The discussion made me think about the various factors., especially Bill L's
undergearing comments
In my case, I went from a touring style frame with 7 speeds wide range gearing
(13-34) to a thin wall frame with 9 speeds wide range gearing (12-36). While
the 2 extra gears dont seem like
Actually, "not really" is not true. Others have raised old issues in new
ways that clarified them to some extent; for example, enumerating all the
factors that might play a part in such a feeling, and the elaborations on
the phenomenon rightly or wrongly called "planing"
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at
Not really, but it's fun rehashing old stories.
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 8:07 AM Bill Lindsay wrote:
> In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?
>
> Bill Lindsay
> El Cerrito, CA
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW
In this year's revisiting of this topic, have you picked up anything new?
Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 3:37:33 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
> rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 2:40 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch <
rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02
> (can't find the cent key)
>
> Is Cyclist A's bike fast?
> It's as fast they like it to be. They report 'happy'
Responding to Bill L's 2nd thought experiment, here's my quick $0.02 (can't
find the cent key)
Is Cyclist A's bike fast? It's as fast they like it to be. They report
'happy' not necessarily fast
Is the magical encouragement claimed by Cyclist B all in their head?No, with
the initial gearing,
I only got one taker on my last thought experiment. Here's another one:
Cyclist A has a 17-pound fixie. They take a guess at a gear for the fixie,
install a 49x18 and ride it around. They decide "This seems a little under
geared." and they switch the 18 tooth cog for a 17. They ride that
A 1010 steel frame would typically be a thicker tube gauge than a 531 frame,
since it has a lower tensile strength. Since the majority of frames of this
period used 1" diameter TT and 1-1/8" diameter DT, the thicker tube gauge
results in a stiffer frame of the same frame size. It would be
'73 catalog, Grand Touring was straight-gauge 1020
[image: Capture.JPG]
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 11:13:15 AM UTC-6 John Hawrylak, Woodstown
NJ wrote:
> P Moore asked: "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle
> stiff or stable?"
>
> Frame size: small frames are stiffer
P Moore asked: "what besides tubing stiffness might make a main triangle
stiff or stable?"
Frame size: small frames are stiffer than large frames.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 10:48:14 AM EST, Patrick Moore
wrote:
And yet that very light 531 normal gauge
The stiffness of the main triangle might be a big part of rear load
stability, but I'd guess that the stiffness of the rear rack is equally a
cause; I recall carrying a 2 feet tall (literally) stack of mostly hardback
library books in a pannier on the left side of a Fly on the very flexy
(normal
And yet that very light 531 normal gauge 1973 Motobecane frame handled
heavy rear loads (all comparisons on Tubus Fly racks) better than much
stouter frames. Why should that have been?
To turn that into another question: what besides tubing stiffness might
make a main triangle stiff or stable?
Hi Patrick, on the rear load thing - that stability is in the main
triangle.
People sought out old Raleigh Grand Prix to build touring bikes because of
the straight-gauge 10-20 tubes and rigid main triangle.
In comparison, my International frame has too much flex in the main
triangle to
Oh, one more tangentially related remark: The best bikers I've owned for
rear load carrying have had light and flexy frames; most notably the 1973
Motobecane Grand Record whose frame felt so light compared to that 2003 Riv
Curt custom and was noticeably more flexible. The flexy-flyer early -ed
I'm sure weight makes a difference; I'm not convinced it makes all the
difference since I've had at least a couple of bikes that consistently felt
"faster" despite weighing 10 or 12+ lbs more than the 1999. I expect as
others have said that it is a happy coincidence of weight, flex, tires,
fit,
I recall "reynoldslugs" (Max Beach) on the ibob list positing thin/slim
seat stays add to the effect of a bike feeling fast, or least adding to the
swing effect when pedaling. I tend to agree with him on that when comparing
my Lemond Zurich and mid-70s Bob Jackson to say a Roadeo. But, the
Bill L questioned the 12# weight difference.
I sort of missed the 12#, mainly since Bike D was stated to 'feel fast' and
I assumed B & C would use heavier tubing due to the 73 to 75# load
requirement and A must be thick gauge tubing given the 30# weight (Schwinns
in the 1980"s used 1010 18
John played along and gave an interesting answer. Interesting for two
reasons:
1. Patrick Moore's Bike C is objectively more flexible than Bike D.
2. John H doesn't think a 12 pound lighter bike will feel faster or easier
to pedal
BL in EC
--
You received this message because you are
Because the other 3 are stiffer and harder to pedal, unless operated at their
design conditions, e.g B & C need a 73 to 75 lbm additional load.
John HawrylakWoodstown NJ
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 12:42:09 PM EST, Bill Lindsay
wrote:
OK, thought experiment time!
You have to
The video depicts "simulated displacement of the bicycle frame when excited
at a natural frequency of 446.54Hz. The motion is magnified five times."
Requesting some help with my simple mind on this. 446.54Hz? And magnified
five times. I can't help be reminded of the wreck.bikes.tech Jobst days,
OK, thought experiment time!
You have to build four bikes. All four bikes must fit you identically. All
the contact points of all four bikes will be identical. All four bikes
will have geometry/handling that are similar enough to each other that
you'll concede they ride/handle the same.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxxhoKVVCvg
I don't know how to embed this, or whether good will embed it, but the
youtube link is the mode shape that produces planing from the rear
triangles.
On Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10:02:55 AM UTC-6 Keith P. wrote:
> Really interesting points Ted.
Really interesting points Ted.Thanks for writing them up!k.On Jan 9, 2024, at 6:12 AM, Bill Schairer wrote:Ted,I love your explanation! My niece is a college crew coach and she also cycles. I will have to ask her about "swing."Bill SSan DiegoOn Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted
Ted,
I love your explanation! My niece is a college crew coach and she also
cycles. I will have to ask her about "swing."
Bill S
San Diego
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 7:15:31 AM UTC-8 Ted Durant wrote:
Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in
All bikes have the same effective sta: the 1999 and the Matthews #2 clone
both have 73* stas, and the Matthews #1 has the saddle forward on the rails
to compensate for the 72* sta. I start setup with saddle height and setback
wrt the bb centerline -- pretty close to identical for all my bikes --
On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 10:15:31 AM UTC-5 I wrote:
The Heron Road bikes have .1mm thinner top tube walls than down tube, and
my prototype has extra heavy stays, so there you go.
A bit more on this, just for fun. I had Waterford build an ST-22 that is in
many ways a duplicate of the
Terrible word or not, it's easier to use the word than to describe the
natural frequency that occurs in the rear triangles, to take excess mash
energy and push the frame forward, making the bike feel lighter. It's a
true phenomenon of steel, designed into good-climbing bikes, and it's
always
Not to be overly contrarian, but ...
Planing is a terrible word for the phenomenon in question, which is when
the flex characteristics of the bike are such that the energy stored in
deformation (of the frame and all the attached parts) is efficiently
returned to power the rear wheel during the
Patrick
Maybe this was asked/answered, but is the STA or saddle setback the same on
Ford Blue as the others?? Are you in a different position??
John Hawrylak
Woodstown NJ
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 5:35:08 PM UTC-5 Patrick Moore wrote:
> This is hardly a new question for me or for
Actually, the frame is 78 cm c-c; those are 16" wheels.
No, it's 57 c-c, but I've had others tell me of similar bikes (1995 26"
wheel Riv Road custom), "Man, that's a big frame!" thanks to the 559 mm bsd
wheels (24" when shod with 13 mm tires, 24 3/4" with the 28 mm Elk Passes
shown.
I don't
Grand would understand what I'm saying, about finding form in yourself, and
finding the dynamics in your frame.
I can't quote the exact copy, but once I read Grant copy to the effect, try
*not* shifting as often, so you don't ride in cadence.
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 12:20:52 PM UTC-6
+1 on Bill L's thoughts on Ford Blue. I would suggest planning as the
frame is large (25"??) and if a normal wall tubing was used, the large
frame might plane without being too flexible. Do you know what wall
thickness was used??? Maybe it's better not to know, following Bill's
line of
And I use 3x6 half-step triple with form, core muscles, spin, mash and
planing.
My only x9 is a compact double with a road ring and an off-road ring.
On Sunday, January 7, 2024 at 8:41:28 AM UTC-6 sarahlik...@gmail.com wrote:
> If you paint your bike a fast color, your bike goes faster.
>
>
If you paint your bike a fast color, your bike goes faster.
On Thursday, December 28, 2023 at 2:35:08 PM UTC-8 Patrick Moore wrote:
> This is hardly a new question for me or for others, but it is a question
> that strikes me anew when I ride the 1999 Joe Starck and find, once again
> as always
In my opinion, you love your Ford Blue Rivendell Custom. I think it's a
very good thing to love one's bicycle. I think it is a very fortunate and
somewhat rare thing to be able to maintain that type of affection for a
machine over the 20-something years. I do not know of, nor would speculate
Just looked at Cyclemeter: 15.17 mph just lollygagging and with clock
running over multiple stops; and a little boy messing around with a scooter
on the bike path stopped to yell, "You're going *fast!"* Well, not very,
but my usual clock running/many stops time is more like 12 mph.
--
You
36 matches
Mail list logo
