CTC's economy with the veritas

Adam Lea wrote:

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

Is it me or does there seems to be a unwritten urc rule that, as with
Sustrans, motorists and Matt B you have to hate the CTC?

I like the CTC :-)

cheers,
clive

I don't have anything against them but it seems that whenever there is a
post on here mentioning the CTC it always seems to be anti. It seems odd to
me to hate organizations that are there to represent us..

It is odd. Maybe there's something wrong? It wouldn't be the first
time that people running a representative organisation got confused
about who they were supposed to be representing...

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

vernon wrote:
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

But, in THIS case, they were claiming credit that they did not deserve.
Even in terms of the (considerable) improvement since the published
draft, it is unclear whether they or the Cambridge Cycling Campaign
was the most influential organisation. And that is why I posted.

Where's Cambridge? ;-)

Centre of the universe, IME.

A

"squeaker" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 2 Jun, 22:44, Simon Brooke wrote:

Yes, absolutely. I have the benefit, after all, of having ridden all
these
sorts of bikes, and owning two full suspension mountain bikes. BMX bikes
do indeed lack gears, do have excessively wide tyres for efficient road
use, and are mostly of excessive weight for general riding. Full
suspension mountain bikes are inevitably heavier, and some are very much
heavier, than typical road bikes, and are typically equipped with tyres
which are too wide for efficient road use. They do normally have a
sufficiency of gears. There are, of course, additionally further reasons
why mountain bikes are not suitable for use on the road, but those the
CTC
gives are sufficient.

Hmm, an awful lot of 'efficiency' there! If that was the 'be all and
end' all we'd all be riding recumbents for their vastly superior
aerodynamic efficiency (and comfort)
.

I would be interested in trying out a recumbent for those reasons (speed,
comfort, luggage carrying capability). I have a feeling it would be the
optimum bike for my commute, although what the hill climbing capabilities
are like I'm not sure.

In article ,
"Adam Lea" writes:
|
| I would be interested in trying out a recumbent for those reasons (speed,
| comfort, luggage carrying capability). I have a feeling it would be the
| optimum bike for my commute, although what the hill climbing capabilities
| are like I'm not sure.

It is critical that the gearing has an adequate range, and a fairly
narrow gap between gears, as you cannot change riding style to cope
with unsuitable ratios. But, given that, it is only marginally
slower up hills - see Haldane "Respiration" for some measurements.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
says...

"squeaker" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 2 Jun, 22:44, Simon Brooke wrote:

Yes, absolutely. I have the benefit, after all, of having ridden all
these
sorts of bikes, and owning two full suspension mountain bikes. BMX bikes
do indeed lack gears, do have excessively wide tyres for efficient road
use, and are mostly of excessive weight for general riding. Full
suspension mountain bikes are inevitably heavier, and some are very much
heavier, than typical road bikes, and are typically equipped with tyres
which are too wide for efficient road use. They do normally have a
sufficiency of gears. There are, of course, additionally further reasons
why mountain bikes are not suitable for use on the road, but those the
CTC
gives are sufficient.

Hmm, an awful lot of 'efficiency' there! If that was the 'be all and
end' all we'd all be riding recumbents for their vastly superior
aerodynamic efficiency (and comfort)
.

I would be interested in trying out a recumbent for those reasons (speed,
comfort, luggage carrying capability). I have a feeling it would be the
optimum bike for my commute, although what the hill climbing capabilities
are like I'm not sure.

Going down hill on a recumbent makes going up hill worth all the
effort.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

in message , Nick Maclaren
') wrote:


In article ,
Simon Brooke writes:
|
| The Cyclists Touring Club is and always has been exclusively an
| organisation for non-racers. Your suggestion (in other posts passim)
| that drop handlebars and multi-speed gears are features of racing
| bikes betrays your ignorance of the history of cycling: both these
| features (and many others) were adopted into racing after having
| proved successful on touring bikes.

Gods, you're slimy.

From you, I take that as a compliment.

I shall ignore your first (fallacious) claim and merely point out that
I have NEVER said that about multi-speed gears.

What fallacious claim?

| | But it is simply true
| | that BMX bikes and full suspension mountain bikes are not very
| | suitable for road use.
|
| Whether or not that is true, would you like to justify the reasons
| that they gave as the ones why those are not suitable?
|
| Yes, absolutely. I have the benefit, after all, of having ridden all
| these sorts of bikes, and owning two full suspension mountain bikes.
| BMX bikes do indeed lack gears, do have excessively wide tyres for
| efficient road use, and are mostly of excessive weight for general
| riding. Full suspension mountain bikes are inevitably heavier, and
| some are very much heavier, than typical road bikes, and are typically
| equipped with tyres which are too wide for efficient road use. They do
| normally have a sufficiency of gears. There are, of course,
| additionally further reasons why mountain bikes are not suitable for
| use on the road, but those the CTC gives are sufficient.

You're are showing your dogmatism again.

Those arguments apply with EVEN MORE FORCE to almost all pre-1960 utility
and roadster bicycles - the former usually had no gears, the latter
usually had tyres as wide as either of the above, and both were usually
HEAVIER than either. They apply, today, to the traditional bicycles used
in Denmark, Holland and elsewhere.

I was brought up riding such a bike. They are common in Denmark, Holland
and other very flat places. The UK, on the whole, is not flat, and British
cycle tourists (the people the CTC was founded to represent) do not on the
whole choose to cycle in very flat places. For general road riding, which
by the nature of 'general' includes places which are not very flat[1],
they are so much less suitable than many other types that 'unsuitable' is
not a bad description. However, the CTC did not say this.

Furthermore, the 1940s roadster that I grew up riding had 28 x 1 1/2"
tyres, which, according to Sheldon Brown, was normal for 'English, Dutch,
Chinese, Indian Rod-brake roadsters'. So you are as usual simply just
plain wrong when you claim that they '...usually had tyres as wide as
either [BMX or mountain bikes]...' Just to remind you, mountain bike tyres
are typically between 1.8" and 2.2" wide, while BMX tyres are typically
2.0" to 2.3" wide.

So are you claiming that they are unsuitable for general road riding?

I am claiming that BMX bikes and full suspension mountain bikes (the types
specifically referred to by the CTC) are unsuitable for general road
riding, yes.


[1] The event I was marshalling today went over the Nick o' the Balloch,
he
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...0&y=593495&z=3
(200 metres in a single climb to 340 meters, severe)
The ride I did last weekend took me over Munwhul, he
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...0&y=575705&z=3
(180 metres in a single climb to 370 metres; very severe)
my ride three weeks ago involved the climb of the Mennoch Water to the
highest village in Britain, he
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...5&y=613470&z=3
(400 metres in one climb to 468 metres; not especially severe)
while the ride I shall be doing in a fortnight takes me over White Hill,
he
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...5&y=585700&z=3
(180 metres in a single climb to 270 metres; very severe)
as well as six higher (but less steep) climbs.

I'm not in the least suggesting that 'general cycling' /consists/ of such
climbs. But such climbs are most certainly /part/ of 'general cycling',
and a bicycle on which you could not comfortably tackle these climbs is
not suitable for 'general cycling'.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:
Actually wide smooth tyres at the same pressure are better than narrow
tyres. They average out any surface roughness of the road better (think
of it like the difference between smooth and rough tarmac) and there is
less deformation with the bigger contact patch.

Surely that can't be right. The upwards reaction between the tyre and
the road is the area times the pressure. I think the rubber of the
tire over the contact patch can be regarded as flat for the purposes
of this calculation and thus the contact pressure will be the same as
the air pressure inside the tire. Thus the contact patch area depends
only on the weight to be supported and the tire pressure, and not on
the nominal width of the tire.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Ian Jackson wrote:
In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:
Actually wide smooth tyres at the same pressure are better than narrow
tyres. They average out any surface roughness of the road better (think
of it like the difference between smooth and rough tarmac) and there is
less deformation with the bigger contact patch.

Surely that can't be right. The upwards reaction between the tyre and
the road is the area times the pressure. I think the rubber of the
tire over the contact patch can be regarded as flat for the purposes
of this calculation and thus the contact pressure will be the same as
the air pressure inside the tire. Thus the contact patch area depends
only on the weight to be supported and the tire pressure, and not on
the nominal width of the tire.

The area depends on weight×pressure, but the shape of the contact patch
will vary.

A

Ian Jackson wrote on 03/06/2007 22:56 +0100:
In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:
Actually wide smooth tyres at the same pressure are better than narrow
tyres. They average out any surface roughness of the road better (think
of it like the difference between smooth and rough tarmac) and there is
less deformation with the bigger contact patch.

Surely that can't be right. The upwards reaction between the tyre and
the road is the area times the pressure. I think the rubber of the
tire over the contact patch can be regarded as flat for the purposes
of this calculation and thus the contact pressure will be the same as
the air pressure inside the tire. Thus the contact patch area depends
only on the weight to be supported and the tire pressure, and not on
the nominal width of the tire.


No, geometry comes into it to as do the properties of the tread and the
side walls. But the tyre is integrating the road surface across the
width of the tyre and will result in less effective height variation as
it rolls than on a narrower tyre.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

in message , Ian Jackson
') wrote:

In article ,
Tony Raven wrote:
Actually wide smooth tyres at the same pressure are better than narrow
tyres. They average out any surface roughness of the road better (think
of it like the difference between smooth and rough tarmac) and there is
less deformation with the bigger contact patch.

Surely that can't be right. The upwards reaction between the tyre and
the road is the area times the pressure. I think the rubber of the
tire over the contact patch can be regarded as flat for the purposes
of this calculation and thus the contact pressure will be the same as
the air pressure inside the tire. Thus the contact patch area depends
only on the weight to be supported and the tire pressure, and not on
the nominal width of the tire.

Correct. Tony is right only if the tyre pressure of the wider tyre is
lower, in which case the rolling resistance, all other things being equal,
will be higher.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.