HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Friendly riders (was Drafting etiquette?)
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:42:00 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Dec24.162010.16723@news.ysu.edu>, ae505@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank Krygowski) writes:
> 
> As to cyclists, more specifically, in our area, there are indications
> that the "performance" oriented cyclists around here are less friendly.
> There are 3 clubs within shouting distance.  Two are mostly racer
> wannabees, ours is absolutely all kinds of cyclists.  The next closest
> club is dying now, and their members are moving to our club.  Why?
> When a ride's posted, the jocks are unfriendly, then ride off at 25 MPH
> leaving the new rider wondering what they said.
> 
> Time after time folks have come to us after giving up on them.
> Invariably, they rave about our friendliness.  We try hard to take care
> of new folks.

I ride almost daily with a bunch of A-category racers and wannabes (who me?)
and there's an unwritten rule that everyone must wave to other cyclists we meet
no matter who they are or what they're riding.  Anyone new who turns up can
become breathless as everyone in the pack takes a turn chatting to them and
introducing themselves,  giving tips on pack-riding,  pacelines etc.

I remember being awed by them at first as my gear etc is so grotty in
comparison,  but never recieved any hassles (except over the aero-bars!).

In addition to this the training group comprises up to three different clubs!

Anyone who wants to come along just ask - it's only in the middle of the South
Pacific...

Jonathan,
Hamilton,  New Zealand.

Xref: sparky rec.bicycles.misc:1749 rec.bicycles.tech:2840
From: marc@gauss.math.mcgill.ca (Marc Sokolowski)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech,aus.bicycles
Subject: Automatic transmissions for bikes
Date: 27 Dec 92 22:42:39 GMT
Organization: Dept of Mathematics, McGill University


	Hello Everybody,

	Some time ago I posted a request to get info about auto
transmissions for bikes. Well, by chance I got hold of the article that
started my quest. It is in the February '91 issue of Popular Mechanics, and
it describes an 11 speed general purpose auto for bikes created by Keith
Chilcote, former auto racing engineer, using a computer and magnetic speed
sensors. The computer is to be equipped with a software that will adapt the
shift pattern to the terrain and physical abilities of the cyclist, in order
to keep him pedaling at an efficient 75 rpm.
	I have too received some replies to my initial post. All of them
were suprisingly pessimistic, as many declared that there is no need for an
auto transmission in bikes because of its intrinsic unpredictability and the
special characteristics of the human "engine" vs your typical V8.
	Well, the point that a transmission is needed in high-performance
bikes is a sure sign that human muscles don't provide a flat performance
curve at all "pulses", just like a typical explosion engine at all rpm's,
and I don't see why a sophisticated shifting algorithm wouldn't be able to
at least approach the optimal way of shifting. The experience of Porsche's
Tip-tronic transmission shows clearly that auto doesn't mean sluggish
anymore. Besides, my personal experience makes me sick of having to shift,
especially when I am suffering from high exhaustion on the way up a 20% hill.
After all, the auto that is described in Popular Mechanics simply
translates to being able to pedal from 0 to 3000 rpm without loss of torque,
as seen from the point of view of the wheels (max torque being at 75 rpm
from the cyclist's perspective).
	For me it is inevitable that not only autos will become a
significant portion of bikes, including race bikes, but will very rapidly
dominate, with only high quality manual transmissions surviving in high-end
equipement. This because bikes are getting more and more popular for a
boring task called commuting, and because of the similarity of evolution
with cars, as autos got extremely popular (at least in NA) when high torque
V6 and V8's that became available starting in the 50's only needed 3 forward
speeds. Here, it's high performance electronics and miniturization of
sensors, connexions etc... that will do the trick.

					Marc

BTW: For cars, I *HATE* automatics, because there is still decreased
performance (but I'll go for a tiptronic any day!) and increased fuel use,
and because manuals give me something "intelligent" to do besides steering
when I'm sitting in a car. This is a different story for a bike as
infinitely more work is involved given you are the engine.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
From: hal@netcom.com (Hal Wine)
Subject: Re: Drafting etiquette?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 19:26:53 GMT

In article <4531@sicsun.epfl.ch> rec.bicycles.misc writes:
> All these cyclists saw me,
>they were out training/ridind but not head-down hell-for-leather.

Maybe they *thought* they were "hell for leather" <evil grin>!

>So I'd be interested to have some feedback from US cyclists.

I've noticed the same thing in the SF Bay Area, sad to say.  In some
areas, there are, perhaps, so many bikes that one wouldn't get a
chance to breath if one acknowledged everyone.  I still like to do
something, though.

I did a cross country trip this summer, and did notice that the
further from a city (or large town) the friendlier the folks.
Although there does seem to be a real class system.  Racing types
don't acknowledge casual riders or touring folks.  Self supporting
touring folks don't acknowledge casual riders (we were supported, so
often mistaken for day riders).

Or, maybe it's by dress code...

I still always at least wave, and try to smile -- at the very least,
it makes them wonder what I've been up to!
-- 
Hal Wine
Internet: hal@netcom.com		Compuserve: 72267,3346
From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:04:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Is there hope (for car drivers) ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, CCSY Messaging Centre, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc

david@postman.gr.osf.org (David George) writes:
>Now the big problem with cycling around here is pollution, 60% of it caused
>by motorcars.  Catalysors and Lead Free petrol are not that common either.
>Anyone making the jump from car driving to cycling is immediately faced with
>breathing huge quantities of toxic air.  Now I'm planning on moving as I'm seem
>to have developed a whole range of pollution related illnesses, so what hope
>is there ?

What makes you think the car drivers are not also breathing in the fumes?
As discussed recently (in r.b.soc, I think; I think the original
measurements were by Friends of the Earth in the UK), the exposure of car
drivers to gases from exhausts is generally higher than for cyclists or
pedestrians, since there is a very steep concentration gradient away from
the middle of the road.  The point of highest concentration is (if I
remember accurately) near ground level, at the middle of a lane, roughly
where the air intake (for passengers) on most cars is.  You don't perceive
the fumes so much in a car since the rate of change of concentration of any
particularly smelly component is less than when you are cycling due to the
buffering effect of the air system in the car.  (The nose detects a change
in the composition of the air it is breathing, not the absolute
composition).

The only complicating factor is that you might be breathing more deeply when
exercising, and potentially take in more pollutants that way, though I think
this was unlikely to outweigh the benefits of being away from the middle of
the road, and higher up.

Andrew
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
From: ozcomert@wam.umd.edu (John Ozcomert)
Subject: Re: Need to read : Are you an idiot?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:31:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.105216.4788@admin1.memst.edu> jasmith@admin1.memst.edu (John) writes:
>            The facts are that a car's weigh over a ton and a bike weigh
>       less than 25 pounds.  So, my question is who are these idiots that
>       get out on busy streets and ride in the street?  I see these people
>       out around rush hour on the most travel roads in Memphis.  The traffic 
>       is almost bumper to bumper, and you have some idiot on his bike in the 
>       right hand lane slowing traffic up.  All I want to know is who are you
>       people?  What is going on in your head?  Your asking for trouble doing
>       stupid stuff like that.  I see these people and some times I'd like to
>       open my passenger door and knock them down or just run them off the
>       road.  And you know what's really bad.  I'm a fellow bicyclist.
>       I ride anywhere from 100 to 200 miles a week depending on how many days 
>       I have to ride.  Usually 50 miles on saturday and sunday and 20 miles
>       on week days.  I don't know their may be some of you people that ride
>       a lot more than I do, but I also swim for an hour twice a week and 
>       run three times about 10 miles.  I consider myself a execise nut.  But
>       all I'm asking is why do you people have to ride in the worse time of
>       day in the worse areas.  I suggest taking back streets, finding less
>       populated areas to ride, because their is no sense in giving the rest
>       of us a bad name just because you want to bike down the middle of the
>       interstate, or whatever.  I know what some of you are going to tell me.
>       We can't ride on other streets because their not as clean and we get 
>       flats more often.  My answer is give up you road bike and get a mountain
>       bike.  If the streets are fit for your road bike then you need to switch
>       to a mountain bike.  I've got a nice TREK racing bike and I really love
>       the bike, but I can't ride it anywhere, and I get flat more often than 
>       on my Mountain bike.  What I do is majority of the time I ride my
>       mountain bike, and occasionally I take a cleaner route just to get 
>       some riding time on my TREK.  My set up is Mountain bike for training
>       and the road bike for racing.  Mainly what I'm saying to the people 
>       that insist on riding on main streets during rush hour.  It's not safe,
>       because there is more chance for an accident and there is a bigger
>       chance somebody is going to run you off the road.


John, I'd sign up for an English class or two while I was in college, old pal.
It would make your ignorant ramblings a little easier to read.

-John Ozcomert


Xref: sparky rec.bicycles.misc:1704 rec.bicycles.marketplace:1707
From: barman@jackson.cs.unc.edu (Dilip Barman)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.marketplace
Subject: Buying a bicycle for a short person - I'm 5'2"
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:29:32 GMT
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.misc
Organization: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



Hi -

     I have ridden my Panasonic for close to 10 years now and am very impressed
with its strength and durability - but it's heavy!!  I can easily fit on it
with full size wheels (27?) because the cross-tube starts off with a downward
curve.  But now that I am thinking of getting a new bike (much lighter!),
I just can't find anything I can fit on.  I am looking for a touring bike
which can carry panniers and is sturdy.  I'd prefer a triple crank as I need
all the help I can get going up hills!

     The only options I seem to have are Terry bikes (but isn't it strange
and uncomfortable having a small front wheel?), Kestrel (but for around 
$2000!!!), and maybe a Canondale hybrid w/ drop handlebars - I might fit.
Oh, and the other option is a custom bike which I understand will cost
me around $1500 w/ good but not great components.

     Do you guys have other suggestions?  I know I'm short, but surely there
are a good number of other short bikers.  I'm between 5'1" and 5'2".
Thanks!!

-- 
  Dilip Barman
  Dept. of Computer Science:		Home:			
  University of North Carolina		5129 Oakbrook Drive
  Sitterson Hall 365, CB 3175		Durham, North Carolina 27713-8005
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
From: freshair@iastate.edu (James W Gregory)
Subject: take this bike quiz.....
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:44:57 GMT

    HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW YOUR BIKE?  TAKE THIS QUIZ----->

1)  How many links are in your chain?
2)  How many teeth are on each of your front and rear sprockets?  If
you were to shift sequentially forward thru all your gears, what would
be the shift pattern?
3)  How many ball bearings are in your front axle?  Bottom bracket?
Headset?  Freewheel (or freehub?)
4)  What is the diameter of each of these ball bearings?
5)  What size wrench would (do) you use to tighten your brake cable?
derailleur cables?
6)  How wide is your bottom bracket?
7)  How long is your handlebar stem?
8)  What is the wheelbase of your bike?  How much does your bike
weigh?
9)  What is the tooth capacity of your front derailleur?  rear
derailleur?
10)  What is the surface area of your brake shoes (in sq cm)?

score:  10 = Excellent  (what do you do--sleep with your bike?)
       7-9 = Very Good  (Good candidate for a bicycle mechanic)
       4-6 = Better than average  
       1-3 = Fair (Need to spend more time working on the 'ol bike..)
         0 = Needs improvement (Get to work!)

P.S.  I'm afraid I only fall into the "fair" catagory on this quiz :-(

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gregory      freshair@iastate.edu    |  "10,000 lemmings can't be wrong"
Dept. of Plant Pathology, ISU (by day)   |          - anonymous
Fresh Aire Delivery Services (by night/weekends)
From: jeffreyj@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jeffrey John Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Automatic transimitions
Date: 31 Dec 1992 08:27:21 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

From what I read about one of the Specialized Future Shock Experimental, or
what I remember, I believe they were saying the rider selects and changes 
the crank rpm in the computer and the continually variable transmition is 
adjusted to maintain the selected crank rpm.  This would be the only type 
of outomatic I would be interested in. (I probably couldn't afford it though.)

Jeff	

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
From: gcs@edsi.plexus.COM (Greg C. Steiner)
Subject: Biking in France
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:00:05 GMT
Summary: Where to get more info on biking in France?
Keywords: france


Where can I get more information about biking in France?  
Specifically how to rent a bike for a few days, where it's best to
ride.
Thanks!
 
Greg Steiner
gcs@edsi.plexus.com
From: mbharris@eos.ncsu.edu (MATTHEW BURDET HARRIS)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Drafting etiquette?
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: mbharris@eos.ncsu.edu (MATTHEW BURDET HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: mbharris@kelley.ece.ncsu.edu


Dont crash anyone
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech,aus.bicycles
From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel)
Subject: Re: Automatic transmissions for bikes
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 00:21:26 GMT

marc@gauss.math.mcgill.ca (Marc Sokolowski) writes:
>[Most responses have been pessimistic, but still I wonder: an
> automatic transmission works for cars, why not bikes?]

The basic issue is that the demands of a transmission on a
high-performance bicycle are much harder to deal with than
the demands on a high-performance car.

 - Cars generally get by with 4 to 6 speeds.  Bikes often
have more to choose from so there is more work involved in
deciding which gear to be in.  There are more gears because
human engines are much sensitive about gearing, which makes
it all the more important to be in the right gear.

 - In cars, both the engine and transmission are under
machine control.  The bike transmission must either signal
the rider to relax, or it must shift under load.  Though
modern derailleurs are far better than those of a decade
ago, bike transmissions still screw up sometimes when
shifting under load.  Upshifts on the front are especially
hard (except for the Browning).

 - Car shifting can rely on a few key inputs: engine and
road speeds, some estimation of engine load, and desired
speed.  Bicycles are far more affected by wind: riding in
to a given wind load requires different gearing than an
equivalent hill load (I don't understand why, but people
I've asked agree).  Bicycles are also more affected by
vehicle loading.

 - Car shifters are designed to work with a given engine
and transmission and can be tuned and tested then do not
need to be retuned.  A bike transmission needs to work
with a variety of riders, which has implications not only
for the power output but also the total vehicle loading.
Worse, the engine power characteristics of any given rider
change rapidly as the ride progresses depending on heat,
exhaustion, rider position, etc.

A truly great automatic transmission would probably need to
monitor the rider's physiology in order to decide when to
shift.  While approximations might be successful, all fully
automatic transmissions to date have been far too crude to
be used for high-performance cycling.

A transmission could use hints from the rider to decide when
to shift.  But because the rider would need to update those
hints frequently, the rider would be as busy as if s/he were
doing the shifting manually.

For low-performance markets where the loss of efficiency is
less important, a simpler transmission (e.g., only a rear
derailleur) that has a modest range (11-34) and shifts well
under load is probably a first step in the right direction,
instead of trying now for an automatic transmission.

Is this a FAQ yet?

	;-D on  ( Pessimism?  ``Differently optimistic.'' )  Pardo
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Need to read : Are you an idiot?
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.soc
Reply-To: les@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:42:04 GMT

I'm pleased to see that there are plenty of people who are prepared to
denounce the idiot who thinks that no one should ride a bike on a busy
road, but would like to suggest that this fascinating discussion
transplant itself to the appropriate forum: rec.bicycles.soc (for
sociopaths and sock-it-to-ems).
--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: A friend went down
Date: 22 Dec 92 11:51:01 +1300
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Dec22.114525.12947@waikato.ac.nz>, jrdodd@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> Hi,  with all this talk I've just posted a plea for more careful driving
> in rec.autos.driving.  It's carefully worded and not intended to cause any
> flamewar or anything,  so hopefully it might do some good.  Then again,
> from reading some of the other posts in the group it's not made up of your 
> typical driving idiots.  worth a try.
> 
> Jonathan.
> 

I just read the full report - I wasn't thinking of the guy who killed Dale
as an idiot as I didn't know enough of the case.  Hope no-one was offended.

Jonathan.
From: kc@core.rose.hp.com (Kurt Chan)
Subject: Re: Buying a bicycle for a short person - I'm 5'2"
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:15:48 GMT
Organization: HP, Systems Technology Division
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]


|      Do you guys have other suggestions?  I know I'm short, but surely there
| are a good number of other short bikers.  I'm between 5'1" and 5'2".

It sounds like you need a 47-49 cm frame.  If you're willing to pay about
$1500 for a complete bike, many higher end manufacturers make frames as
small as 48-49. 47cm may be tough.

A problem that many smaller cyclists have to contend with is equipment that
is too heavy.  For this reason, I would suggest taking advantage of your
weight advantage to go with a lighter frame and lighter components that
might not be acceptable for heavier riders.  

For example, you may be able to get away with wheels that have
fewer/lighter gauge spokes.  Also, most frame manufacturers use the same
gauge tubing for all their frame sizes, which means that the 120 lb rider
gets the same tubing designed to withstand a 250lb rider on a 63cm frame.
Going with carbon can save a couple of pounds over many steel frames.

Unfortunately, many of the weight-saving items come at a premium.  On the
other hand, the difference that 2-3 lbs can make for a 120lb rider can be
astounding.

Kurt.
From: Mike@f88.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Mike)
Sender: Jpunix@urchin.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Audible greetings (was)R
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 09:49:00 -0500

GDS> What about roadies?  Does anyone think roadies are more or
GDS>less friendly than mtn bikers.

My experience is that mountain bikers are, generally, more friendly,
but only on trails or dirt roads, where the serious mtn. bikers tend to
ride. The folks that bought mountain bikes because of the trend and
have
never been off a paved road or trail, aren't very friendly most of the
time. And I've passed some very friendly folks on road bikes, but the
majority of these encounters have been out of the city, on country
roads. The most friendly cyclist I've met have been those on leisurely
club rides, or organized rides that stress that they are not races, and
the friendly folks ride all kinds of bikes, but the majority are on
mountain bikes.

 * SLMR 2.1a *    I call things as I see them; otherwise I make em up!

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc