Liste des Groupes | Revenir à rb tech |
On 3/1/2025 4:39 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:Odd symptom and no logical reason for it IMHO.On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 13:55:50 -0500, Frank KrygowskiI think that level of inefficiency would be a concern of most cyclists, and very few actually race. It would take a lot of fun out of riding.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>IIRC, hydrostatic transmissions are standard features on zero turn>
mowers. But as you noted, the mechanical efficiency is lousy. That's not
a concern if you have a big enough engine and low enough use hours. It's
a huge concern for a cyclist.
True, but the huge concern is mostly for racing. If you're using the
bicycle as a moving exercise machine, the added weight and increased
friction might even be considered beneficial. It's like the weights
on barbells where light weight is not a concern. For competitive
fixie racing, maybe the governing organization should specify a
minimum allowable bicycle weight, which might inspire technical
innovation instead of shaving grams off the bicycle weight.
I once worked on a bicycle belonging to a friend that had a quite rare (at least, at the time) 5 speed Sturmey-Archer geared hub. IIRC, there were two shift cables, one going to each side. Anyway, as I remember when shifted to its lowest gear it seemed extremely sluggish. Unlike the equivalent low gear on a derailleur bike, it really didn't seem much easier going uphill in that gear. Instead it just seemed slower. And as I recall, that was a not uncommon complaint about that particular hub.
I understand the desire for exercise. But I think almost everyone prefers to get their exercise while moving farther or faster, not by slogging along slowly. If that were acceptable, we'd all be riding solid tires.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.