Maybe there's a chance that some are riding clean

In article ,
"Paul G." wrote:

I've seen the picture, and there's no way that runt is 6'4",
unless.... he's wearing high heels! That "psst" thing must him
wetting himself...

So what you're saying is that he psst his pantloons.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Aug 26, 9:11*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*"Paul G." wrote:

I've seen the picture, and there's no way that runt is 6'4",
unless.... he's wearing high heels! * That "psst" thing must him
wetting himself...

* *So what you're saying is that he psst his pantloons.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Has there ever been an actual Kunich sighting? Maybe some footage of
him lumbering down the river bank, swinging his arms and looking
briefly at the camera man with the "recordy thing" or some other
technical device????

In article
,
" wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:49Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
On Aug 25, 2:42Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

" wrote:
OK. Â*I would be interested to hear what the article said.
I don't want to seem like I am picking an argument
with you (I understand you're reporting what someone
else wrote), but from the point of view of engineering
or frame design or thinking about frame stiffness,
that's crazy talk.

Then I am crazy. Frame designers go to great lengths
designing the joints at the bottom bracket, particularly
the joint with the chain stays. If this joint is neglected
the bottom bracket rolls from pedaling forces, and the
strain energy is dissipated. A bit of every pedal stroke is lost.

http://www.feltracing.com/09-catalog/road/f-series/09-f1-sl-frame.aspx

How much? Â*Can you compute how much?
Why is the energy dissipated rather than returned
on the next pedaling cycle (steel and other rigid
materials make a better spring than a damper) ?
How warm does the bottom bracket area of a
bicycle get from this hypothetical repeated
flexing? Â*After all, if power is lost, it has to be
dissipated somewhere.

It is dissipated in the riders leg when it is
driven outward at the bottom of the pedal stroke
when the frame snaps back.


In order for the rider's leg to provide damping it
has to resist the spring-back of the frame. Does
the leg have good leverage to do that at bottom
dead center? I don't feel a restoring torque on my
leg at BDC that is anywhere comparable to the
force I exert when pushing down at 3 o'clock
(that force is what twists the frame/BB/chainstays etc).

This discussion is useless without numbers.
In order for you to make this a plausible mechanism
rather than a just-so story, you need to make some
estimations of the energy stored in frame flex and
the damping rate. Otherwise this is just another
Gorilla exercise in slowing down in velodrome turns.

My story is no more than plausible, based on the
geometry of the frame excursions. Frames do roll
at the bottom bracket. Where that energy goes is
not established. There is more than one place it
can go, and so it goes to different places. Polished,
installed in a platinum setting, and nestled in
a velvet presentation box that is Boltzmann's
definition of entropy. If you think all the frame
flex from a pedal stroke gets to the rear cogwheel
you will have to show it.



Because I did say that I thought the frame was stiff
enough to make energy dissipation negligible,
I will attempt to back that up. Consider the link I
posted earlier
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/r...frametest.html

Damon fixed a frame at the BB, held horizontally,
and hung a 47.5 lb load from the rear dropouts to
measure deflection. This is considerably larger
than the side load you induce by normal pedaling,
but makes the deflection measurable. The frames'
rear triangles deflected by a range of 0.10" - 0.24".
This is quite a bit larger than real-life rear deflections
since in real life most of the pedaling force is forward
rather than sideways
(I think real-life deflections that large would screw
up your shifting, put derailleurs into the spokes,
and so on). But let's calculate how much energy
is stored in the frame for an average flex of 0.17".

The side force on the frame is 21.6 kgf or F=212 N.
The deflection is x=4.3mm. F=-kx, E= 0.5 kx^2.
The frame's spring constant is k=49300 N/m
(frames are stiff), and the stored energy in the
deflected rear triangle is ... E = 0.46 Joules.

Agree that it is small. I got into this partly
because you claim that the strain energy finds
its way to the rear cogwheel.



That's minuscule. One can argue about the
energy stored in the rest of the frame, but this
case is exaggerated over real life deflections, plus
in real life, you'd only lose a small fraction of that
energy to damping on each pedal cycle. So this
mythical energy lost to frame flex is probably much
less than one watt.

If any magazine tech editors go on about this frame
difference I am going to have to let the Gorilla have
his way with them.
I agree with Anton that this is a meaningless effect.
In terms of speed of racing I might expect road
surfaces or even discomfort due to old style shoes
and tight toe straps to make a bigger effect. Don't
ask me to quantify the power loss due to hot-foot
sore spots though.

--
Michael Press

On Aug 26, 7:11*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ,
*"Paul G." wrote:

I've seen the picture, and there's no way that runt is 6'4",
unless.... he's wearing high heels! * That "psst" thing must him
wetting himself...

* *So what you're saying is that he psst his pantloons.

OK, from now on when he does that I'm responding "Aw, Jesus, he psst
himself again!"
-Paul

Anton Berlin wrote:
I get the feeling Kunich has a large killfile and he only sees our
posts when he's seeing the quoted message.

Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:
I had him filtered out but his posts started showing up in my
newsreasder a few days ago, and I felt as if millions of voices
suddenly cried out in terror.

Now you know what Bush felt like when Cheney spoke to him
inside his head and gave him divine commands.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Ape, WHY DO YOU HATE HARRISON BERGERON? Did he beat you in a race?

Fred Fredburger wrote:
(a cow don't make ham...)

At least not without copious genetic engineering.