MTB bar ends or not [Archive]

Ronald

October 27th 04, 03:08 PM

> If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
> in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
> attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?

I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.

"Rik O'Shea" > wrote in message
om...
> If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
> in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
> attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?
>
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

Marty Wallace

October 27th 04, 03:16 PM

"Ronald" > wrote in message
...
> > If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
> > in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
> > attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?
>
> I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
> standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.
>
>
> "Rik O'Shea" > wrote in message
> om...
> > If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
> > in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
> > attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?
> >
> >
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890
>
>

I have a set something like that. there was a bit of a fad for a while on
road bikes but i think they may be outlawed now. They were legal in racing
as long as they don't protude past the normal handlebar curves. I put some
on my mountain bike and with a small set of pads they are really comfortable
and aero and you can really cover some distance quick.

Marty

Sheldon Brown

October 27th 04, 04:56 PM

Rik O'Shea wrote:

>>If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
>>in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
>>attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?
>
>http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890

Yes, I've got my own IRO Jamie Roy fixie set up with something like
that, and I like it very much. I'm using some cool Thorn carbon "bar
ends" in the middle, with Cane Creek stubbies on the ends.

The middle "bar ends" provide a good sort of "time trial" position, very
nice for fighting headwinds.

"Ronald" wrote:

> I don't think it's that easy. Most MTB bars have thinner ends so
> standard bar ends won't fit in the middle of the bar.

Yes, that is a problem with most newer MTB bars, due to the popular
"bulge" design. Those also make it hard to mount the brake levers as
far inboard as I prefer.

Older MTB bars didn't have this bulge. They were 7/8" (22.2 mm) all the
way along, witha shim or sleeve to fit the standard 1" (25.4 mm) stem
clamp.

My Iro has an older Merlin Ti bar, which uses a shim.

Sheldon "Nothing Exceeds Like Excess" Brown
+----------------------------------+
| Good health is nothing but the |
| slowest way to die. -Les Barker |
+----------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

Ron Hardin

October 28th 04, 12:09 AM

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> The middle "bar ends" provide a good sort of "time trial" position, very
> nice for fighting headwinds.

The best headwind fighter is an airspeed indicator _and no speedometer_. Instead
of feeling you're crawling along that day, you marvel at the increased speed. Wind
whistles past your ears.

On days with a tailwind, you marvel instead at how fast you're going past rock
and tree.

Airspeed indicator
http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html

I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.

It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there being
no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the wavelength
change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance from
its ultrasonic transmitter.
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Marty Wallace

October 28th 04, 01:12 AM

"Ron Hardin" > wrote in message > Airspeed indicator
> http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html
>
> I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.
>
> It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there
being
> no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the
wavelength
> change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance
from
> its ultrasonic transmitter.

So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

Marty

> --
> Ron Hardin
>
>
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

DRS

October 28th 04, 01:22 AM

"Marty Wallace" > wrote in message
om.au
> "Ronald" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> If I'm not mistaken this MTB racer is using standard bar ends
>>> in the middle of his handle bars - am I right or is this a special
>>> attachment ? Anyone ever tried it ?
>>
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/mtb.php?id=photos/2004/oct04/croctrophy/stage6/7890
>
> I have a set something like that. there was a bit of a fad for a
> while on road bikes but i think they may be outlawed now.

You're thinking of the Cinnelli mini-aerobars. They were outlawed for road
racing about five minutes after they came out. I've got a set of the BBB
ripoffs. Most useful. However, the set in the picture are curved like
standard bar ends.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Ron Hardin

October 28th 04, 01:45 AM

Marty Wallace wrote:
>
> "Ron Hardin" > wrote in message > Airspeed indicator
> > http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html
> >
> > I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.
> >
> > It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there
> being
> > no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the
> wavelength
> > change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance
> from
> > its ultrasonic transmitter.
>
> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?

No, the frequency is unchanged.
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

[email protected]

October 28th 04, 04:43 AM

[email protected]

October 28th 04, 05:06 AM

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin
> wrote:

>Marty Wallace wrote:
>>
>> "Ron Hardin" > wrote in message > Airspeed indicator
>> > http://www.celestaire.com/catalog/products/3806.html
>> >
>> > I don't know if it's waterproof or not. I've been assuming not on mine.
>> >
>> > It says it works by the doppler effect, which is certainly wrong, there
>> being
>> > no doppler shift with wind. It's almost certainly measuring the
>> wavelength
>> > change by comparing inphase and quadrature amplitudes a small distance
>> from
>> > its ultrasonic transmitter.
>>
>> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
>
>No, the frequency is unchanged.

Dear Ron,

When I browsed for sonic anemometers, this sort of thing
came up:

"The EPA also uses sonic anemometers at some stations. Sonic
anemometers operate on the principal that the speed of wind
affects the time it takes for sound to travel from one point
to another. If the sound is travelling in the direction of
the wind then the transit time is decreased. "

"Conversely, if it is travelling in the opposite direction
to the wind the transit time is increased. Sonic anemometers
emit sound waves, record the time taken to receive the wave
at the other end of the instrument, then convert the value
into the wind speed. By monitoring the speed of sound along
two different axes, wind direction is also able to be
measured."

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/air/air_quality_monitoring/meteorological_data/

I still want one for Christmas.

Carl Fogel

Artur Yelchishchev

October 28th 04, 07:51 AM

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin >
wrote:

>> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
>
>No, the frequency is unchanged.

Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
revolutionary discovery in phisics to me! :-)

WBR,
Artur

Artur Yelchishchev

October 28th 04, 07:52 AM

Ron Hardin

October 28th 04, 01:15 PM

Artur Yelchishchev wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 00:45:19 GMT, Ron Hardin >
> wrote:
>
> >> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
> >
> >No, the frequency is unchanged.
>
> Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
> revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)
>
> WBR,
> Artur

If you're moving with the air, you see a different frequency. But
you're not moving with the air. You're moving with the source.

Imagine that you're on a tandem and your stoker claps his hands once
a second. There's a wind, so the noise has to go upstream.

You hear one clap a second. They don't pile up somewhere for an hour
and all arrive when you stop.

Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

If the source is moving at one speed and the receiver is moving at
another speed, then it's time-varying, and you can have frequency
changes.
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Artur Yelchishchev

October 29th 04, 08:43 AM

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:55 GMT, Ron Hardin >
wrote:

>> >> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
>> >No, the frequency is unchanged.
>>
>> Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
>> revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)
-snip-
>
>Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.

Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
without changing the second.

WBR,
Artur

Marty

October 29th 04, 09:21 AM

"Artur Yelchishchev" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:15:55 GMT, Ron Hardin >
> wrote:
>
> >> >> So isn't the wavelength change a Doppler shift?
> >> >No, the frequency is unchanged.
> >>
> >> Wavelength change without frequency change?!? It seems to be some
> >> revolutionary discovery in physic science to me! :-)
> -snip-
> >
> >Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.
>
> Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
> change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
> essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
> without changing the second.
>
> WBR,
> Artur

The wave length does not change, nor does the frequency.
Imagine you are standing on top of a fast moving train.
You clap hands at once per second.
The time taken for the first clap to reach a person in front of you will
have a long time delay because the sound has to cover the gap between you,
plus the distance covered by the train (in the meantime). However, after the
first clap the other claps will arrive at one second intervals.
A person standing behind you will hear the first clap very soon after you
clap because the sound has to travel the distance between you and him, MINUS
the distance covered by the train (in the meantime). And once again all the
other claps will arrive at one second intervals.
So there is no change in the frequency or wave length, however there is a
DIFFERENCE in the delay time.

So if you set up a microphone in front of the "clapper" and one behind. The
one behind would detect the sound first, as it is moving into the sound
wave.
I imagine the sonic speed sensor would use this principal.

Thanks Ron for making me think!

Marty

Artur Yelchishchev

October 29th 04, 09:28 AM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:21:41 +0800, "Marty" > wrote:

>The wave length does not change, nor does the frequency.

Exactly. This is why I've responded to the Ron's comment (" It's
almost certainly measuring the wavelength change").

>I imagine the sonic speed sensor would use this principal.

Yes, that's correct.

WBR,
Artur

Ron Hardin

October 29th 04, 09:58 AM

Artur Yelchishchev wrote:
> >Frequency in = frequency out in a linear system that isn't time-varying.
>
> Correct. And another equation would be: Wavelength change = frequency
> change, hence my irony, because wavelength and frequency are
> essentially the same thing - it's impossible to change one of them
> without changing the second.

Um, no. The sound travels slower into the wind. The frequency is the
same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less. That's a reduced
wavelength. (Group and phase velocity are the same so a complication is
avoided here that you'd get with, say, water waves.)

Alternatively, if you're moving with the air (let's take the frame that
the air is still and the bike is moving) the frequency is increased by
the doppler shift, so the wavelength is smaller.

The guy moving with the bike sees that smaller wavelength but hears the
original frequency.

Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Artur Yelchishchev

October 29th 04, 10:53 AM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:58:24 GMT, Ron Hardin >
wrote:

> The frequency is the same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less.
-snip-
>Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
>same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.

Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
versa.

In the gas flowmeters (and, in our particular case, in wind speed
meter), the time required for signal to travel from transmitter to the
receiver is measured, not wavelenght/frequency.

WBR,
Artur

qtq

October 29th 04, 12:32 PM

Artur Yelchishchev > wrote in
:

> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
> versa.

That's utter crap.

I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the wavelength.

1 radian/sec.

2 radian/sec.

3 radian/sec.

We could go on forever.

99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
99 radians/sec
Slow it down, spin it around,
98 radians/sec in r.b.t

Ron Hardin

October 29th 04, 12:45 PM

Artur Yelchishchev wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:58:24 GMT, Ron Hardin >
> wrote:
>
> > The frequency is the same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less.
> -snip-
> >Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
> >same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.
>
> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
> versa.
>
> In the gas flowmeters (and, in our particular case, in wind speed
> meter), the time required for signal to travel from transmitter to the
> receiver is measured, not wavelenght/frequency.

Frequency depends on motion (aka doppler shift). Wavelength does not.
You can mark out where the sound pressure peaks are at a single instant, and
measure the distance between them. Short of relativity, you get the same marks
whether you're moving relative to the source or not, and so the same wavelength.

Indeed the usual way of explaining doppler shift is to show that as you approach
a stationary source, you travel down the series of those peaks at your own speed, and thus
add to the frequency you hear. You assume the wavelength is unchanged to explain
the frequency change.

(Complicating general fact, there's no general relation between frequency and wavelength
in general; the relation that happens to exist is called the dispersion
relation for the medium. It happens to be dispersionless for sound in air.)
--
Ron Hardin

On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Artur Yelchishchev

October 29th 04, 03:37 PM

On 29 Oct 2004 11:32:00 GMT, qtq >
wrote:

>> distance between
>> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
>> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
>> versa.
>
>That's utter crap.
>
>I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the wavelength.
>
>1 radian/sec.

We're speaking about waves here, while 1rad/sec is an angular
velosity. Sorry, but your examples are completely unrelated to this
tread.

Artur

Michael J. Klein

November 7th 04, 07:12 AM

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:53:31 +0300, Artur Yelchishchev >
wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 08:58:24 GMT, Ron Hardin >
>wrote:
>
>> The frequency is the same. So the distance between peaks of the wave is less.
>-snip-
>>Alternatively again, the wavelength of a train whistle appears the
>>same to the engineer and the stationmaster but the pitch is different.
>
>Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
>peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
>thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
>versa.
>
>In the gas flowmeters (and, in our particular case, in wind speed
>meter), the time required for signal to travel from transmitter to the
>receiver is measured, not wavelenght/frequency.
>
>WBR,
>Artur

Someone (not you) is confusing propagation delay with wave
compression.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Michael J. Klein

November 7th 04, 07:12 AM

On 29 Oct 2004 11:32:00 GMT, qtq >
wrote:

>Artur Yelchishchev > wrote in
:
>
>> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
>> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
>> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
>> versa.
>
>That's utter crap.
>
>I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the wavelength.
>
>1 radian/sec.
>
>2 radian/sec.
>
>3 radian/sec.
>
>We could go on forever.
>
>99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
>99 radians/sec
>Slow it down, spin it around,
>98 radians/sec in r.b.t

Frequency is a unit of measure based on the number of cycles per
second.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Marty Wallace

November 7th 04, 12:31 PM

"Michael J. Klein" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Oct 2004 11:32:00 GMT, qtq >
> wrote:
>
> >Artur Yelchishchev > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
> >> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
> >> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
> >> versa.
> >
> >That's utter crap.
> >
> >I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the
wavelength.
> >
> >1 radian/sec.
> >
> >2 radian/sec.
> >
> >3 radian/sec.
> >
> >We could go on forever.
> >
> >99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
> >99 radians/sec
> >Slow it down, spin it around,
> >98 radians/sec in r.b.t
>
> Frequency is a unit of measure based on the number of cycles per
> second.
>

Well if you want to be pedantic then that's not true.
Hertz is a unit of frequency based on a one second time base. Frequency can
be measured in any time base. How frequent something happens can also be
measured in other units besides time.

Marty
>
> Michael J. Klein
> Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
> Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
> ---------------------------------------------

Michael J. Klein

November 10th 04, 03:14 AM

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:31:27 +0800, "Marty Wallace" >
wrote:

>
>"Michael J. Klein" > wrote in message
...
>> On 29 Oct 2004 11:32:00 GMT, qtq >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Artur Yelchishchev > wrote in
>> :
>> >
>> >> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance between
>> >> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the same
>> >> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
>> >> versa.
>> >
>> >That's utter crap.
>> >
>> >I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the
>wavelength.
>> >
>> >1 radian/sec.
>> >
>> >2 radian/sec.
>> >
>> >3 radian/sec.
>> >
>> >We could go on forever.
>> >
>> >99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
>> >99 radians/sec
>> >Slow it down, spin it around,
>> >98 radians/sec in r.b.t
>>
>> Frequency is a unit of measure based on the number of cycles per
>> second.
>>
>
>Well if you want to be pedantic then that's not true.
>Hertz is a unit of frequency based on a one second time base. Frequency can
>be measured in any time base. How frequent something happens can also be
>measured in other units besides time.
>
>
>Marty

Yes Marty, quite correct. However, during the time have have held
both the FCC GROL and Amateur Extra class licenses, and built all
those radio stations, all my work was done in the time base of
seconds. I'm sure somewhere, someone is working with something else.
Just no one I know in the broadcast world.

I think you meant "other units besides seconds" since everything is
based on time. Everything.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Marty Wallace

November 10th 04, 01:27 PM

"Michael J. Klein" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 20:31:27 +0800, "Marty Wallace" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael J. Klein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 29 Oct 2004 11:32:00 GMT, qtq >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Artur Yelchishchev > wrote in
> >> :
> >> >
> >> >> Excuse me, but this is fundamentally impossible. The distance
between
> >> >> peaks of the wave and the frequensy are the two parameters of the
same
> >> >> thing - if you know the frequency, you know the wavelenght, and vice
> >> >> versa.
> >> >
> >> >That's utter crap.
> >> >
> >> >I can give you lots of frequencies for which you don't know the
> >wavelength.
> >> >
> >> >1 radian/sec.
> >> >
> >> >2 radian/sec.
> >> >
> >> >3 radian/sec.
> >> >
> >> >We could go on forever.
> >> >
> >> >99 radians/sec in r.b.t,
> >> >99 radians/sec
> >> >Slow it down, spin it around,
> >> >98 radians/sec in r.b.t
> >>
> >> Frequency is a unit of measure based on the number of cycles per
> >> second.
> >>
> >
> >Well if you want to be pedantic then that's not true.
> >Hertz is a unit of frequency based on a one second time base. Frequency
can
> >be measured in any time base. How frequent something happens can also be
> >measured in other units besides time.
> >
> >
> >Marty
>
> Yes Marty, quite correct. However, during the time have have held
> both the FCC GROL and Amateur Extra class licenses, and built all
> those radio stations, all my work was done in the time base of
> seconds. I'm sure somewhere, someone is working with something else.
> Just no one I know in the broadcast world.
>
> I think you meant "other units besides seconds" since everything is
> based on time. Everything.
>
> Michael J. Klein
> Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
> Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
> ---------------------------------------------

I still disagree.

A dictionary definition is:

fre·quen·cy (frkwn-s)
n. pl. fre·quen·cies
1.. The property or condition of occurring at frequent intervals.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frequency

So it doesn't have to be in units of time, it can be anything that occurs at
frequent intervals.

When I swim I measure my stroke frequency in strokes per pool length. Or you
could have a frequency of beers per packet of crisps!
Anythings possible.

I also have a radio license.

Marty Wallace
VK6ABC

(Check out my callsign in the WIA Callbook)

Michael J. Klein

November 11th 04, 12:08 PM

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:27:26 +0800, "Marty Wallace" >
wrote:

<snip>
>I still disagree.
>
>
>A dictionary definition is:
>
> fre·quen·cy (frkwn-s)
>n. pl. fre·quen·cies
> 1.. The property or condition of occurring at frequent intervals.
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=frequency
>
>
>So it doesn't have to be in units of time, it can be anything that occurs at
>frequent intervals.
>
>When I swim I measure my stroke frequency in strokes per pool length. Or you
>could have a frequency of beers per packet of crisps!
>Anythings possible.
>
>I also have a radio license.
>
>Marty Wallace
>VK6ABC
>
>(Check out my callsign in the WIA Callbook)

Marty, you are free to disagree that radio frequency is normally
measured by some factor of Hertz, all you want.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------