argued over is assumptions made on battery recycling, which currently is not taking place. A bit like all that supermarket packaging carrying a recycling label (black plastic, plastic film etc), correct in theory, yet your local council says otherwise.As for your comparison of cobalt mining with oil production? I don’t think you’ve read about the kids in DRC.
Anyone who thinks they can
Anyone who thinks they can drive an electric car with a clear conscience needs to read up on the environmental damage being done in Tibet and Chile by lithium mines, and in central Africa through cobalt mines.Just one other point. If you
Just one other point. If you go for a fork mount, which I prefer for a carbon frame, make sure its the right fit for your forks! It was easy when we all had dropouts, but if you have thru axles you need to ensure the rack accepts these, or buy a universal adaptor which allows thru axles to fit a rack designed for dropouts. Again, roofbox.co.uk will keep you right.The whole point of T-tracks
The whole point of T-tracks is to achieve compatibility between accessory manufacturers, so as lastboyscout says, any T-track bike rack should fit. I have Cruz aero bars, with Atera T-track, fork mount bike rack. Works fine. However from your link, you are already at the best place to advise – roofbox.co.uk, who I have always found helpful and competitive.I am 4 years younger than you
I am 4 years younger than you, also come from the Scottish climate, and now have a similar climate to you, with most of my riding in the South of France (Ventoux is my back yard), and Southern Alps. I have no problem at all with rim brakes on steep descents, but then I bought my bike in 2016. Buying now, I would go disc, and there is little point going for the half way house of mechanical disc. Mechancal discs are a compromise I suspect you will regret later.
As an aside, my regular riding buddy is a fast decender, and recently swapped back to his rim braked, carbon rimmed Colnago, after a couple of years on a disk braked Roubaix. A couple of weeks ago I had to scrape him off the road on the Ventoux to Bedoin descent. I think there is a lesson there for people who ride both rim and disc. (Having said that, the Colnago is a think of beauty, and I’d take it in a heartbeat over the Roubaix)
You don’t say why you need
You don’t say why you need to change components. Ordinarily, an 8 speed chain should last several times the mileage you have done, the cassette several times more than that, and chainset several times more than the cassette. (Some people use the rule of changing cassette with every 3rd chain,and chainrings with every 3rd cassette, but its not cast in stone )
If you are changing because you have allowed the components to become rusted, then you will also need to look at derailleur and cables, brakes etc.
massive4x4 wrote:
Wrong on so many levels. Firstly Rallying isn’t “street circuit racing”. But on the subject of street circuit racing, Monaco, Melbourne, Singapore, Montreal, Long Beach etc have never been out of favour. And I’m not aware of any racing circuits closing due to non viability (though some are stopping hosting non viable events such F1)Street circuit racing went out of favour because of safety concerns…..
In the UK we have never had street racing as until recently you couldn’t deny access to roads or revoke the road traffic act.
……..
The main reasons for circuits closing is housing bring developed around them and then people complaining about the noise. The agent of change principle cannot come sooner to UK planning law.
At a push, Olivers Mount and the Isle of Man could be described as street circuits.
Perhaps a few circuits have closed, but I am not aware of any. Besides which, that has nothing to do with Rallying as Phil 68 seems to suggest. Rallying in the UK has never relied heavily on circuits.
Philh68 wrote:
Street circuit racing went out of favour because of safety concerns…..
Wrong on so many levels. Firstly Rallying isn’t “street circuit racing”. But on the subject of street circuit racing, Monaco, Melbourne, Singapore, Montreal, Long Beach etc have never been out of favour. And I’m not aware of any racing circuits closing due to non viability (though some are stopping hosting non viable events such F1)Simon E wrote:
….. But you’re not obliged to be impressed or inspired.
Oh I’m certainly impressed. I do Ventoux a few times a year, I’ve done the triple ascent, and I’m mightily impressed with anyone who does the Bicinglés, which typically involves starting at 4am and finishing at 10pm, even once. I guess I just don’t find it an interesting enough climb to want to do it all day every day. Now Galibier, I could do that every day without ever getting bored!jaysa wrote:
“And you think you can do the Marmotte (175km, 5000m climb) on 2000? Dream on”
Settle down
For sure the Marmotte burns more than 2000 Cal.My point was 2000 Cal is a lot to take with you when every cafe/resto/bar is open.
Sorry, I clearly picked up your post wrong!2,000 Cals is a lot – even for the Marmotte circuit?
Nonsense!
A “typical” figure for leisure cycling is 500-700 cals/hr, and that is before factoring in an 8% climb.
Another figure often quoted is that a “typical” 75kg cyclist at 18mph uses 900 cals/hr. Again, Galibier is not typical.
Livestrong give an example of an 80kg cyclist at 10mph on only a 3% incline burning 850cal per hour.
These figures, all from different sources, seem fairly consistent, but the burn rate increases dramatically with gradient. (even accounting for the fact that half of a col attempt is downhill).
My cycling all takes place in mountainous terrain. Galibier from Valloire return took me 1500 calories (36km round trip with 1200m climb). The Cinglés (138km, 4405m climb) was 5671 calories. According to my Wahoo, yesterday’s little jaunt round the Vaucluse was 90km, 1287m climbing, 3h30 moving time, just short of 3000 calories. Again, this all ties in pretty well with all the numbers I can find online. And you think you can do the Marmotte (175km, 5000m climb) on 2000? Dream on.
So I reckon if you are off for a few days cycling cols, 3000 per day should be the minimum you expect, and Marmotte, much more.
I strongly recommend the Galibier brewery in Valloire as a useful source of calories!
Avoid the “tourist” type
Avoid the “tourist” type forecasts such as AccuWeather and meteo.fr as they don’t accurately detail altitude, and their forecasts are usually extrapolated from somewhere else. Use mountain-forecast.com, select the nearest relevant mountain from their database (eg pointe des cerces for galibier) and you will get an hourly forecast with temperature versus altitude, plus freezing level.In August the weather can be almost anything in the Alps so pack as such, and decide on the day what to take. Typically early mornings can be cold, but the sun is still quite high so it can be very hot by 11am, and very often thunderstorms late afternoon.
I did Galibier in early July, and you’ll love it. The scenery is just so spectacular.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
Riding with a high cadence has certain benefits for reduced fatigue on longer rides.In your case, perhaps, and that’s fine. But it’s not the same for everybody (Read some of the posts above eg one said:”I just can’t keep my legs moving that speed for very long”, and I can relate to that). The best way to avoid muscle fatigue is to cycle at a rate that is efficient, so you burn resources slower, and as per my earlier post, this is different for all of us, for all sorts of reasons. This is backed up by a number of medical papers, here is one of the most recent:
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/high-cadence-cycling-offers-no-benefit-to-amateurs-finds-new-study
All of this suggests that generalised statements such as what cadence to ride, and how to gear a bike, are unhelpful. At the end of the day, only an individual rider can determine his best cadence..
Good post. Like yourself, I
Good post. Like yourself, I have often been irritated by recommendations that we should all be aiming to ride at cadence “x”, and telling me my bike is too highly geared, so I spent a bit of time reading up on the subject. There are quite a few medical papers suggesting that a lot of people ride at too high a cadence, but it is very individual, having a lot to do with personal muscle and neurological structure. The important thing to remember is that a lower cadence does not necessarily mean you are any less fit, or any slower, than somebody who rides at a higher cadence. My regular cycling buddy rides at around 90, yet I beat him up big climbs every time with my average in the seventies. Sure, I can spin the pedals at 100rpm, but I am not putting much force through them. A recent new member of my group I note cycles at less than 60 and beats us all!
A number of factors come into it. Generally higher cadence puts less strain on joints, so worth considering for anyone with knee or hip problems. A couple of the studies I have read talk about the peak muscular efficiency point and the peak neurological efficiency point. From memory, a number of students studied showed a maximum muscular efficiency, the point at which the muscle makes best use of oxygen, in the low 70s. The same group had a maximum neurological efficiency, the point at which muscle use is most effectively coordinated, and often the point at which people feel most comfortable, in the 80s. This suggested that a cadence of 90 is not the best place for this particular group to be from either a muscular or neurological perspective. The optimum point for any idividual is likely to be some compromise between what your joints are comfortable with, where your muscles work best, and where your neuro works best.
For those who have cycled 8 hours a day since their early teens, their muscles have a much more highly developed capillary structure, and apparently their muscular efficiency peaks at a higher rate. In my case, my early days were spent cross country running and mounatineering, which I guess explains why my muscles are happier generating power at a low cadence .
For sure the Marmotte burns more than 2000 Cal.