#51
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote: Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , Frank Krygowski wrote: Much more than my footwear, my sweaty body limits my ability to jump on a bike without thinking. I actually do have a bike with flat pedals around, and frequently use it for short, lazy neighbourhood trips. Once I'm up to a 30-minute round trip on the bike, though, I prefer to wear "technical" synthetics to deal with sweat and such, and that means changing into bike clothes. Work is a half-hour away (12 km or so, but on a hilly route), and I consider a shower and change mandatory after that ride. I keep a pair of shoes at work, just like Mr. Rogers did. Yes, my work is also half an hour away. The tough climb is on the way home, and depending on my route choice, I'll have between one and three smaller hills on the way in. I get there a little sweaty - but no so much that it bothers me or anyone else. (Trust me, I've checked.) I've never needed to take a shower, although they're available about 1/4 mile away. My work has on-site shower facilities, so it's no hardship for me to take my morning shower after I get there rather than before I leave. I have a theory that if I took 45 minutes to do my commute, and put a third ring on the front of my commuter, I might be able to do the ride without serious sweatiness, most of the year. But there's about 400' of gain on my commute (in both directions; I have to ride over a ridge and through a river watershed, all in between endpoints that are each about 50' above sea level) which is laughing at that idea. Regardless, slowing my commute that much would mean that it took just as much time as going fast and taking a shower, but with less exercise benefit. I appreciate making cycling a "normal" part of life. For me, that includes normal clothes, normal shoes, and at least one bike that's always ready to ride with no special preparation, etc. I can and have ridden some of my special bikes by putting on the special shoes (which are about as special and cost me less than my brown dress shoes) and tucking my pants into my sock. As I said, different strokes. No no no! Say it "de gustibus non est disputandum." It sounds much better that way. -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com Verus de parvis; verus de magnis. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Claire Petersky" wrote: "Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message ... I keep a pair of shoes at work, just like Mr. Rogers did. Pair? Singular pair? Technically, I have two pair of shoes at work right now, but one pair is for intramural indoor soccer on Thursdays. Where I work, eyebrow-raising casual footwear probably starts at flip-flops, at least for anyone below VP-level management. If you open up one of my file drawers at work, you'll find one pair black, one pair navy, one pair bone, and one pair tan, plus a pair of tennis shoes I keep in the back in case we have an earthquake. I wear beat-up runners. The nice thing about really only wearing your work shoes in the office (maybe a for a block or two on the street to get lunch, if you didn't put it in your bike bag) is that they hardly show any wear. I bought this last set of pumps in the above colors (I keep the red ones at home) at a Nordstrom's half-yearly sale now years ago, and they are still doing quite well. I tend to buy all my clothes in pretty standard, classic colors/styles so I can ignore the fashions when they go in and out. Probably saves quite a bit of money. You're right about the low wear. I notice the same thing with my shoes. -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com Verus de parvis; verus de magnis. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Claire Petersky wrote:
I tend to buy all my clothes in pretty standard, classic colors/styles so I can ignore the fashions when they go in and out. Probably saves quite a bit of money. That sounds almost guy-ish! If you open up one of my file drawers at work, you'll find one pair black, one pair navy, one pair bone, and one pair tan... But of course, that doesn't. ;-) -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:28:41 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote: In article , Michael J. Klein wrote: On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:34:05 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n" wrote: Roger Zoul wrote: I thought I could just clip out one feet and lean on that foot. That was after 4 miles. Then, after about 20 miles, the same damn thing happened again and I had been careful to fully clip out both feet. {snip} When I unclip, I unclip both feet. Period. Not to be critical, Roger, but you really shouldn't have to do that. Unclipping one foot and putting it down when stopped is what 99.9% of riders do. Are you falling because your free foot SLIPS on the pavement (or trail)? Or are you simply losing balance? (Saddle way too high, maybe?) Sounds like something's going on that you could work on to correct. Bill "unclipping both feet sounds MORE unstable (at least to me)" S. What I would like to ask at this juncture is (since I don't understand, seriously) what would one be trying to prevent by using such systems? The short answer is that clipless pedals give you a solid, safe, and convenient link to the pedals. -solid: the pedals are firmly held to your feet. Under normal circumstances, which especially includes sprinting or any type of serious effort, your feet are locked to the pedals, and you will not lose contact with them. Having a foot slip off a pedal during a sprint (or even during normal riding) is not only inefficient, it's very likely to lead to a crash. This solid connection is so important that before clipless pedals, pro cyclists and serious tourists universally used clips and straps. My feet seem to stay on the pedals fine. Of course, I don't sprint or do any competetive stuff, or tricks, stunts, etc., either. I just ride to the train station or to another neighborhood for dinner. -safe: so clipless pedals offer the solid, efficient connection of clips and straps. But unlike clips and straps, release is easy. With a cleated, strapped, toe-clip solution, a rider had to unstrap their foot at every rest stop, and in the event of a crash, it was unlikely that you could free your feet from the bike, leading to some possibly unpleasant injuries, mostly revolving around twisted ankles and knees. Clipless, despite offering the solidity and virtually all of the security of clips and straps, are much easier to get into and out of, and virtually all systems have a natural tendency to release in a crash. I have heard enough people talking about not being able to "unclip" fast enough at a stop, or not yet having developed the instinctive motion. Where I live that would be extremely dangerous. -convenient: it's easy to enter and exit clipless shoes. There's no dance as you come to the stoplight to make sure you can remove at least one foot from your pedals. There's no similar dance when you re-start and need to tighten up your strap again. With most pedal designs, you just step on the pedal with your shoe, and listen for the click. Exiting is usually a matter of twisting your ankle slightly outward or inward. You do have to have special shoes though. I'm confused by having to "clip" and "unclip" on a "clipless" system, additionally. I've never fully understood pedal retention systems. It's a tragedy of terminology. Since the old system of retaining pedals had toe-clips, and the new one did not, it was clearly a "clipless" system. You "clip in" because clicking into the retention mechanism is analgous to putting your toe into the toe clip, and thus the old phrase lives on. Ahhh, convention at work again lol. No wonder I was confused! Clipless rocks. I started out using un-cleated toe clips and loose straps when I began commuting. This was an adequate system, but when combined with a fairly soft-soled shoe, it wasn't ideal. A pair of stiff-soled cycling shoes helped a lot, and I added some clipless pedals at the same time. Compared to the loose straps of before, the clipless pedals offered securer foot retention (you can slip your foot out backwards by accident in loose straps) greater efficiency (cleats that locked your foot in place were key to the retention and efficiency of clip-and-strap systems; I wasn't going to risk that), and ease of entry and exit (loose-strapped toe clips probably aren't notably harder to stick your foot into than a clipless pedal is to clip your foot to, but they are less efficient). Since clipless combined power and efficiency that matched strapped clips with the ease of entry and exit of loose toe clips, plus a dose of safety neither system had, it immediately took over most of the the clips and straps market. Not going back, Ryan, thanks again for your usual complete answer to my question. What is comes down to is the fact that my hiking shoes stay on the pedals well enough that I never feel insecure about it. Having my feet held to the pedals just seems wrong to me. Michael J. Klein Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings --------------------------------------------- |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:10:23 -0800, Ryan Cousineau
wrote: In article . net, "Claire Petersky" wrote: "Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message ... I keep a pair of shoes at work, just like Mr. Rogers did. Pair? Singular pair? Technically, I have two pair of shoes at work right now, but one pair is for intramural indoor soccer on Thursdays. Where I work, eyebrow-raising casual footwear probably starts at flip-flops, at least for anyone below VP-level management. I have a single pair of shoes - hikers. Everything else I wear is a sandal. I have a pair for inside the house, and several for outside wear, depending up the distance from home. This is Asia, after all. snip Michael J. Klein Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings --------------------------------------------- |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Michael J. Klein wrote: On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 00:28:41 -0800, Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , Michael J. Klein wrote: On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 17:34:05 GMT, "B i l l S o r n s o n" wrote: Roger Zoul wrote: I thought I could just clip out one feet and lean on that foot. That was after 4 miles. Then, after about 20 miles, the same damn thing happened again and I had been careful to fully clip out both feet. {snip} When I unclip, I unclip both feet. Period. Not to be critical, Roger, but you really shouldn't have to do that. Unclipping one foot and putting it down when stopped is what 99.9% of riders do. Are you falling because your free foot SLIPS on the pavement (or trail)? Or are you simply losing balance? (Saddle way too high, maybe?) Sounds like something's going on that you could work on to correct. Bill "unclipping both feet sounds MORE unstable (at least to me)" S. What I would like to ask at this juncture is (since I don't understand, seriously) what would one be trying to prevent by using such systems? The short answer is that clipless pedals give you a solid, safe, and convenient link to the pedals. -solid: the pedals are firmly held to your feet. My feet seem to stay on the pedals fine. Of course, I don't sprint or do any competetive stuff, or tricks, stunts, etc., either. I just ride to the train station or to another neighborhood for dinner. Well, there is that. I ride 80 km every Saturday morning, I race, and I commute (a 30 minute ride that I push quite hard on). I'm routinely pushing the pace hard enough that pedal slipping is an issue. I have heard enough people talking about not being able to "unclip" fast enough at a stop, or not yet having developed the instinctive motion. Where I live that would be extremely dangerous. It's a learning process. When I first used clipless, I had one fall-down in the backyard on the grass, And I think one oops on the road (no damage either time). Since then, it's been smooth. The ankle-twist to clip out (common to most clipless systems) is so instinctive I've caught myself doing it while riding a flat-pedaled bike. The only reason I ever even have a moment with clipless now is because I'm doing something dumb like practicing track stands. Clipless rocks. Since clipless combined power and efficiency that matched strapped clips with the ease of entry and exit of loose toe clips, plus a dose of safety neither system had, it immediately took over most of the the clips and straps market. Not going back, Ryan, thanks again for your usual complete answer to my question. What is comes down to is the fact that my hiking shoes stay on the pedals well enough that I never feel insecure about it. Having my feet held to the pedals just seems wrong to me. My pleasure. For leisurely riding, clipless is overkill, just as a racing bike would be. There are two notable bike types where some sort of pedal attachment is nearly mandatory: fixed gear (because the consequences of losing the pedal connection are painful, and because you're likely to spin at very high cadences), and recumbents (because the high pedal locations doesn't let your feet naturally drop to the pedals). -RjC. -- Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com Verus de parvis; verus de magnis. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fun fun fun | Jon Senior | UK | 140 | May 4th 04 05:14 PM |
Daylight Bright Bicycle Tail Light | Laurence Dodd | Australia | 0 | September 17th 03 04:36 AM |