Re: 48.49 of your Imperial miles...

[Velvet]

Simon Brooke wrote:


>
> Oh, and the extra 1.51 miles? I don't feel any urgent need to go and do
> them just now. And if you care to express 48.49 miles as 78.03
> kilometres, I don't feel any need to go out and do another 1.97
> kilometres either. It will do for me.
>

Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after that
many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's MUCH
comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's re-acclimating to
the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent cyclist) or if my
saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed) all bums tend to
ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type rides :-)

--


Velvet

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Velvet
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Oh, and the extra 1.51 miles? I don't feel any urgent need to go and
>> do them just now. And if you care to express 48.49 miles as 78.03
>> kilometres, I don't feel any need to go out and do another 1.97
>> kilometres either. It will do for me.
>
> Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after
> that
> many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's
> MUCH comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's
> re-acclimating to the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent
> cyclist) or if my saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed)
> all bums tend to ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type
> rides :-)

I learned this lesson a long time ago when I was riding a lot more miles
than I do now. Always - and only - Brooks saddles (the particular model
depends on the spacing of your sitbones, I use the Professional model).
My bum was perfectly comfortable.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.

[Velvet]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message >, Velvet
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and the extra 1.51 miles? I don't feel any urgent need to go and
>>>do them just now. And if you care to express 48.49 miles as 78.03
>>>kilometres, I don't feel any need to go out and do another 1.97
>>>kilometres either. It will do for me.
>>
>>Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after
>>that
>>many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's
>>MUCH comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's
>>re-acclimating to the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent
>>cyclist) or if my saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed)
>>all bums tend to ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type
>>rides :-)
>
>
> I learned this lesson a long time ago when I was riding a lot more miles
> than I do now. Always - and only - Brooks saddles (the particular model
> depends on the spacing of your sitbones, I use the Professional model).
> My bum was perfectly comfortable.
>

Hmm :-) I'll stick with breaking me and my saddle in for a bit longer,
I think - though I've heard all these good things about brooks saddles,
I'm still not quite convinced.

Was it comfy from the outset, or did it/you need breaking in to the saddle?

--


Velvet

[wheelsgoround]

Velvet

It's true, Brookes leather saddles offer the best comfort if you are
doing quite a few miles. When I do the long distance Audax rides, I look
around and, almost all of the saddles are Brookes.

The leather is very stiff when new and you need something like 50
hours in the saddle before it has really softened and moulded to your
shape. Use of the special Brooks leather treatment will help speed up
this process.

"COMFY" saddles do not stop you getting a sore bum on a long ride. The
synthetic ones that feel nice and squidgy are not moulding to your shape
and so, ultimately, it's going to get uncomfortable.

The Brookes are definitely worth the money and initial discomfort if you
plan to cycle a lot (in my opinion)

Ian



--

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after that
: many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's MUCH
: comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's re-acclimating to
: the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent cyclist) or if my
: saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed) all bums tend to
: ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type rides :-)

If your saddle is adjusted correctly and suit you and your bum is used to
50 mile rides you should have no (none, nadda, zilch) ache after 50 miles.

But you do, so you need to decide if it's because your bum isn't used to
it, or it's the saddle.

It comes down to this: is the ache on your bum cheeks (where you sit bones are)?
This is fine - your bum will adapt.

The other case is if the ache is either between you bum cheeks or in the gential
area. You won't get used to this. Do some or all of:

* change angle of the saddle
* raise bars
* softer saddle (maybe, but probably not)
* harder saddle (really - stops you sinking in)
* wider saddle to support bum better

A saddle that is too high can cause problems as well.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Arthur Clune]

wheelsgoround > wrote:

: It's true, Brookes leather saddles offer the best comfort if you are
: doing quite a few miles. When I do the long distance Audax rides, I look
: around and, almost all of the saddles are Brookes.

It's still a personal thing though. They don't work for everyone. Plenty of
audaxers use other saddles. All you can do is try different ones and see what
works (see my other post)

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Peter Clinch]

Velvet wrote:

> Was it comfy from the outset, or did it/you need breaking in to the saddle?

The B66 that originally graced my tourer (and now the 8 Freight) and the
B17 on the MTB have been comfortable at the very least right from the
box. The breaking in process has taken them from being comfortable to
being very comfortable.

Sit on one in a shop to see if any given model is basically the right
shape for you to start with. If it is it'll be reasonably comfortable
from the off IME. You've nothing to lose but a few minutes at this point.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Velvet]

wheelsgoround wrote:

> Velvet
>
> It's true, Brookes leather saddles offer the best comfort if you are
> doing quite a few miles. When I do the long distance Audax rides, I look
> around and, almost all of the saddles are Brookes.
>
> The leather is very stiff when new and you need something like 50
> hours in the saddle before it has really softened and moulded to your
> shape. Use of the special Brooks leather treatment will help speed up
> this process.
>
> "COMFY" saddles do not stop you getting a sore bum on a long ride. The
> synthetic ones that feel nice and squidgy are not moulding to your shape
> and so, ultimately, it's going to get uncomfortable.
>
> The Brookes are definitely worth the money and initial discomfort if you
> plan to cycle a lot (in my opinion)
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> --
>
>

Ah, this isn't a 'comfy' one - I avoid those like the plague - virtually
every place I asked to see 'womens' saddles they brought out huge
squishy armchair things - ick! It's a selle italia oktavia ldy, so yes,
it has gel in it, but from the dents I'm making in it, my sit bones are
just forward of the rear gel bits, which I'm still pondering on how/if
to sort out! It's narrow, and relatively hard. I liked the saddle that
came with the bike originally, but it was just slightly too narrow (I
have a very narrow pelvis, despite my ample proportions), which meant
one sit bone was supported, while the other was only *just* unsupported
- not ideal!

I'm just curious as to whether some discomfort is normal with any new
saddle, or if you've been away from cycling for 6 months, would you
expect to start to get discomfort after cycling further than, say, 20
miles - on the basis your bum isn't used to taking the weight on such a
small area?

--


Velvet

[Velvet]

Arthur Clune wrote:

> Velvet > wrote:
>
> : Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after that
> : many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's MUCH
> : comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's re-acclimating to
> : the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent cyclist) or if my
> : saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed) all bums tend to
> : ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type rides :-)
>
> If your saddle is adjusted correctly and suit you and your bum is used to
> 50 mile rides you should have no (none, nadda, zilch) ache after 50 miles.
>
> But you do, so you need to decide if it's because your bum isn't used to
> it, or it's the saddle.
>
> It comes down to this: is the ache on your bum cheeks (where you sit bones are)?
> This is fine - your bum will adapt.
>
> The other case is if the ache is either between you bum cheeks or in the gential
> area. You won't get used to this. Do some or all of:
>
> * change angle of the saddle
> * raise bars
> * softer saddle (maybe, but probably not)
> * harder saddle (really - stops you sinking in)
> * wider saddle to support bum better
>
> A saddle that is too high can cause problems as well.
>
> Arthur
>

Oh, it's definitely the sit bones :-) The rest of it is fine! I knew
problems with between the bones/further foward mean something's not
right, so I sorted that with the change away from the original saddle
once I'd worked out it was, indeed, slightly too narrow.

I'd like to raise the bars a little, but have run out of ability to do
so (the seat got notched up a few mm a while back - gradual process) -
so am adapting to the hands being a little lower than they were before.

I was just curious as to how others recalled this, and if (as I've been
assuming) it will eventually get used to it, but thought it was as well
to ask if my assumption was actually correct :-)

--


Velvet

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: Oh, it's definitely the sit bones :-) The rest of it is fine! I knew

In which case, leave everything as it is and build the time in the saddle up
gradually (time is what matters here not distance - 1 hour in the saddle is
1 hour wether you do 10 miles or 30).

Your sit bones will and can adapt. Other bits can't.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Velvet
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> in message >, Velvet
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh, and the extra 1.51 miles? I don't feel any urgent need to go and
>>>>do them just now. And if you care to express 48.49 miles as 78.03
>>>>kilometres, I don't feel any need to go out and do another 1.97
>>>>kilometres either. It will do for me.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after
>>>that
>>>many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's
>>>MUCH comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's
>>>re-acclimating to the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent
>>>cyclist) or if my saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've
>>>assumed) all bums tend to ache to some degree or another after 50
>>>mile type rides :-)
>>
>> I learned this lesson a long time ago when I was riding a lot more
>> miles than I do now. Always - and only - Brooks saddles (the
>> particular model depends on the spacing of your sitbones, I use the
>> Professional model). My bum was perfectly comfortable.
>
> Hmm :-) I'll stick with breaking me and my saddle in for a bit
> longer, I think - though I've heard all these good things about brooks
> saddles, I'm still not quite convinced.
>
> Was it comfy from the outset, or did it/you need breaking in to the
> saddle?

Personally I think breaking in is a nonsense. Brooks saddles do change
shape with use - a bit. And they are hard. But mine have always been
comfortable (but hard) from day one. Being hard in itself takes a bit
of getting used to.

The saddle I was sitting on yesterday I've had for ten years and ridden
probably several thousand miles on. It is now better shaped for me and
more comfortable than the new one on my Cannondale. But the one on my
Cannondale is a lot more comfortable than the Fizik Nicene which came
on my Cannondale.

Saddles are of course personal, and men and women do have somewhat
different needs. But as far as I'm concerned what's important is to
have it the right width and, at that width, to be as firm as possible
under your sitbones so you don't squish into it and thus put pressure
on your squishy bits.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

[wheelsgoround]

Velvet wrote:
> I'm just curious as to whether some discomfort is normal with any new
> saddle, or if you've been away from cycling for 6 months, would you
> expect to start to get discomfort after cycling further than, say, 20
> miles - on the basis your bum isn't used to taking the weight on such a
> small area?
> Velvet



It's not because the saddle is new; it's just that your bum isn't used
to sitting on it


Ian



--

[davek]

wheelsgoround:
>It's true, Brookes leather saddles offer the best comfort if you are
>doing quite a few miles. When I do the long distance Audax rides, I
>look around and, almost all of the saddles are Brookes.

...and some of them look like they've done many years service.

I've done "only" about 1000 miles on my B17 and it is just getting to
the properly "broken in" stage - it still feels hard to the touch (as it
should even when fully broken in), but it has definitely moulded itself
to fit my bum and is very comfortable to ride.

However, I've done something like 1500 miles on my bike this year, which
is almost certainly more than I've done in the last three years put
together, so it's likely that a large part of the perceived improvement
in comfort is due to me being more accustomed to spending several hours
at a time on a bike and not entirely down to my choice of saddle - much
as I am won over to the Brooks cause, I'm sure they aren't for everyone
and I'm sure equally good results can be achieved with other good
saddles. The important thing is to find one that fits you, not
necessarily what is good for someone else.

d.



--

[davek]

Simon Brooke:
>Personally I think breaking in is a nonsense.

Having broken in several pairs of leather walking boots in my time, I
have to disagree.

I know saddles are a slightly different proposition, but leather
is leather.

d.



--

[Dave Larrington]

davek wrote:
> Simon Brooke:
>> Personally I think breaking in is a nonsense.
>
> Having broken in several pairs of leather walking boots in my time, I
> have to disagree.
>
> I know saddles are a slightly different proposition, but leather
> is leather.
>

I think Simon and I are probaly just lucky to be the right shape for B17s.
I did have a Pro once, which wasn't as nice, and later a Colt, which was
bleedin' 'orrible.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

[chris French]

In message >, Dave Larrington
> writes
>
>I think Simon and I are probaly just lucky to be the right shape for B17s.
>I did have a Pro once, which wasn't as nice, and later a Colt, which was
>bleedin' 'orrible.
>
I think there would be a market here for a 'Saddle fit Analyser'.

go into you LBS, plonk your bot down on this device, it analyses the
shape of your bottom, the way you sit etc. and then recommend certain
saddles.
--
Chris French, Leeds

[Velvet]

wheelsgoround wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
> > I'm just curious as to whether some discomfort is normal with any new
> > saddle, or if you've been away from cycling for 6 months, would you
> > expect to start to get discomfort after cycling further than, say, 20
> > miles - on the basis your bum isn't used to taking the weight on such a
> > small area?
> > Velvet
>
>
>
> It's not because the saddle is new; it's just that your bum isn't used
> to sitting on it
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> --
>
>

Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all in
one go!!)?


--


Velvet

[Velvet]

chris French wrote:

> In message >, Dave Larrington
> > writes
>
>>
>> I think Simon and I are probaly just lucky to be the right shape for
>> B17s.
>> I did have a Pro once, which wasn't as nice, and later a Colt, which was
>> bleedin' 'orrible.
>>
> I think there would be a market here for a 'Saddle fit Analyser'.
>
> go into you LBS, plonk your bot down on this device, it analyses the
> shape of your bottom, the way you sit etc. and then recommend certain
> saddles.

Ooh, what a stunning idea. Except it must be designed such that it only
shrieks 'you fattie, you'll NEVER find a saddle to fit YOU' to other
people, not me ;-)

--


Velvet

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:55:15 GMT, Velvet >
wrote in message >:

>Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all in
>one go!!)?

Missing zero on the mileage? Or did you mean this week? ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all in
: one go!!)?

Yes. One good way to get your bum used to it without pain is to try and
ride frequently (every day if possible) but for short periods.

Ride down to the shops wearing whatever you are wearing if that is practical
and makes it easier to find the time.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Velvet]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:55:15 GMT, Velvet >
> wrote in message >:
>
>
>>Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all in
>>one go!!)?
>
>
> Missing zero on the mileage? Or did you mean this week? ;-)
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Nope - see, I am a very occasional rider :-) Just that when I do, they
tend to be fairly long. So, it might be closer to 200 miles this year,
now I've thought about it a bit more... (my year started in april some
time, iirc).

I don't like cycling in rain, ice, snow, relatively cold temps.

Told you I was a wuss ;-) Oh, and I don't like cycling locally. Which,
given I was at the mercy of public transport, meant no cycling in
cambridge due to not wanting to cycle across london (though I did it in
the end, but only on a saturday afternoon) - and just a couple of treks
further afield to Forest Row cycle path.

Doing the odd trip to tesco really isn't worth the hassle involved in
getting the bike out the house, down the stairs, panniers etc on,
cycling a mile, locking it to racks, removing everything removable,
shopping, replacing everythign I took off, cycling a mile home, denuding
it of panniers, hauling back up the stairs, etc etc.

Hence the tendancy for my rides to be not all that regular, but really
quite long when they happen.

--


Velvet

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Velvet
') wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:55:15 GMT, Velvet >
>> wrote in message >:
>>
>>>Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all
>>>in one go!!)?
>>
>> Missing zero on the mileage? Or did you mean this week? ;-)
>
> Nope - see, I am a very occasional rider :-) Just that when I do,
> they
> tend to be fairly long. So, it might be closer to 200 miles this
> year, now I've thought about it a bit more... (my year started in
> april some time, iirc).

Not meaning to be snobbish or anything but this really isn't fair on
your bum. Riding little and often is a good way of getting your bum and
your saddle acquainted with one another, so that when you do go on an
epic they don't squabble.

I mostly do relatively short distances these days - five or ten miles -
which is why I was pleased and surprised at how easy I found the fifty
miler. But I'm on one of my bikes most days, so my body is physically
used to the experience.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Here lies Tony Blair.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.

[Velvet]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message >, Velvet
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:55:15 GMT, Velvet >
>>>wrote in message >:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all
>>>>in one go!!)?
>>>
>>>Missing zero on the mileage? Or did you mean this week? ;-)
>>
>>Nope - see, I am a very occasional rider :-) Just that when I do,
>>they
>>tend to be fairly long. So, it might be closer to 200 miles this
>>year, now I've thought about it a bit more... (my year started in
>>april some time, iirc).
>
>
> Not meaning to be snobbish or anything but this really isn't fair on
> your bum. Riding little and often is a good way of getting your bum and
> your saddle acquainted with one another, so that when you do go on an
> epic they don't squabble.
>
> I mostly do relatively short distances these days - five or ten miles -
> which is why I was pleased and surprised at how easy I found the fifty
> miler. But I'm on one of my bikes most days, so my body is physically
> used to the experience.
>

I'm sure it's probably not fair on my bum, but I was still interested to
know what others thought about it. It's being subjected to saddle daily
this week, I've decided that Stern Measures have to be put in place
between now and the london to cambridge, to ensure I survive and get to
the end.

Therefore, I have been putting in around 5 miles a night. So far the
enthusiasms still there, and I'm enjoying it lots, even though the
scenery doesn't change as I pedal - easier to take things easier when I
want to - I have no option but to work hard on the hills around here if
I want scenery that changes :-)

--


Velvet

[jacob]

I used to swear by my Brooks pro saddle and tell everyone complacently
how painless they are, (except for initial breaking in about 500
miles).
I've just done E2E and have to say that the saddle was very
uncomfortable - I expected to harden off after the first few days but
it hurt for the whole 2 weeks. Either the saddle or by bum has
deteriorated in some way.
I don't believe they mould themselves to your bum; rather they simply
sag.
I'm going to try a Rolls San Marco as soon as the blisters have
healed.

cheers

Jacob

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Velvet wrote:

> it might be closer to 200 miles
> this year, now I've thought about it a bit more... (my year started
> in april some time, iirc).

Steady on! Don't overdo it :-D

> I don't like cycling in rain, ice, snow, relatively cold temps.

<gom>No such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing</gom>


--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

[Arthur Clune]

Velvet > wrote:

: I'm sure it's probably not fair on my bum

It's not. To be blunt, if you don't cycle for a few weeks, then do a long
ride, your bum will hurt. Since you say it's just your sit bones that
ache, this won't do you any harm so as long as you are happy with that,
go for it.

As for the Tesco's thing - find a supermarket further away?

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

[Peter Clinch]

Velvet wrote:

> I don't like cycling in rain, ice, snow, relatively cold temps.

Snow I'd agree is a bit crap on a bike, snow is what XC skis are for.
But most of the problem with rain is the contemplation rather than the
doing unless it'll be a /long/ hack getting gradually wetter and colder.
And "relatively cold" is simply a problem of clothing: wrap up right
and it ceases to be "relatively cold", problem solved.

> Doing the odd trip to tesco really isn't worth the hassle involved in
> getting the bike out the house, down the stairs, panniers etc on,
> cycling a mile, locking it to racks, removing everything removable,
> shopping, replacing everythign I took off, cycling a mile home, denuding
> it of panniers, hauling back up the stairs, etc etc.

So go to Tesco by a roundabout route. My record for a "quick" Tesco
trip (about 2 miles away) is a round trip of about 20 miles. It was a
nice evening, I like cycling, I didn't have anything pressing to do, so
why not?

> Hence the tendancy for my rides to be not all that regular, but really
> quite long when they happen.

"Little and often" is probably best for building up to things. You just
keep on going with no trouble IME if you're used to the bike on an
almost daily basis.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[wheelsgoround]

Velvet wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> Even though this year I've clocked up over 150 miles on it (not all in
> one go!!)?
> --
> Velvet



The old bum/saddle interface isn't an exact science :-) (as shown by all
of the posts in this thread). Riding frequently and for gradually
increasing distances will get your bum used to it. Last year, I hadn't
done a long ride for several months and when I went for a 2 hour ride it
hurt quite a bit. This weekend I rode for 24 hours and my bum was OK
(apart from a bit of chafing but that was my shorts which were pretty
rank after wearing them for that long). So it is just a matter of
getting your bum used to it.

On the "breaking in leather saddles" debate, my B17 had softened
considerably after 1000 miles and several applications of Brookes
Proofide. To me, it got more comfortable but that could be as much me
moulding to it rather than the other way round. (Jacob, if your Brookes
Pro is sagging, have you tried adjusting the tensioner?)

Ian



--

[David Martin]

On 18/6/04 9:50 am, in article , "Peter Clinch"
> wrote:

> So go to Tesco by a roundabout route. My record for a "quick" Tesco
> trip (about 2 miles away) is a round trip of about 20 miles. It was a
> nice evening, I like cycling, I didn't have anything pressing to do, so
> why not?

I think my record for a B&Q trip (and I live closer to it than Pete does) is
about 40 miles.. I can walk there in 20 minutes, showing once again that
walking is much faster than cycling ;-)

...d

[Roos Eisma]

David Martin > writes:

>I think my record for a B&Q trip (and I live closer to it than Pete does) is
>about 40 miles.. I can walk there in 20 minutes, showing once again that
>walking is much faster than cycling ;-)

Last time Pete cycled to that B&Q for a minor errand he ended up in
Carnoustie...

Roos

[Velvet]

Arthur Clune wrote:
> Velvet > wrote:
>
> : I'm sure it's probably not fair on my bum
>
> It's not. To be blunt, if you don't cycle for a few weeks, then do a long
> ride, your bum will hurt. Since you say it's just your sit bones that
> ache, this won't do you any harm so as long as you are happy with that,
> go for it.
>
> As for the Tesco's thing - find a supermarket further away?
>
> Arthur
>

The next closest but of decent distance is up the side of a mountain ;-)

--


Velvet

[David Martin]

On 18/6/04 10:32 am, in article
, "Velvet"
> wrote:


>>
>
> The next closest but of decent distance is up the side of a mountain ;-)

That's not a mountain ...

<ducks>

...d

[Steve]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Velvet
> ') wrote:
>
>
>>Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, and the extra 1.51 miles? I don't feel any urgent need to go and
>>>do them just now. And if you care to express 48.49 miles as 78.03
>>>kilometres, I don't feel any need to go out and do another 1.97
>>>kilometres either. It will do for me.
>>
>>Sounds like you had an excellent time. I'm curious though - after
>>that
>>many miles, did you have a sore bum? Mine was, though my saddle's
>>MUCH comfier than the previous one - I'm not sure if it's
>>re-acclimating to the saddle again (me being a somewhat infrequent
>>cyclist) or if my saddle isn't quite right still, or (as I've assumed)
>>all bums tend to ache to some degree or another after 50 mile type
>>rides :-)
>
>
> I learned this lesson a long time ago when I was riding a lot more miles
> than I do now. Always - and only - Brooks saddles (the particular model
> depends on the spacing of your sitbones, I use the Professional model).
> My bum was perfectly comfortable.
>
My trusty Rolls saddle of 15 year vintage is at last getting
uncomfortable... it myst be dying ): But what do I replace it with? I
was looking at one of these strange Fizik ones. I ride a Softride, which
helps a lot, well far more than a lot!

Suggestions?

Steve

[Daniel Barlow]

Peter Clinch > writes:

> Snow I'd agree is a bit crap on a bike, snow is what XC skis are
> for. But most of the problem with rain is the contemplation rather
> than the doing

That I can agree with. I very much dislike the thought of going out
in the rain, but if it starts to rain after I've been out five minutes
and warmed up, it doesn't make much difference.

Unless it's, as you say, cold. Cold and blowy, with raindrops driving
into my face and making it impossible to see where I'm going (I wear
glasses. Windscreen wopers for same appear not to be a commodity
product yet). I haven't found Appropriate Clothing which will solve
that problem, but am definitely open to recommendations.


-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

[Peter Clinch]

Velvet wrote:

> The next closest but of decent distance is up the side of a mountain ;-)

That's not a problem, being /down/ the side of a mountain would be,
because then you'd have to cycle up with the heavy load. But as it is
you cycle up with nothing but empty bags, so your bum gets familiar with
your saddle, you get hill practice (and if you run of steam then walk,
it won't take /that/ much longer with an uloaded Audax bike), and you
get riding at speed loaded practice too, so lots of bike familiarisation
as well as good exercise.
Not good if there isn't any spare time in your life, but if there is
then it sounds like a golden opportunity to get better at hills and more
confident in general. The best way to get good at hills is keep hacking
away at them on a regular basis. Do that and it gets /much/ easier.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[davek]

Peter Clinch:
> Do that and it gets /much/ easier.

"It doesn't get easier, you just go faster." - G.Lemond

d.

[Velvet]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> The next closest but of decent distance is up the side of a mountain ;-)
>
>
> That's not a problem, being /down/ the side of a mountain would be,
> because then you'd have to cycle up with the heavy load. But as it is
> you cycle up with nothing but empty bags, so your bum gets familiar with
> your saddle, you get hill practice (and if you run of steam then walk,
> it won't take /that/ much longer with an uloaded Audax bike), and you
> get riding at speed loaded practice too, so lots of bike familiarisation
> as well as good exercise.
> Not good if there isn't any spare time in your life, but if there is
> then it sounds like a golden opportunity to get better at hills and more
> confident in general. The best way to get good at hills is keep hacking
> away at them on a regular basis. Do that and it gets /much/ easier.
>
> Pete.

Oh no... you don't quite understand.... see, I'm on one side of the
mountain, there's a valley between me and the supermarket, which is
actually on the top of the next mountain over...

So either way I end up climbing quite a respectable distance with full
panniers... and given it's as much as I can manage to climb the hill up
toward home unladen at the moment without my heart/legs exploding, I
think I'll be leaving that idea for a while!

--


Velvet