Why the pros are slowing down.

On Aug 3, 11:58*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Cripe, look what happened to me when I said that I *successfully and
happily ride with toe clips and flat shoes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Poor, Poor, Frank.
Nobody said a word.
Fact of the matter is that even outside your "I know better than
everyone else" rant, a few folks with some experience took issue with
your specific nonsensical assertion that your clips are easier to get
into than double sided SPD's. And you, Mr. "Show me the data," have
been caught emptyhanded with neither experience NOR data. But that
hasn't prevented your ongoing denial, rant and full bore smarminess.

Frank, a little hint from the real world - If you would like to get
any respect for your "different" opinions you might need to offer some
to others for theirs. I don't actually think you are capable of doing
that, you always seem to feel compelled to add a last little
(ignorant, I might add) twist of the knife.

DR

On 08/03/2012 02:16 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 3, 11:58 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Cripe, look what happened to me when I said that I successfully and
happily ride with toe clips and flat shoes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Poor, Poor, Frank.
Nobody said a word.
Fact of the matter is that even outside your "I know better than
everyone else" rant, a few folks with some experience took issue with
your specific nonsensical assertion that your clips are easier to get
into than double sided SPD's. And you, Mr. "Show me the data," have
been caught emptyhanded with neither experience NOR data. But that
hasn't prevented your ongoing denial, rant and full bore smarminess.

Frank, a little hint from the real world - If you would like to get
any respect for your "different" opinions you might need to offer some
to others for theirs. I don't actually think you are capable of doing
that, you always seem to feel compelled to add a last little
(ignorant, I might add) twist of the knife.


That's how it starts. Phase two is that he gets into an argument that
he can't win so he creates a straw man that is not quite completely
unlike the initial argument and ridiculous enough that he can't possibly
lose arguing against it. Phase three is that he pretty much loses
arguing against even that, ****ing off people along the way with the
smarmy insults.

Next phase is complaining how he is misunderstood and that everyone is
criticizing him unfairly. And this goes on so long that no one
remembers what the initial argument was. And since he's hijacked the
thread anyway, even the original topic is lost. (Why ARE the pros
slowing down anyway?) And this makes it very difficult to get any
information going here. And this is the real problem.

Just look at the history of this newsgroup.

On Aug 3, 12:26*pm, Duane wrote:
On 08/03/2012 02:16 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:









On Aug 3, 11:58 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Cripe, look what happened to me when I said that I *successfully and
happily ride with toe clips and flat shoes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Poor, Poor, Frank.
Nobody said a word.
Fact of the matter is that even outside your "I know better than
everyone else" rant, *a few folks with some experience took issue with
your specific nonsensical assertion that your clips are easier to get
into than double sided SPD's. And you, Mr. "Show me the data," have
been caught emptyhanded with neither experience NOR data. But that
hasn't prevented your ongoing denial, rant and full bore smarminess.

Frank, a little hint from the real world - If you would like to get
any respect for your "different" opinions you might need to offer some
to others for theirs. I don't actually think you are capable of doing
that, you always seem to feel compelled to add a last little
(ignorant, I might add) twist of the knife.

That's how it starts. *Phase two is that he gets into an argument that
he can't win so he creates a straw man that is not quite completely
unlike the initial argument and ridiculous enough that he can't possibly
lose arguing against it. *Phase three is that he pretty much loses
arguing against even that, ****ing off people along the way with the
smarmy insults.

Next phase is complaining how he is misunderstood and that everyone is
criticizing him unfairly. *And this goes on so long that no one
remembers what the initial argument was. *And since he's hijacked the
thread anyway, even the original topic is lost. *(Why ARE the pros
slowing down anyway?) *And this makes it very difficult to get any
information going here. And this is the real problem.

Just look at the history of this newsgroup.

FRANK KRYGOWSKI gets my vote for all time LVP.
DR

On 8/3/2012 12:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5,
wrote:



And yet it happens. The first national (LAW) bike
convention I went to was in 1978. There was a guy there
with a contemporary super-light bike, bragging about how
few grams were in each component - Huret Jubilee
derailleur, silk tubulars, etc. etc. Thing was, the guy
weighed well over 250 pounds, and very little of it was
muscle. I was surprised the bike was able to support his
weight.



I've mentioned before the acquaintance who decided to get
into cycling because his new, young wife loved it. This
completely unathletic guy in his upper 60s bought "the
best" that the bike shop had, which was expensive
indeed. Of course, it was all carbon, super-close
clearance, gee-whiz wheels, racing gears, and a handlebar
so low he could never be close to comfortable on that
bike. Sure, it was a nice bike - but totally unsuited to
anything the guy would ever attempt to do. AFAIK, he's
never put even 25 miles on that machine. (end quote)

Frank, you are an old sourpuss.

Do you have any happy stories about people who bought
bikes that suited their purposes, and rode off into the
future, content?

I mean, who cares about some fat guy in 1978, and maybe
that second old out-of-shape guy rides his young wife more
than his new bike, and he just doesn't have the time and
energy to waste with a bicycle when he's got better and
more important business to tend to. Who cares? No, really!
Maybe they're happy, did you ever pause to consider that
possibility? In spite of that awful bike you don't like
hanging up somewhere in their abode?

For every one of your old sour stories I could post
hundreds of examples from commuters, transportation
riders, hipsters, "tourists", day-riders, weekend
warriors-- including lots of women, and I know you know
about the good work the ACA does with newbies and
"civilian" bikers and, especially, getting the girls and
ladies out and enjoying their bicycles. There are all
kinds of riders I see around here including national-class
racers and indeed Tour de France winners (at least two
have graced our streets here). Wow, there they are, out
riding, and by no means are they all riding "racer bikes".
Maybe many of these folks know more than you think and/or
are willing to admit? Possible?

Whe someone says buying a super-bike for slow cruising would
be silly, you think I should not mention people who buy
super bikes for slow cruising?

Of _course_ I can list hundreds of stories about happy
people on bikes that they like. That's what bicycling
usually is. But if I say "Did another club ride. Everybody
had a great time," people would still find ways to complain
(about a boring post, if nothing else). And if I dared say
"Nobody crashed and got head injured. Several people showed
up using toe clips..." there are people here who would
rapidly sling abuse.

Cripe, look what happened to me when I said that I
successfully and happily ride with toe clips and flat shoes.


Well, we humans are an odd lot, including one of everything.

David Robb won the 1990 Madison Triathlon against men half
his age, many of whom showed up with the latest ti/carbon
gear of the period. Mr Robb rode his single speed
Columbia[1] which he had won in a coloring contest in 1960.
He's amazingly fit, an accomplished runner and swimmer, but
40lbs of race machine didn't prevent his victory.

[1] flat rubber 1/2" pedals


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, August 3, 2012 3:43:50 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:



The fact that some pros race 34-32s up the Angrilu or some other



mountain peak is a different matter. They are using racing bikes to



race. You would have to kludge a long reach, low stack height racing



bike in so many ways to make it comfortable for some guy who really



needs a 34-32 for daily riding. Why would you do that? It's like



getting a Ferrari for the family car and putting on a trailer hitch to



haul yard debris.







And yet it happens. The first national (LAW) bike convention I went to was in 1978. There was a guy there with a contemporary super-light bike, bragging about how few grams were in each component - Huret Jubilee derailleur, silk tubulars, etc. etc. Thing was, the guy weighed well over 250 pounds, and very little of it was muscle. I was surprised the bike was able to support his weight.







I've mentioned before the acquaintance who decided to get into cycling because his new, young wife loved it. This completely unathletic guy in his upper 60s bought "the best" that the bike shop had, which was expensive indeed. Of course, it was all carbon, super-close clearance, gee-whiz wheels, racing gears, and a handlebar so low he could never be close to comfortable on that bike. Sure, it was a nice bike - but totally unsuited to anything the guy would ever attempt to do. AFAIK, he's never put even 25 miles on that machine. (end quote)



Frank, you are an old sourpuss.



Do you have any happy stories about people who bought bikes that suited their purposes, and rode off into the future, content?



I mean, who cares about some fat guy in 1978, and maybe that second old out-of-shape guy rides his young wife more than his new bike, and he just doesn't have the time and energy to waste with a bicycle when he's got better and more important business to tend to. Who cares? No, really! Maybe they're happy, did you ever pause to consider that possibility? In spite of that awful bike you don't like hanging up somewhere in their abode?



For every one of your old sour stories I could post hundreds of examples from commuters, transportation riders, hipsters, "tourists", day-riders, weekend warriors-- including lots of women, and I know you know about the good work the ACA does with newbies and "civilian" bikers and, especially, getting the girls and ladies out and enjoying their bicycles. There are all kinds of riders I see around here including national-class racers and indeed Tour de France winners (at least two have graced our streets here). Wow, there they are, out riding, and by no means are they all riding "racer bikes".. Maybe many of these folks know more than you think and/or are willing to admit? Possible?

--D-y

On Aug 3, 12:58*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:05:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:

And yet it happens. *The first national (LAW) bike convention I went to was in 1978. *There was a guy there with a contemporary super-light bike, bragging about how few grams were in each component - Huret Jubilee derailleur, silk tubulars, etc. etc. *Thing was, the guy weighed well over 250 pounds, and very little of it was muscle. I was surprised the bike was able to support his weight.

I've mentioned before the acquaintance who decided to get into cycling because his new, young wife loved it. *This completely unathletic guy in his upper 60s bought "the best" that the bike shop had, which was expensive indeed. *Of course, it was all carbon, super-close clearance, gee-whiz wheels, racing gears, and a handlebar so low he could never be close to comfortable on that bike. *Sure, it was a nice bike - but totally unsuited to anything the guy would ever attempt to do. *AFAIK, he's never put even 25 miles on that machine. (end quote)

Frank, you are an old sourpuss.

Do you have any happy stories about people who bought bikes that suited their purposes, and rode off into the future, content?

I mean, who cares about some fat guy in 1978, and maybe that second old out-of-shape guy rides his young wife more than his new bike, and he just doesn't have the time and energy to waste with a bicycle when he's got better and more important business to tend to. Who cares? No, really! Maybe they're happy, did you ever pause to consider that possibility? In spite of that awful bike you don't like hanging up somewhere in their abode?

For every one of your old sour stories I could post hundreds of examples from commuters, transportation riders, hipsters, "tourists", day-riders, weekend warriors-- including lots of women, and I know you know about the good work the ACA does with newbies and "civilian" bikers and, especially, getting the girls and ladies out and enjoying their bicycles. There are all kinds of riders I see around here including national-class racers and indeed Tour de France winners (at least two have graced our streets here). Wow, there they are, out riding, and by no means are they all riding "racer bikes". Maybe many of these folks know more than you think and/or are willing to admit? Possible?

Whe someone says buying a super-bike for slow cruising would be silly,
you think I should not mention people who buy super bikes for slow cruising?

Of _course_ I can list hundreds of stories about happy people on bikes
that they like. *That's what bicycling usually is. *But if I say "Did
another club ride. *Everybody had a great time," people would still find
ways to complain (about a boring post, if nothing else). *And if I dared
say "Nobody crashed and got head injured. *Several people showed up
using toe clips..." there are people here who would rapidly sling abuse.

Cripe, look what happened to me when I said that I *successfully and
happily ride with toe clips and flat shoes.

I didn't see anything "happen to you", Frank.
I talked about known problems from using toe straps. That was kind of
a "dirty little secret" back in the day. Clipless came along and even
with the early teething problems (difficult release from early Looks,
for one) the comfort comparison between clips/straps and clipless
pedals is entirely one-sided, totally in favor of clipless in my
experience and I have good long experience to refer to. And that
advantage, IME, holds (ha!) even when straps are left "casual" loose.

Clips and straps, with no shoe cleats, don't provide much retention in
my experience, even if the strap is cinched down tight. And then
you're abusing your feet.

I had one "failure to release" when a shoe part caught inside a strap
that was adjusted "loose" but still a little too tight, as it turned
out. I think there was a crash...

And there we are again, with the safety issue. Feet held securely
(given quick & sure release when intended) on pedals means a safer
ride-- if "safer" is limited to "no barked shins", that's enough for
me but it does go beyond that.

I noted a potential problem with your approach to riding, with
reference to my own riding experience. Don't try to make me into some
kind of fearful, cowardly rider again, Frank. OK?

Now, very carefully: I didn't just say that any fool who doesn't use
clipless pedals is doomed to suffer horrible, life-threatening
crashes, nor did I even begin to say that anyone who uses flat-soled
shoes (cleatless) with clips/straps is any kind of despicable fool,
etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's too bad that Shimano stopped making those old-line SPD sandals
that some liked so well. At least here in TX (limited cold weather),
those were a good "out", by testimony of those who favored them--
including one gentleman I knew slightly and rode with (an able pack
rider, good wheel in a group), who used those sandals on his cross-
country bike trip. These were well known in my Houston cohort of some
10- 15 years ago; a couple of other riders used them or other very
walkable SPD shoes.
Not the same as a "real", SPD-less shoe or sandal, but IMHO an
excellent alternative to clips and straps and "nothing".

If you get along with flat-soled shoes and clips/straps, fine. Those
are absolutely last choice for me and in fact, if I needed to ride in
"real shoes", I'd find some kind of pedal--maybe one of the old rubber
"block" style g -- that didn't have clips and straps at all.

To each their own. No problem here. Discussion? You bet.
--D-y

On 04/08/12 04:04, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
On 03/08/12 09:45, AMuzi wrote:

PouPou in Mercier Purple was as tough a man as any:

http://www.ridenice.se/Poulidor_file...%20resized.jpg


Frank is probably pointing and laughing right now!

Once again, James, you've got things precisely backwards. I'm the guy
who repeatedly has written "I don't care what you wear, including purple
riding shorts."

I don't care what you wear, including penny loafers and leotards.

Wear what you want, even special pants and a special neck tie, if that
pleases you.

--
JS

On 8/2/2012 12:52 PM, wrote:

4" Vice Grips.

Vise Grips?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 8/2/2012 6:31 PM, wrote:
The Vice Grips are a good idea, regardless g.

Vise Grips?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On Aug 18, 1:21 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 8/2/2012 6:31 PM, wrote:

The Vice Grips are a good idea, regardless g.

Vise Grips?


I knew what he was saying. (good idea, too)