|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Bernhard AgtheBernhard Agthe
Date: Jun 8, 2010 12:37
> Problem is.... I very near sighted and its best for me
> to keep lens dimensions as small as possible otherwise
> I get very thick heavy glasses plus vision distortions
> in peripheral vision
>
> So.... was thinking some kind of "John Lennon" style
> glasses with darkening material around rest of filed of
> vision
There are cyclist sunglasses which feature a smaller lens behind a
bigger (wrap-around) sunglass screen, often with exchangable sunglass
screens. So you'd use the clear screen in the morning, switch to the
brown screen during the day and use the yellow screen in the evening
(whatever). They cover a large area of face, but they allow your
peripheral vision to function.
In consent with some other posters: don't fully obscure your peripheral
vision! Often it helps you notice something without actually seeing it!
|
| Show full article (1.81Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Michael PressMichael Press
Date: Jun 8, 2010 10:02
> On Jun 7, 4:43 am, "Mark J." comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> That's a beautiful wheel you built, Mark. But it takes only a glance
> to grasp why people like Jobst say the normal cross three pattern is
> stronger, stiffer, in short superior in every engineering aspect.
> Still, there are some who, to ride a thing of beauty, would sacrifice
> a little longevity. More power to your arm.
The absolute number of crossings is not relevant to
engineering, strength, or durability. The number of
crossings is a function of rim radius, number of
spokes, flange radius, and the goal of making the spoke
as close to tangential to the flange as is practicable.
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Michael PressMichael Press
Date: Jun 8, 2010 09:57
>
>
> Somebody's getting tetchy near his bedtime! -- AJ
Did you _ever_ set aside an impulse to make a disparaging remark?
--
Michael Press
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Michael PressMichael Press
Date: Jun 8, 2010 09:38
> On Jun 6, 5:39 pm, Ivar gmail.com> wrote:>> On a club ride today a teammate broke a spoke in his rear wheel, 100
>> kilometers from home. With only 18 spokes in the wheel the ride ended
...
|
| Show full article (1.77Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Michael PressMichael Press
Date: Jun 8, 2010 09:37
> On a club ride today a teammate broke a spoke in his rear wheel, 100
> kilometers from home. With only 18 spokes in the wheel the ride ended
> for him right there, and he had to call his wife to come...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Mike JacoubowskyMike Jacoubowsky
Date: Jun 8, 2010 08:34
>>> Dear Dan,
>>>
>>> As I said, a rider can easily convince himself that he's Sisyphus with
>>> enough froth on the keyboard, but the same effort still puts him up
>>> the same hill within less than 1%% of the same time when he adds a
>>> single pound to a ~170-lb package.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>
>>This only works if you look at a human as a constant speed motor. I
>>am not disagreeing that a pound may have only a minor effect, but the
>>constant speed motor model just does not work in real life. You have
>>to look at the effect of reduced weight on maximal efforts. Does a
>>pound less on the bike produce a faster surge? Does it allow a rider
>>to surge longer or harder without red-lining and getting blown-off the
>>back. Does carrying that extra pound increase fatigue and over-all
>>output. The body is complex. It is not a simple bathroom fan motor. ...
|
| Show full article (1.94Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: thirty-sixthirty-six
Date: Jun 8, 2010 08:32
On 7 June, 14:34, thirty-six live.co.uk> wrote:
> The rider may prefer to apply braking to the tyre with hand or foot,
> this will save the rims and they will outlive the rider.
>
Which may be important if you are either a beach lover or desert
dweller, both popular in the USA.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Mike JacoubowskyMike Jacoubowsky
Date: Jun 8, 2010 08:27
"z, fred" wrote in message
news:_kZNn.105638$gv4.71915@newsfe09.iad...
> David Scheidt wrote:
>> z, fred wrote:
>> :Chalo wrote:
>> :> dustoyevsky wrote:
>> :>> Chalo wrote:
>> :>>> Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
>> :>>> save maybe 0.5%% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
>> :>>> questionable to me. Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
>> :>>> loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
>> :>>> RPM range when you climb. And if you want to shave weight to the
>> :>>> point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of
>> your
>> :>>> bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
>> :>>> pedals, derailleurs, brakes.
>> :>> Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
>> :>> at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
>> :>> the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed
>> Catalyst, ...
|
| Show full article (3.08Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Mike JacoubowskyMike Jacoubowsky
Date: Jun 8, 2010 08:21
>
> Chalo wrote:
>>
>> Paying a lot of money and accepting greatly increased fragility to
>> save maybe 0.5%% from your total rolling weight seems pretty
>> questionable to me. Before you do that, make sure you're using low-
>> loss tires and low enough gears that you can stay in your high-power
>> RPM range when you climb. And if you want to shave weight to the
>> point that reliability becomes an issue, start with the parts of your
>> bike that are (usually) less expensive to replace: rims, spokes,
>> pedals, derailleurs, brakes.
>
> Geeze, I picked up someone's CF-framed bike who had parked against me
> at a store stop the other day so I could sneak away early and climb
> the Tower Hill at my own speed (worked, too). Me = Litespeed Catalyst,
> Campy CRec, Rec, Chorus, Centaur running gear, Veloce cassette (IOW,
> the only "heavy, cheap" thing on the bike) (whoops, it has a Turbo ...
|
| Show full article (3.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mike JacoubowskyMike Jacoubowsky
Date: Jun 8, 2010 08:07
>> I don't know. 1100 gr compared to sub 1000 gr can make a huge difference
>> with CF. All I know is that manufacturers only give a 3 years warrenty on
>> (sub) 1000 gr frames, tell you to be very careful with it and Pro riders
>> throw their frames away after one season. There are manufacturers that
>> say explicitly to replace the frame after 3 years. Go figure and draw
>> your own conclusion.
>
> I think that Trek has a lifetime warranty (for the original owner) on its
> carbon frames. But I don't know if any of them weigh less than 1000 g.
> Maybe Mike J. can add something about this.
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
