|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
|
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
"David Kerber" wrote in message
... In article , says... Since when have aerodynamics been a real issue for anyone who isn't racing? Any time I'm riding into the wind, that's when! I would have guessed you LIKED wind, since you left about 60 or 80 lines of text unrelated to your reply! Bill "appreciates judicious snipping" S. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:34:53 GMT, Jose Rizal wrote:
like you do. Hauling scrap metal up hills and unsealed roads 14 hours a day, or transporting groups of people on a trike for similar lengths of time accumulate more than enough miles to be considered long distance. Those examples are nothing like recreational riding, or even commuting, for most people. Now you want to put a minimum limit on the term "long-distance" of 50 miles to restrict your argument; saying that comfort doesn't play a part in any rides less than 50 miles is stupidity. I don't think he said that at all. I think he was rather adamant that overall comfort is extremely important in such long rides. But when you are covering great distances at much higher speeds, aerodynamics are very important and the most comfortable way to get aerodynamic is with a drop bar. Aerodynamics is still irrelevant to hand comfort. Get over the idea. He didn't say that aerodynamics was most important for hand comfort. He said that it's very important for comfort -- meaning, overall comfort. Butt and leg comfort matter. Leaving all your weight on your butt all day is uncomfortable just like with your hands; it's necessary to find bars and positions that let you balance that. Additionally, being more aerodynamic means less effort for your legs, which makes them more comfortable, and allows you to coast more, which helps even more. stick any shape of bar on the bike and it wouldn't much matter. Their weight is being carried by their butt. Which, if you bother to do any distance on your bike in this position, is very uncomfortable. They have just gotten used to it. As you have gotten used to your drop bars. The same logic you used goes against your other argument, in fact. Thank you for pointing that out, albeit unintentionally. So, the result here is that putting excessive weight on either end is uncomfortable but can be gotten used to. Balancing the weight between them, then, would seem to be a good idea. Only when you refuse to acknowledge that utility cyclists who have just as much need for comfort as any "long-distance" tourist will gravitate towards the most comfortable arrangement for their bikes. They are in different conditions and use the bike differently. dropbar, the local blacksmith can whip one up for them if they want it. I suspect that would be too much effort and expense to try a handlebar that they have never used before, and only know of as something that's used elsewhere. A manufactured product in a store is much easier to try than having to provide a design, find a fabricator (which, granted, is probably easier there), and pay for him to make it. The most difficult part of a road bike (and mountain bike for that matter) is understanding the proper use of the gears. And gears contribute how much to braking in a bicycle? He was responding to you saying: Rubbish. The fact is that it requires more effort and more time getting used to operating the brake from the hood than it is from a mountain bar. This isn't in dispute: the fact that you're used to it doesn't say anything whatsoever to the relative ease with which you do it compared to mountain bars. Have you ridden a modern mountain bike lately? His point was that braking on a road bike is easy, the hard part is shifting and gear selection. Uh, yeah. They also open your chest up more (important in comfort and aerodynamics) Uh, yeah, what has an "open chest" (whatever that means) to do with hand comfort? What has aerodynamics to do with hand comfort? Nothing at all. You speak as if hand comfort is the only component of comfort. An "open chest" means that your arms are spread apart more, and so you have an easier time breathing. He was supporting your argument for straight-bars-with-bar-ends. It sounds like you are arguing solely for the sake of being argumentative. You have a distinct lack of comprehension and an annoying tendency to Like your own lack of comprehension that he was arguing for YOUR side in the above piece? That is comparing apples and oranges. Since you've made up your own little definitions, sure they become apples and oranges to you. A little thought expended on the matter by everyone else though will show that this is not true. Do you submit that utility cyclists and recreational distance cyclists have the same conditions, needs, and preferences? That is what you seem to be saying, when you say that the comparison is not apples and oranges. You must at sixes and sevens. This also creates greater frontal area which messes up your aerodynamics. I ask you, since when has aerodynamics been a concern for people in third-world countries using utility bikes? BTW, people in third-world countries using utility bikes are likely not trying to beat their previous records; they're trying to get work done. They're not interested in having fun by going faster. Since when has aerodynamics been a concern for comfort of your hands? Only in so far as the things you do to become more aero (and therefore be more comfortable in other ways) are a tradeoff against hand comfort. Aerodynamics plays a major role as velocity increases. A major role in what, and how? Notably, a major role in leg comfort. There's more to biking-comfort than hands. One seeks the most aerodynamic position as speed increases. Who does and why, in terms of comfort? Many people do, without even needing to think about it. They do it because the wind is uncomfortable, and the legs are uncomfortable from pushing harder than is necessary. Also, the aero position is lower, good for a lower center of gravity, which is an important safety concern, especially at higher speeds. The aero effect of said position is a separate issue from the CG effect, but they both happen from the same single action. Just try to achieve the same aerodynamic positions with a flat bar that you can with a drop bar. Why would someone want an aerodynamic position when all /she wants is to have a comfortable hand position? If that is the only thing that somebody is interested in, then that person should probably ride one of those old-style swept-back bars; I've ridden one, and as long as you can deal with all your weight being on your butt, it's pretty comfortable. The bike is one of those old cruisers with a 3 speed hub, complete with rack and rust. an experienced cyclist, you sure don't know anything at all about how uncomfortable the most aerodynamic position on a bike is for the rider. Drop bars, in general, does not equal the _most_ aerodynamic position. There's more to it, such as the height of said bars, for example. A moderately aero position can be very comfortable. For people using utility bikes, the speeds are always low, thus the needs for aerodynamic efficiency are low, thus the lack of a need for a drop bar. The question still stands: since when has aerodynamics been a concern for comfort of your hands? Since when has hand comfort been the sole issue when considering bicycle rider comfort? You don't seem to understand that comfort and aerodynamic efficiency are two unrelated, distinct concepts. If one wants to be aerodynamically They are distinct, but not unrelated. efficient, then one's body position is pretty much restricted to trying to achieve the one ideal position. Then one seeks ways to achieve this position in the most comfortable way. However, one DOES NOT need to be aerodynamically efficient to be comfortable in a bike. If, OTOH, one wants to switch between a more aero position and a less aero position, that one will need more variety of ways to hold the bar. While it's true that one does not need to be aero to be comfortable on a bike, most recreational riders purchasing a road bike (narrow tires, light weight, etc) are doing so for excitement. Excitement comes from speed. Aero helps bring speed and excitement. For the people who are willing to give up some of the aero advantage, there are, in fact, flat-bar road bikes, and they can certainly put flat bars on a more common road bike too. Perhaps you need a little clarification. No, you do. "No, you do!" "Nah-ah!" "Ya-hah!" "I'm telling! Mom!!" Drop bars offer only three positions. Tops, hoods, drops. Only two of You obviously haven't ridden drop bars very much. Here's an incomplete list of positions: - Tops, like holding a straight bar - Corners, palms in, fingers forward, heel of hand forward - Hoods: thumb hooked over top of hood, palms in - Hoods: Palm on top of hood - Curve or ergo-bend of drop, palms-in - Curve or ergo-bend of drop, thumbs hooked, palms down - Bottom, wheelbarrow-grip - Bottom, with fingers spread around curve/ergo-bend - Ends, in palms these offer the inner wrist-inward position. While not dismissing the benefit of these, dropbars aren't the ultimate in versatility as you suggest. Yes, they are. Is there a MORE versatile type of bar? Maybe some of the weird ones seen mostly in catalogs...but not any kind of straight bar with bar-ends. For utility bikes, this is moot since the ergonomics of the bike places the rider's weight on their butt, not their hands. While you incorrectly define aerodynamic efficiency as meaning comfort, it will be impossible for you to realise the need for hand comfort is exactly the same as with any rider, long or short distance. Wow. That's a bold statement, saying that the need for hand-comfort is exactly the same for ANY rider. Different riders, different priorities, different conditions totals up to different needs. cyclists in "Third World" countries. "Their" need for comfort is exactly the same as yours. I don't buy it. They have different priorities and needs. that they travel at slower speeds is irrelevant; aerodynamic efficiency *does not* equate to comfort, Aero efficiency is one component of comfort for recreational road-bike-riding cyclists. It is true that it is NOT a component of utility cyclists comfort. and the affordance of comfort is dictating the type of handlebar. Since when were handlebars the only part of a bike that have an effect on comfort? -- Rick "Glutton for crossfire" Onanian |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:53:15 +0000, Chalo wrote:
"David L. Johnson" wrote: That must be why so many 1000 mile/day motorcyclists use drop bars. Hey... they never use drop bars! Depends on which motorcycles you are looking at. The racing-style machines commonly called "crotch rockets" essentially do use drop bars -- lower than the seat at least, if not bent like bicycle drops. It's much easier to send yourself over the bars when you're already halfway there; braking power is largely wasted when rider weight is plopped forward like that. Rider weight is not necessarily forward, even on the drops. The quicker the stop, the more you push your body back. Road bars offer more positions for your hands, and allow you to get your body out of the wind while still having control over the brakes and gears. Drop bars sacrifice the one really satisfactory hand postion for a variety of lame ones, all to enable folks to put their bars too low and carry too much weight on their hands. For most riders it's a terrible bargain. I disagree. For one, I don't consider the one position offered by straight bars (even worse with risers or cruisers) to be natural. Your hand position when on the hoods is actually the most natural of all hand positions on a bike. Also, upright positions force riders to carry too much weight on their butt, which after 30 miles will seem like by far the worse bargain. -- David L. Johnson __o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front _`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of (_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The internet has proven this not to be the case. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
Is there any comparison online about the braking distance
different vehicles take to stop from a given speed? Would be nice to see how cars (and SUVs), upright bikes (road vs mountain) and bents (eg. tadpole trikes are claimed to be very efficient, with two front wheels and the weight way back) perform in relation to one another. Is this really an issue to us cyclists, we rarely do 100 km/h? -- Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html varis at no spam please iki fi |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
First road bike: braking?
wrote in message ... Is there any comparison online about the braking distance different vehicles take to stop from a given speed? Would be nice to see how cars (and SUVs), upright bikes (road vs mountain) and bents (eg. tadpole trikes are claimed to be very efficient, with two front wheels and the weight way back) perform in relation to one another. Bike brake distance calculator http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/brakes2.html Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help picking new road bike | Mark Sinderson | General | 10 | August 24th 03 09:37 PM |
Considering a Road bike for commuting... good idea? | Mike Beauchamp | General | 116 | August 18th 03 11:44 PM |
One for the Economists: inflation, road bike pricing, etc | S. Anderson | General | 18 | August 14th 03 04:53 PM |
Looking for a cheap road bike | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 8 | August 7th 03 12:12 AM |
ATB pedal on Road Bike | Dave Stallard | General | 4 | July 12th 03 01:23 AM |