Cycling Watts

[Existential Angst]

Awl --

I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.

Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W bulbs, full
briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite 2 or 3 100 W lite
bulbs.

What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?

Thanks.

--
EA

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Existential Angst > wrote:
>
> What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?

There's a book that will probably interest you - it's called 'Bicycle
Science' or 'Bicycling Science', something like that, but
unfortunately I just went to pull my copy from the book-shelf where it
is supposed to reside (in order to check things like the title, author
and so on) and it has gone missing!

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:18:56 +0000 (UTC)
Ian Smith > wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Existential Angst >
> wrote:
> >
> > What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats,
> > equipment?
>
> There's a book that will probably interest you - it's called 'Bicycle
> Science' or 'Bicycling Science', something like that, but
> unfortunately I just went to pull my copy from the book-shelf where
> it is supposed to reside (in order to check things like the title,
> author and so on) and it has gone missing!
>
This one?
http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-David-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:21:27 +0100, Rob Morley > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:18:56 +0000 (UTC)
> Ian Smith > wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Existential Angst >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats,
> > > equipment?
> >
> > There's a book that will probably interest you - it's called 'Bicycle
> > Science' or 'Bicycling Science', something like that, but
> > unfortunately I just went to pull my copy from the book-shelf where
> > it is supposed to reside (in order to check things like the title,
> > author and so on) and it has gone missing!
> >
> This one?
> http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-David-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541

That's the one. That's the edition I have, and mine looks just
like that - maybe it was Amazon that nicked it?

It's quite interesting, very specific, very good if you want to know
the answer to something but also the reasons and an explanation. I
couldn't read it straight through, though.

If I can find mine, I'll see what it says about power outputs (I'm
pretty sure it's got stuff on that - I think there's quite a long
section on power output and the factors that affect it like rate of
cooling, body position, muscle-groups used (why you don't get more
power out of a person if they use both arms and legs) and so on. I
think that's in there because if it wasn't in that that I read it, I
can't think where I did.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Doug[_3_]]

On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
wrote:
> Awl --
>
> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>
> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 *100 W bulbs, full
> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> burning? *In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite *2 or 3 100 W lite
> bulbs.
>
> What are some maximum numbers out there? *Lance Armstrong numbers?
> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>
> Thanks.
>
My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.

Doug.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 20/06/10 07:05, Doug wrote:
> On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
> wrote:
>> Awl --
>>
>> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
>> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>>
>> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
>> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W bulbs, full
>> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
>> burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite 2 or 3 100 W lite
>> bulbs.
>>
>> What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
>> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.

A *fit* person might make 100 watts, an average person would be closer
to 70 watts. A good program was where they tried to power a house by a
cyclists, you could probably do the arthmetic from that program.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Ian Smith > wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:21:27 +0100, Rob Morley > wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:18:56 +0000 (UTC)
> > Ian Smith > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 19 Jun 2010, Existential Angst >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > > > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats,
> > > > equipment?
> > >
> > > There's a book that will probably interest you - it's called 'Bicycle
> > > Science' or 'Bicycling Science', something like that, but
> > > unfortunately I just went to pull my copy from the book-shelf where
> > > it is supposed to reside (in order to check things like the title,
> > > author and so on) and it has gone missing!
> > >
> > This one?
> > http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Science-David-Gordon-Wilson/dp/0262731541
>
> If I can find mine, I'll see what it says about power outputs

Found mine - it was in the book pile by the bed.

I'm not even going to try and summarise the section on power outputs -
too long and too complicated. I'll mention some highlights though:

There's a 70-page chapter on 'human power generation', plus another
14-page chapter specifically on the interaction of cooling and power
output, plus a 50-page chapter on the power requirements for
propelling the bicycle (ie, the 70 pages does not cover those aspects
at all).

The 70 page chapter is mostly about mechanical power. The OP was
talking about light bulbs, and that introduces an additional
inefficiency (that of the generator / alternator), but In think that's
not what was intended.

According to the book:

Top athletes generate about 2.5 to 3 times what a reasonably fit
'normal' person does.

NASA has a standard, apparently, SP-3006, 1964. It puts maximum
sustainable power for "healthy men" at about 730W over 1 second, 300W
for 10 minutes, 200W for an hour. The NASA "top class athletes" curve
has 1000W, 380, 350 for the same durations (that's me scaling by eye
from a graph). However, individuals have beaten those figures
by large margins - Manfred Nuscheler on a bicycle ergometer in 1991
and 1995 in a series of tests achieved 2378W for three seconds and
about 1500W for 40 seconds.

The UK time trials records are plotted on the same graph, along with
lots of spot values.

Also, when cycling, the circular crank mechanism affects matters -
peak instantaneous power might be 2.5 times average over a
revolution.

There's about 6 pages of bibliography references to the chapter, for
more detail.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
> wrote:
>> Awl --
>>
>> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
>> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>>
>> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
>> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W bulbs, full
>> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
>> burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite 2 or 3 100 W lite
>> bulbs.
>>
>> What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
>> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.

If I remember my arithmetic, weights and measures from primary school, 746
watts = one horsepower. Whether or not tht is an exact measurement of the
work output of one average horse, it is clear that an average human could not
duplicate it - unless the principles of mechanical advantage are employed
(eg, via a machine, such as a bicycle), in which case it is possible, though
not for the sustained period the horse can manage.

[Clive George]

On 20/06/2010 11:28, JNugent wrote:

> If I remember my arithmetic, weights and measures from primary school,
> 746 watts = one horsepower. Whether or not tht is an exact measurement
> of the work output of one average horse, it is clear that an average
> human could not duplicate it - unless the principles of mechanical
> advantage are employed (eg, via a machine, such as a bicycle), in which
> case it is possible, though not for the sustained period the horse can
> manage.

You may remember some arithmetic, but you've forgotten basic physics.

Work done is work done regardless of mechanical advantage. The lever
allows you to exert a larger force, but you swap that for movement over
a shorter distance.

If you time a 15yo rugby player running up the stairs, and work out his
power output by taking the difference in height, his weight, and using
that to compute the gain in potential energy, you discover his power
output comes out to about a horsepower. That's without any mechanical
advantage. (I could probably do that this time last year.)

Rough calculations tell me Usain Bolt's average power is about 540W over
10 seconds without taking losses into account.

Pro cyclists develop over a kilowatt when sprinting, ie well over a
horsepower.

So it's clear that humans can duplicate the power of a plodding horse.

The difference between these and a horse is the horse is sustained, not
sprinting. It's not the machine which makes the difference you're trying
to explain, it's simply the time period over which the activity takes place.

[Derek C]

On Jun 19, 5:09*pm, "Existential Angst" >
wrote:
> Awl --
>
> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>
> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 *100 W bulbs, full
> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> burning? *In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite *2 or 3 100 W lite
> bulbs.
>
> What are some maximum numbers out there? *Lance Armstrong numbers?
> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>
> Thanks.

The issue of a cyclist's power output was a big part of achieving man
powered flight. You may remember Paul MacCready's Gossamer Albatross
that flew across the channel piloted/pedalled by Bryan Allen. It was
calculated that you would need to produce a continuous 1/3rd of a
horsepower (about 250 watts) to achieve this. See:

http://donaldmonroe.com/pedaling.html

Obviously you could produce more for short bursts, but Allen reckoned
that he couldn't have gone another 100 yards when he finally touched
down.

Derek C

[JNugent[_7_]]

Clive George wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> If I remember my arithmetic, weights and measures from primary school,
>> 746 watts = one horsepower. Whether or not tht is an exact measurement
>> of the work output of one average horse, it is clear that an average
>> human could not duplicate it - unless the principles of mechanical
>> advantage are employed (eg, via a machine, such as a bicycle), in which
>> case it is possible, though not for the sustained period the horse can
>> manage.

> You may remember some arithmetic, but you've forgotten basic physics.

> Work done is work done regardless of mechanical advantage. The lever
> allows you to exert a larger force, but you swap that for movement over
> a shorter distance.

Indeed.

> If you time a 15yo rugby player running up the stairs, and work out his
> power output by taking the difference in height, his weight, and using
> that to compute the gain in potential energy, you discover his power
> output comes out to about a horsepower. That's without any mechanical
> advantage. (I could probably do that this time last year.)

> Rough calculations tell me Usain Bolt's average power is about 540W over
> 10 seconds without taking losses into account.

He's average, is he?

I hadn't realised how far below average I am.

> Pro cyclists develop over a kilowatt when sprinting, ie well over a
> horsepower.

I think that's sort of what I said, though without the direct reference to
any group of cyclists. Could they do it without the bikes?

> So it's clear that humans can duplicate the power of a plodding horse.
> The difference between these and a horse is the horse is sustained, not
> sprinting. It's not the machine which makes the difference you're trying
> to explain, it's simply the time period over which the activity takes
> place.

I think I said that too.

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:28:53 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
> > wrote:
> >> Awl --
> >>
> >> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> >> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
> >>
> >> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> >> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W bulbs, full
> >> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> >> burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite 2 or 3 100 W lite
> >> bulbs.
> >>
> >> What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> >> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> > My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> > coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>
> If I remember my arithmetic, weights and measures from primary school, 746
> watts = one horsepower. Whether or not tht is an exact measurement of the
> work output of one average horse, it is clear that an average human could not
> duplicate it

If you take the popular opinion that horsepower was defined by Watt
observing working mine horses, it will be the power output that a
horse can sustain all day. I see no particular reason to expect that a
human could not exceed that for a short period, and indeed, NASA's
SP-3006 'healthy men' curve does get up to about 750W for short
durations. Athletes exceed that.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Clive George]

On 20/06/2010 12:21, JNugent wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> If I remember my arithmetic, weights and measures from primary school,
>>> 746 watts = one horsepower. Whether or not tht is an exact measurement
>>> of the work output of one average horse, it is clear that an average
>>> human could not duplicate it - unless the principles of mechanical
>>> advantage are employed (eg, via a machine, such as a bicycle), in which
>>> case it is possible, though not for the sustained period the horse can
>>> manage.
>
>> You may remember some arithmetic, but you've forgotten basic physics.
>
>> Work done is work done regardless of mechanical advantage. The lever
>> allows you to exert a larger force, but you swap that for movement
>> over a shorter distance.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> If you time a 15yo rugby player running up the stairs, and work out
>> his power output by taking the difference in height, his weight, and
>> using that to compute the gain in potential energy, you discover his
>> power output comes out to about a horsepower. That's without any
>> mechanical advantage. (I could probably do that this time last year.)
>
>> Rough calculations tell me Usain Bolt's average power is about 540W
>> over 10 seconds without taking losses into account.
>
> He's average, is he?
>
> I hadn't realised how far below average I am.
>
>> Pro cyclists develop over a kilowatt when sprinting, ie well over a
>> horsepower.
>
> I think that's sort of what I said, though without the direct reference
> to any group of cyclists. Could they do it without the bikes?

Read up just a little bit. Two things to note: Pro cyclists are as
average as Usain Bolt, and the guy being timed running up the stairs
wasn't anything special.

>> So it's clear that humans can duplicate the power of a plodding horse.
>> The difference between these and a horse is the horse is sustained,
>> not sprinting. It's not the machine which makes the difference you're
>> trying to explain, it's simply the time period over which the activity
>> takes place.
>
> I think I said that too.

But you confused it by introducing machines, and you're still confusing
things that way in the question I've just answered above.

Forget the machines, it's just the time which is relevant.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
> wrote:
>> Awl --
>>
>> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles
>> of watt meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>>
>> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would
>> actually produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W
>> bulbs, full briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the
>> body is actually burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully
>> lite 2 or 3 100 W lite bulbs.
>>
>> What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
>> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats,
>> equipment?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.

How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 20 June, 08:22, Tosspot > wrote:
> On 20/06/10 07:05, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 June, 17:09, "Existential Angst" >
> > wrote:
> >> Awl --
>
> >> I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> >> meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>
> >> Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> >> produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 *100 W bulbs, full
> >> briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> >> burning? *In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite *2 or 3 100 W lite
> >> bulbs.
>
> >> What are some maximum numbers out there? *Lance Armstrong numbers?
> >> Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> > My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> > coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>
> A *fit* person might make 100 watts, an average person would be closer
> to 70 watts. *A good program was where they tried to power a house by a
> cyclists, you could probably do the arthmetic from that program.
>
OK, 'Fit but not extremely athletic person'. Yes I remember that
program.

Doug.

[Nige Danton[_2_]]

> On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, "Existential Angst" >
> wrote:

> > I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> > meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
> >
> > Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> > produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 100 W bulbs, full
> > briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> > burning? In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite 2 or 3 100 W lite
> > bulbs.
> >
> > What are some maximum numbers out there? Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?

I don't know of a site that gives you data you seek but it also might be
worth asking on rec.bicycles.tech

--
Nige Danton
email: replace the obvious with g_m_a_i_l

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Doug[_3_]]

On 22 June, 00:33, (Nige Danton) wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, "Existential Angst" >
> > wrote:
> > > I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> > > meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>
> > > Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> > > produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 *100 W bulbs, full
> > > briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> > > burning? *In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite *2 or 3 100 W lite
> > > bulbs.
>
> > > What are some maximum numbers out there? *Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>
> I don't know of a site that gives you data you seek but it also might be
> worth asking on rec.bicycles.tech
>
Simple Google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_power_meter
http://www.mayq.com/Best_european_trips/Cycling_speed_math.htm
http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/19/bicycle-power-watts/

and there is much more.

Doug

[Derek C]

On Jun 22, 6:59*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 22 June, 00:33, (Nige Danton) wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On Jun 19, 5:09 pm, "Existential Angst" >
> > > wrote:
> > > > I have seen big numbers that cyclists can generate on various styles of watt
> > > > meters -- over 1200 W, iirc.
>
> > > > Are these numbers "mechanical watts", ie, what a generator would actually
> > > > produce (1200 watts, for example, would lite up 12 *100 W bulbs, full
> > > > briteness), or are the "metabolic watts", ie, what the body is actually
> > > > burning? *In which case, 1200 W would only fully lite *2 or 3 100 W lite
> > > > bulbs.
>
> > > > What are some maximum numbers out there? *Lance Armstrong numbers?
> > > > Sites/links that deal with these type of measurements, stats, equipment?
>
> > I don't know of a site that gives you data you seek but it also might be
> > worth asking on rec.bicycles.tech
>
> Simple Google search.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_power_meterhttp://www.mayq.com/Best_european_trips/Cycling_speed_math.htmhttp://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/07/19/bicycle-power-watts/
>
> and there is much more.
>
> Doug- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If cyclists can produce all this power, perhaps they could fit a
dynamo to their bikes to power front and rear lights? I reckon that
about half the cyclists I see at night are not carrying working
lights, with teenage males being the worst offenders.

Derek C

[Light of Aria[_3_]]

-

If cyclists can produce all this power, perhaps they could fit a
dynamo to their bikes to power front and rear lights? I reckon that
about half the cyclists I see at night are not carrying working
lights, with teenage males being the worst offenders.

Derek C

-------------------



It's not wattage that's the problem there though, it's too low I.Q.

[Derek C]

On Jun 22, 11:59*am, "Light of Aria"
> wrote:
> -
>
> If cyclists can produce all this power, perhaps they could fit a
> dynamo to their bikes to power front and rear lights? I reckon that
> about half the cyclists I see at night are not carrying working
> lights, with teenage males being the worst offenders.
>
> Derek C
>
> -------------------
>
> It's not wattage that's the problem there though, it's too low I.Q.

What has an I.Q. of 143?
..
..
..
..
A gross of RLJing and unlit cyclists.

[thirty-six]

On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Doug wrote:>

> > My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> > coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>
> How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?

A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!

[Derek C]

On Jun 23, 2:15*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
> On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > Doug wrote:>
> > > My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> > > coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>
> > How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?
>
> A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!

Are vegans allowed to eat butter?

[thirty-six]

On 23 June, 14:27, Derek C > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:15*pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>
> > On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:>
> > > > My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> > > > coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>
> > > How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?
>
> > A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!
>
> Are vegans allowed to eat butter?

They make up the rules as they go along, permitted butter day is today
if you happen to be eating a teacake. I can't imagine not having
butter on a teacake.

[bugbear]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2:15 pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>> On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>
>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:>
>>>> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
>>>> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>>> How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?
>> A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!
>
> Are vegans allowed to eat butter?

No.

And (while we're on) vegetarians aren't
allowed to eat fish.

BugBear

[thirty-six]

On 23 June, 14:41, bugbear > wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 2:15 pm, thirty-six > wrote:
> >> On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>
> >> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Doug wrote:>
> >>>> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
> >>>> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
> >>> How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?
> >> A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!
>
> > Are vegans allowed to eat butter?
>
> No.
>
> And (while we're on) vegetarians aren't
> allowed to eat fish.
>
> * *BugBear

Sea or freshwater?

[mileburner]

thirty-six wrote:
> On 23 June, 14:41, bugbear > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 2:15 pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>>>> On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:>
>>>>>> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts
>>>>>> when coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>>>>> How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are
>>>>> famous for?
>>>> A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!
>>
>>> Are vegans allowed to eat butter?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> And (while we're on) vegetarians aren't
>> allowed to eat fish.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Sea or freshwater?

Vegans (and vegetarians) are allowed to eat WTF they like. However upon
consumption of certain foods, the vegans (or vegetarians) may cease to be a
the vegan (or vegetarian).

To draw a paralell, is a cyclist allowed to drive a car?

[Derek C]

On Jun 23, 4:43*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
!
>
>
> Vegans (and vegetarians) are allowed to eat WTF they like. However upon
> consumption of certain foods, the vegans (or vegetarians) may cease to be a
> the vegan (or vegetarian).
>
> To draw a parallel, is a cyclist allowed to drive a car?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not at the same time!

[bugbear]

thirty-six wrote:
> On 23 June, 14:41, bugbear > wrote:
>> Derek C wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 2:15 pm, thirty-six > wrote:
>>>> On 20 June, 13:04, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@no-spam-
>>>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:>
>>>>>> My understanding is that a sustainable output is only 100 watts when
>>>>>> coupled to a generator and pedalled by an average person.
>>>>> How much power does it take to spout all the rubbish you are famous for?
>>>> A cup of tea and a buttered teacake!
>>> Are vegans allowed to eat butter?
>> No.
>>
>> And (while we're on) vegetarians aren't
>> allowed to eat fish.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Sea or freshwater?

Both vegans and vegetarians can consume both sea and freshwater.

BugBear