Re: Getting old is not for sissies

Liste des GroupesRevenir à rb tech 
Sujet : Re: Getting old is not for sissies
De : roger (at) *nospam* sarlet.com (Roger Merriman)
Groupes : rec.bicycles.tech
Date : 01. Mar 2025, 18:47:35
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <m2gvhnFas9nU1@mid.individual.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 7:45 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 2/28/2025 6:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/28/2025 4:14 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:36:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 
On 2/28/2025 11:50 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 11:31:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 
On 2/28/2025 11:24 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Fri Feb 28 11:14:11 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
 
Sorry to hear that. I was riding over lumpy wet ice
in a gravel parking
lot yesterday. I was very conscious that falls can
now have much worse
consequences than they once did.
 
But I think it's still important to keep giving
ourselves reasonable
challenges, to maintain skill and agility.
 
 
 
 
I expect that your old steel touring bike is more apt
for conditions like thqat than Andrew's higher
performqance bike.
 
Wheelbase, tire width, tread or rider position would
make no
difference leaning into a turn over ice.
 
I suspect that riding a Catrike on ice would be really
fun.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 
+1
 
Very different from a two-wheeler!
 
Very diferent indeed. Tell me that you weren't out riding
your fixie
on icy roads. Riding a fixie seems risky enough without
any ice.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 
Fixed gear is not any more safe nor unsafe than coasters.
 
Some (I for one) feel they offer better rider control. 
This may be perceptual.
Others note that pedaling through fast turns can be a
problem. (then again I have never had a pedal strike on
mine over decades)
 
 
It's all a matter of Skills, Experience, and Testicular
Fortitude (SETF).
 
Safer.....I don't think so, especially if riding in areas
where panic stops may be necessary. You can stop a lot
faster and with more control with brakes than you can by
just back pedaling a fixed-gear.
 
More control imo is a matter of SETF and not related to the
machine being ridden to any great extent, panic braking
issues notwithstanding.
 
Fixed-gear machines have a few notable challenges that free-
wheel bikes don't:
    Road hazards - A free-wheel is easy to bunny hop over
stuff, a fixed-gear, notsomuch, for the simple reason that
as long as the bike is moving your legs have to be moving
meaning you have to be able to lift the bike while your legs
are moving. Of course it can be done, but it's very
challenging and takes a great deal of coordination. I've
seen it done, I can't do. I've had the experience of
catching a frost heave on a downhill while spinning well
over 100 rpm. The first instinct when your bike leaves the
ground is to stop pedaling - Do that on a fixed gear and the
bike will land at whatever speed you were traveling with
your legs not moving. It never took me down, but I've seen
it happen.
 
    Downhills -
"let me tell you brother
it doesn't mean a thing
if you don't have
the ability to spin"*.
Spinning your legs at cadences over 130 take a bit of
practice. If you don't have brakes installed you can leg
brake, but that too is a challenge at higher cadences. This
leads back to the stability and control issue. Inexperienced
riders will start bouncing in the saddle since they don't
have the smooth pedal stroke. Picture this: A fixed-gear on
a steep downhill, the rider pedaling so fast the rear wheel
isn't maintaining contact with the road, the road has a turn
which the rider has never even though about on his road
bike. No, it wasn't me.
 
    Corners - You _MUST_ pedal though corners. Lean too
much and you strike a pedal, the rear wheel leaves the
ground and you go down (not necessarily, but likely). Back
pedal to scrub off speed and you risk breaking traction, you
go down (no only likely, but necessarily).
 
I've ridden a fixed gear consistently for almost 40 years
now as my cycling mentors were old school guys who preached
it as an off season training tool. I've done 3- 4 hour
sessions on the road, commuted, done a smattering of track
racing, and I do the local club TT a couple of times a year
on it. A number of years ago a local shop was doing matched
spring roller races I competed in every week for a few
years(if you couldn't spin 170 you weren't shit).
 
I love the bike. I finally bought a used track bike rather
than use the rentals. My goal this year is to use the track
bike on the Major Taylor Hill Climb https://
www.majortaylorassociation.org/events/georgestreet24.shtml.
 
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdoKxKgHZs
 
 
SETF?
 
https://www.acronymfinder.com/SETF.html
 
To be clear, I do have a front caliper and I strongly
admonish other fixed gear riders to use one.

Charlie Alliston the lad who killed a pedestrian few years back, on his
brake less fixie ie only the leg braking, though i suspect that wasn’t
particularly important in that case, though certainly didn’t help his case.

Ie wasn’t the bikes lack of calliper brakes that caused the death but his
riding ie diving through traffic ie taking risks.

I certainly did some laps of Richmond Park just using the leg braking it
was fine.
 
+1 on bunny hops at speed. Virtually impossible on fixed but
common, even trivial, on a road bike.
 
er, or anything which coasts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI2gyx2sU90
 
And my hat's off to you regarding rpm.  I generally spin
highish but 170 on these legs is not going to happen!
 
 
Don’t think I got much faster than 130 ish which was around 30mph for the
Track bike I had. So I’d generally not hold it for long!

Roger Merriman

Date Sujet#  Auteur
28 Feb 25 * Getting old is not for sissies82AMuzi
28 Feb 25 +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Shadow
28 Feb 25 i`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
28 Feb 25 +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies77Frank Krygowski
28 Feb 25 i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies76AMuzi
28 Feb 25 i +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies69Catrike Ryder
28 Feb 25 i i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies68AMuzi
28 Feb 25 i i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies67Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies66AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies26Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i+* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   ii`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies23AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   i +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies4Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   i i  `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies18Jeff Liebermann
1 Mar 25 i i   i  +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   i  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies16Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i   i   +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   i   `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies14Jeff Liebermann
2 Mar 25 i i   i    +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies7Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies6AMuzi
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies5AMuzi
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies4Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i   `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3AMuzi
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i    `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i   i    i     `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
3 Mar 25 i i   i    `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies6Zen Cycle
3 Mar 25 i i   i     `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies5Jeff Liebermann
3 Mar 25 i i   i      +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
3 Mar 25 i i   i      `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3Zen Cycle
4 Mar 25 i i   i       `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Roger Merriman
4 Mar 25 i i   i        `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Zen Cycle
1 Mar 25 i i   +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies12Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i   i+* Re: Getting old is not for sissies10AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   ii`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies9Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i   ii +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies6Roger Merriman
1 Mar 25 i i   ii i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies5Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i   ii i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies4Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   ii i  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   ii i   `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   ii i    `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   ii `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i   ii  `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i   i`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i   +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Roger Merriman
1 Mar 25 i i   `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies26zen cycle
1 Mar 25 i i    +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies24AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i    i+- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i    i+* Re: Getting old is not for sissies21Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i    ii+* Re: Getting old is not for sissies17Roger Merriman
1 Mar 25 i i    iii`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies16Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i    iii `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies15Roger Merriman
2 Mar 25 i i    iii  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies14Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i    iii   +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Frank Krygowski
2 Mar 25 i i    iii   i`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
3 Mar 25 i i    iii   `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies11Roger Merriman
3 Mar 25 i i    iii    `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies10Frank Krygowski
3 Mar 25 i i    iii     `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies9Roger Merriman
3 Mar 25 i i    iii      +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3Zen Cycle
4 Mar 25 i i    iii      i`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Roger Merriman
4 Mar 25 i i    iii      i `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Frank Krygowski
3 Mar 25 i i    iii      `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies5Frank Krygowski
4 Mar 25 i i    iii       `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies4Roger Merriman
4 Mar 25 i i    iii        `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3Frank Krygowski
4 Mar 25 i i    iii         `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Roger Merriman
4 Mar 25 i i    iii          `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Catrike Ryder
1 Mar 25 i i    ii`* Re: Getting old is not for sissies3AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i    ii `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Frank Krygowski
1 Mar 25 i i    ii  `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
1 Mar 25 i i    i`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Roger Merriman
1 Mar 25 i i    `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Frank Krygowski
28 Feb 25 i `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies6Roger Merriman
28 Feb 25 i  +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1zen_cycle
28 Feb 25 i  `* Re: Getting old is not for sissies4AMuzi
28 Feb 25 i   +* Re: Getting old is not for sissies2Zen Cycle
1 Mar 25 i   i`- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1AMuzi
28 Feb 25 i   `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Roger Merriman
28 Feb 25 +- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Zen Cycle
28 Feb 25 `- Re: Getting old is not for sissies1Mark J cleary

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal