"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again: >https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know. Occasionally, I discover there's something I don't know about bicycles that I need, or at least, want to know. That's the only time
I'll might start asking questions, or go looking for books about
bicycling. I'm content for anything else to remain a mystery to me.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/20/2025 3:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know. Occasionally, I discover there's something I don't know about
bicycles that I need, or at least, want to know. That's the only time
I'll might start asking questions, or go looking for books about
bicycling. I'm content for anything else to remain a mystery to me.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
We all have our own areas of interest.
I had to ask my employee to explain a cartoon (happens
regularly for me) on Sunday evening. There's no way I could
begin to catch up to modern pop culture, and I really don't
care to know.
On 5/20/2025 3:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know. Occasionally, I discover there's something I don't know about
bicycles that I need, or at least, want to know. That's the only time
I'll might start asking questions, or go looking for books about
bicycling. I'm content for anything else to remain a mystery to me.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
We all have our own areas of interest.
I had to ask my employee to explain a cartoon (happens
regularly for me) on Sunday evening. There's no way I could
begin to catch up to modern pop culture, and I really don't
care to know.
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >awareness
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know.
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>
to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not >predicated by need.
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again: >https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
Am Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski ><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again: >>https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
Somewhat dubios.
On the one hand "While many people know how to ride a bike, we know >surprisingly little about the science of how cycling actually works,
says CBC columnist Torah Kachur" (under a picture that display some kind
of oval biopace chain ring). Continued with "But the science of staying >upright on two wheels is anything but simple — and we know surprisingly >little about the intricacies of how cycling actually works."
On the other hand "But it's the physics that are really fascinating, and >somewhat mysterious — the forces that keep a bike going, the variables
that make one bike better than the rest, why a riderless bike seems to
be able to stay up and ride straight, and what the best design really
is." and a lot of repetitions of that mantra. Shure, its fascinating,
but _these_ questions have been studied and answered quite a lot in the
past, as far as they are indeed physical or engineering questions.
Actually, quite some questions which haven't been studied or are
somewhat open aren't about the physics of cycling, but are questions of >biological or medical nature, that haven't been studied in depth, and >sometimes they haven't been asked at all, so far. With other words, it
is not about the bicycle, but about the person riding it, where we have
blind spots. We don't have to look far for finding an example. What
is the function of a saddle? How does it work? What makes a good saddle?
Ask two people and get three answers, most probably all wrong, in a way.
:-)
The hypothesis behind "Take the riderless bike, for example. You can
push a bike along a path and it almost self-steers. It can recover from >wobbles to stay upright. That's ultimately the physics behind why bikes
are easy to ride, and yet we know precious little about how that
actually works" has been refuted by Jobst Brandt more than once. The >question why and how a _riderless_ bicycles stays uprigt for a while
might be interesting and hard to solve - but it doesn't have anything to
do with how a rider stays upright on a bicycle. Gyroscopic effects don't
have much to do with it, so much is obvious.
There is one paragraph in the whole article that I wholeheartedly agree
with, it's the one at the very end
| That being said, the bike is a well-designed machine
| because the best machine is still the rider on top of it.
| The best shock absorber is the bent arms of the rider, and
| the best generator of a forward force is the power of the
| legs behind it.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>
to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>>
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Board the harbor pilot and secure the line from the tug, maybe?
On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a
bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet, upright. Or perhaps you
don't know that and accept the premise that it is magic that maintains
the balance of a bicycle.
If a bicycle starts to fall, your sense of balance even if pretty
damaged, will cause you to turn into the fall causing a force in the
opposite direction which with very little practice is very close to equal and opposite.
So what is it that you need to know> Or is your knowledge incomplete
without a billion dollars spent on a "scientific" study that says the same thing?
On Wed May 21 10:20:27 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>
to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Perhaps you can tell us more about your virtual races and how they add in rolling resistance and wind resistance. Talk about ignorance!
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed May 21 10:20:27 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>>
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Perhaps you can tell us more about your virtual races and how they add in
rolling resistance and wind resistance. Talk about ignorance!
Maybe try it if you’re so interested? As you complain about roads/weather >would give one an option.
Roger Merriman
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about >>>>>>> stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is
bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed May 21 10:20:27 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>>
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Perhaps you can tell us more about your virtual races and how they add in
rolling resistance and wind resistance. Talk about ignorance!
Maybe try it if you’re so interested? As you complain about roads/weather would give one an option.
Roger Merriman
Am Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
Somewhat dubios.
On the one hand "While many people know how to ride a bike, we know surprisingly little about the science of how cycling actually works,
says CBC columnist Torah Kachur" (under a picture that display some kind
of oval biopace chain ring). Continued with "But the science of staying upright on two wheels is anything but simple — and we know surprisingly little about the intricacies of how cycling actually works."
On the other hand "But it's the physics that are really fascinating, and somewhat mysterious — the forces that keep a bike going, the variables
that make one bike better than the rest, why a riderless bike seems to
be able to stay up and ride straight, and what the best design really
is." and a lot of repetitions of that mantra. Shure, its fascinating,
but _these_ questions have been studied and answered quite a lot in the
past, as far as they are indeed physical or engineering questions.
Actually, quite some questions which haven't been studied or are
somewhat open aren't about the physics of cycling, but are questions of biological or medical nature, that haven't been studied in depth, and sometimes they haven't been asked at all, so far. With other words, it
is not about the bicycle, but about the person riding it, where we have
blind spots. We don't have to look far for finding an example. What
is the function of a saddle? How does it work? What makes a good saddle?
Ask two people and get three answers, most probably all wrong, in a way.
:-)
The hypothesis behind "Take the riderless bike, for example. You can
push a bike along a path and it almost self-steers. It can recover from wobbles to stay upright. That's ultimately the physics behind why bikes
are easy to ride, and yet we know precious little about how that
actually works" has been refuted by Jobst Brandt more than once. The question why and how a _riderless_ bicycles stays uprigt for a while
might be interesting and hard to solve - but it doesn't have anything to
do with how a rider stays upright on a bicycle. Gyroscopic effects don't
have much to do with it, so much is obvious.
There is one paragraph in the whole article that I wholeheartedly agree
with, it's the one at the very end
| That being said, the bike is a well-designed machine
| because the best machine is still the rider on top of it.
| The best shock absorber is the bent arms of the rider,
| the best generator of a forward force is the power of the
| legs behind it.
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about
stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is
bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.
Such a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic, ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be ignorant of other facts.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet...
Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading
some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most
prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying
bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding. >Science is not there yet.
Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have
them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's
been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of >thumb.
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about >>>>>>>> stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is >>>>>>> bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>>> to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
Yes, dumbass, I'm ignorant of the sailing techniques for piloting a
sailing ship into port. My need to do so is irrelevant.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 12:58:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet...
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>
Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading
some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most
prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying
bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding.
Science is not there yet.
Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have
them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's
been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of
thumb.
Unless a person is designing bicycles, that information is not worth bothering with.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSuch a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>
to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic, >ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be >ignorant of other facts.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to >learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
On 5/21/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 12:58:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet...
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>
Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading >>> some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most
prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying
bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding.
Science is not there yet.
Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have
them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's >>> been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of
thumb.
Unless a person is designing bicycles, that information is not worth
bothering with.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
While it's true that literally billions of people have
purchased a bicycle and ridden it (to some extent or
another) with no thought whatsoever about the magic dynamic
physics of keeping the thing upright, some, as I, do find
that area of inquiry intriguing. Some, like you and the
great majority of riders, do not. Makes no difference to
riding a bicycle, and in fact there's not a consensus on why
bicycles work at all.
(Personally, I think the research into no-rider bicycle
stability may be a red herring of sorts. If it were
dispositive, then 3 year olds could ride two wheelers. Which
they cannot, as their motor skills and reaction times are
insufficient until around age five, give or take a few months.)
On 5/21/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about >>>>>>> stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is
bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.
Yes, dumbass. I can't speak for others but I'm ignorant of sailing,
scuba diving, or butchering (I know enough about C++ to be dangerous).
Such a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be
ignorant of other facts.
simplistic thinking at it's worst.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to
learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
I'm not surprised at all by that. Granted most people who have had any >contemporary/classical education (even done outside of any formal
academia) are familiar with Stoicism, I don't see it outside the realm
of possibility that a reasonably educated person may be ignorant of it.
In my case I became aware of Stoicism when I was exploring different >religious philosophies. For a time in college I dated a woman who was a >self-described Stoic. Eventually I tired of her lack of passion for
pretty much anything.
What I do find astonishing is that any person with any form of education >(even done outside of any formal academia) is so ignorant on the concept
of ignorance.
By that metric (and that metric alone) floriduh dumbass is rather >astonishing.
On 5/21/2025 1:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know
something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about >>>>>>> stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is
bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.
Yes, dumbass. I can't speak for others but I'm ignorant of sailing,
scuba diving, or butchering (I know enough about C++ to be dangerous).
Such a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be
ignorant of other facts.
simplistic thinking at it's worst.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to
learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how
to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
I'm not surprised at all by that. Granted most people who have had any >contemporary/classical education (even done outside of any formal
academia) are familiar with Stoicism, I don't see it outside the realm
of possibility that a reasonably educated person may be ignorant of it.
In my case I became aware of Stoicism when I was exploring different >religious philosophies. For a time in college I dated a woman who was a >self-described Stoic. Eventually I tired of her lack of passion for
pretty much anything.
What I do find astonishing is that any person with any form of education >(even done outside of any formal academia) is so ignorant on the concept
of ignorance.
By that metric (and that metric alone) floriduh dumbass is rather >astonishing.
On 5/21/2025 10:43 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
Somewhat dubios.
On the one hand "While many people know how to ride a bike, we know
surprisingly little about the science of how cycling actually works,
says CBC columnist Torah Kachur" (under a picture that display some kind
of oval biopace chain ring). Continued with "But the science of staying
upright on two wheels is anything but simple — and we know surprisingly
little about the intricacies of how cycling actually works."
On the other hand "But it's the physics that are really fascinating, and
somewhat mysterious — the forces that keep a bike going, the variables
that make one bike better than the rest, why a riderless bike seems to
be able to stay up and ride straight, and what the best design really
is." and a lot of repetitions of that mantra. Shure, its fascinating,
but _these_ questions have been studied and answered quite a lot in the
past, as far as they are indeed physical or engineering questions.
Actually, quite some questions which haven't been studied or are
somewhat open aren't about the physics of cycling, but are questions of
biological or medical nature, that haven't been studied in depth, and
sometimes they haven't been asked at all, so far. With other words, it
is not about the bicycle, but about the person riding it, where we have
blind spots. We don't have to look far for finding an example. What
is the function of a saddle? How does it work? What makes a good saddle?
Ask two people and get three answers, most probably all wrong, in a way.
:-)
The hypothesis behind "Take the riderless bike, for example. You can
push a bike along a path and it almost self-steers. It can recover from
wobbles to stay upright. That's ultimately the physics behind why bikes
are easy to ride, and yet we know precious little about how that
actually works" has been refuted by Jobst Brandt more than once. The
question why and how a _riderless_ bicycles stays uprigt for a while
might be interesting and hard to solve - but it doesn't have anything to
do with how a rider stays upright on a bicycle. Gyroscopic effects don't
have much to do with it, so much is obvious.
There is one paragraph in the whole article that I wholeheartedly agree
with, it's the one at the very end
| That being said, the bike is a well-designed machine
| because the best machine is still the rider on top of it.
| The best shock absorber is the bent arms of the rider,
I take exception with that, given how a hard tail transmits impacts
directly into ones ischial tuberosities.
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms
of speed and comfort.
and
| the best generator of a forward force is the power of the
| legs behind it.
On 5/21/2025 3:44 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:54:06 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 12:56 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 12:58:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 11:47 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue May 20 16:43:34 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
What is unknown about bicycling? Even you know that balancing on a bicycle is based upon balancing on two feet...
Tom, you have no idea how much there is that you don't know. Try reading >>>>> some of the work done by Jim Papadopoulos, who's probably the most
prominent researcher on bicycle dynamics. People have been studying
bicycle dynamics for many decades, trying to get precise understanding. >>>>> Science is not there yet.
Obviously, we can build bikes of roughly conventional geometry and have >>>>> them work well; but that's not due to precise engineering analysis. It's >>>>> been done through a long history of trial and error leading to rules of >>>>> thumb.
Unless a person is designing bicycles, that information is not worth
bothering with.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
While it's true that literally billions of people have
purchased a bicycle and ridden it (to some extent or
another) with no thought whatsoever about the magic dynamic
physics of keeping the thing upright, some, as I, do find
that area of inquiry intriguing. Some, like you and the
great majority of riders, do not. Makes no difference to
riding a bicycle, and in fact there's not a consensus on why
bicycles work at all.
Many things are interesting enough for a person to want to know more.
The question I ask is whether or not it's necessary for them to pursue
that interest. I think, in most cases, it's a want, not a need.
You said "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to
know." That sounds like a statement defending absolutely minimal
learning, absolutely minimal curiosity.
Again, "Ignorance is bliss" for some people. I realized long ago that I
get great pleasure from learning.
On 5/21/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
We're dealing with a slow learner.
Either ignorance is when a person doesn't know what they need to know,
or else, everyone is ignorant.
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSuch a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>>> to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>>>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a
deer.
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be >>> ignorant of other facts.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to >>> learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others.
I doubt you have any idea what C++ is, let alone know how to write it.
I've programmed in at least five systems and/or languages. Like Zen,
I've done a little C based programming, and like him I know enough to be >dangerous; I'm certainly no expert. But C (or C++ or C#, depending on
the year) was one of the programming options for my students'
programming course requirement.
I'll note that we don't know _you_ have ever really done anything with
C++, or Pascal, or Python, or Fortran, or Basic, or LabView, or Val II,
or PLC ladder logic (which is like programming in Martian).
Sailing a real boat, not a simple 12 foot cat rig requires a lot more
than raising the sails and handling the wheel or tiller.
I've never handled a boat any bigger than 35 feet, and that one was a
fairly brief experience, on Lake Erie.
I've sailed smaller boats many
times, sometimes alone, sometimes with help.
friends who are avid sailors. No, I'm not an expert. But (wait for it!)
I don't need to be. ;-)
I doubt you
have any idea what a cat rig is, let alone how you trim the sails.
:-) I thought you were advocating learning _only_ what one _needs_ to
know!
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know"
shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person.
<LOL> You're the dullest individual I've ever come across.
Oh please! You're fascinated by me! You read every post I make and
respond to almost all of them! I give meaning to your dull life. :-)
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how >>> to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their
own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life
is much richer with more knowledge.
I had no need to learn welding, music, woodworking either, but I did.
Logic alert: Does this man not realize he's now arguing against his own >position?
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
On 5/21/2025 7:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:46:55 -0400, Frank KrygowskiLogic error. That wasn't a logical conclusion at all, based on what went >before.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
We're dealing with a slow learner.
Either ignorance is when a person doesn't know what they need to know, >>>> or else, everyone is ignorant.
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
Indeed... so ignorance is when someone doesn't know something they
need to know, not just when they just don't know something.
Maybe you should get curious about logic! Try a course in Symbolic
Logic. It can be fun, and very enlightening.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 7:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:46:55 -0400, Frank KrygowskiLogic error. That wasn't a logical conclusion at all, based on what went
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
We're dealing with a slow learner.
Either ignorance is when a person doesn't know what they need to know, >>>>> or else, everyone is ignorant.
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
Indeed... so ignorance is when someone doesn't know something they
need to know, not just when they just don't know something.
before.
Maybe you should get curious about logic! Try a course in Symbolic
Logic. It can be fun, and very enlightening.
Is that where you "learned" that correlation implies causation?
For most people simple logic requires no group think time in
classroom, and no dimbulb wussy standing in front of a classrom
spouting his own biased nonsense.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>>
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Board the harbor pilot and secure the line from the tug, maybe?
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>> to know.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss! >>>>>
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Board the harbor pilot and secure the line from the tug,
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:34:51 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-
mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I >>>>>>>> go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff >>>>>>>> I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>>> to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance is not
predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to pilot a
three masted sailing ship into port?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Board the harbor pilot and secure the line from the tug,
Nope :-) The term "pilot"has some what tha same meaning 0n a boat as
on an airplane. The the guy driving or controlling the thing. :- ))
On 5/21/2025 7:27 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:07:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 7:50 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:46:55 -0400, Frank KrygowskiLogic error. That wasn't a logical conclusion at all, based on what went >>> before.
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:36 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
We're dealing with a slow learner.
Either ignorance is when a person doesn't know what they need to know, >>>>>> or else, everyone is ignorant.
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
Indeed... so ignorance is when someone doesn't know something they
need to know, not just when they just don't know something.
Maybe you should get curious about logic! Try a course in Symbolic
Logic. It can be fun, and very enlightening.
Is that where you "learned" that correlation implies causation?
For most people simple logic requires no group think time in
classroom, and no dimbulb wussy standing in front of a classrom
spouting his own biased nonsense.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
If you two stop pissing in each other's beer, correlation
does _suggest_ causation. That's how we form hypotheses.
A correlation may be coincidental or it may be in fact
causal for which we need (depending on the question) an
appropriate experiment or a large enough data series to
prove or disprove it.
On Wed May 21 10:34:51 2025 AMuzi wrote:
On 5/21/2025 10:01 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 10:20:27 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, floriduh dumbass wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-
still- mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to
know something I go about trying to learn it. I've
little time for learning about stuff I have no need to
know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education...
Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something
they need to know.
the irony of being ignorant of the definition of
ignorance.....
Just for the edification of the floriduh dumbass - ignorance
is not predicated by need.
Got it... so, you're ignorant because you don't know how to
pilot a three masted sailing ship into port?
Board the harbor pilot and secure the line from the tug, maybe?
Not if the sailing ship has an auxillary engine. While it is
possible to bring a three master to anchorage without an engine,
bringing it to a pier is a bit more complicated. I can and have done
both purely under sail but conditions have to be correct. Using an
auxullary motor makes it simple. You just drop sails and go where
you want to go.
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms >>> of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that
time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Indeed doesn’t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension >> and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on >> Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing
speed. Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
On 5/21/2025 10:43 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:...
Am Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
Somewhat dubios.
There is one paragraph in the whole article that I wholeheartedly agree
with, it's the one at the very end
| That being said, the bike is a well-designed machine
| because the best machine is still the rider on top of it.
| The best shock absorber is the bent arms of the rider,
I take exception with that, given how a hard tail transmits impacts
directly into ones ischial tuberosities.
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms
of speed and comfort.
On 5/22/2025 11:53 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 21 May 2025 13:30:59 -0400 schrieb zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>:
On 5/21/2025 10:43 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400 schrieb Frank
There is one paragraph in the whole article that I wholeheartedly agree >>>> with, it's the one at the very end
| That being said, the bike is a well-designed machine
| because the best machine is still the rider on top of it.
| The best shock absorber is the bent arms of the rider,
I take exception with that, given how a hard tail transmits impacts
directly into ones ischial tuberosities.
That very much depends on how you sit on a bike.
One of our club rides frequently crosses a long bridge (~1000 feet =
~300m) over a reservoir. The road surface of that bridge is by far the >roughest paved road I know around here, but we use it because
alternative ways around the reservoir are far out of the way.
I frequently do most of that stretch in a high gear and out of the
saddle, or nearly so. Similarly, when coasting a downhill on a rough
road, I often lift just a bit off the saddle. In addition to comfort, I
think it makes for a faster coasting speed.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:I doubt you have any idea what C++ is, let alone know how to write it.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 00:09:16 -0400, Frank KrygowskiSuch a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 4:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:43:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/20/2025 1:38 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 11:44:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"Science of cycling still largely mysterious"
This article from 2016 recently popped up again:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/science-of-cycling-still-mysterious-1.3699012
As is the case with most issues, if I think I need to know something I
go about trying to learn it. I've little time for learning about stuff
I have no need to know.
Yep. So much for curiosity, so much for education... Ignorance is bliss!
No, ignorance would be when someone doesn't know something they need >>>>>>> to know.
ignorance
noun
ig·?no·?rance ?ig-n(?-)r?n(t)s
Synonyms of ignorance
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or >>>>>> awareness
I see, so by that definition you're ignorant because you don't know
how to write C++ code, sail a boat, scuba dive, or skin and butcher a >>>>> deer.
ignorant of some topics but not others. And even regarding one topic,
ignorance is not binary. One can know certain facts about a topic but be >>>> ignorant of other facts.
I've done some of the things you listed, and have been curious enough to >>>> learn a bit about others by reading and/or discussing them with others. >>>
I've programmed in at least five systems and/or languages. Like Zen,
I've done a little C based programming, and like him I know enough to be >>dangerous; I'm certainly no expert. But C (or C++ or C#, depending on
the year) was one of the programming options for my students'
programming course requirement.
C++ is well beyond, and far more complicated than C.
I'll note that we don't know _you_ have ever really done anything with
C++, or Pascal, or Python, or Fortran, or Basic, or LabView, or Val II,
or PLC ladder logic (which is like programming in Martian).
You really don't much about me, and I'm fine with that.
Sailing a real boat, not a simple 12 foot cat rig requires a lot more
than raising the sails and handling the wheel or tiller.
I've never handled a boat any bigger than 35 feet, and that one was a >>fairly brief experience, on Lake Erie.
<LOL> So you steered a boat, which is a long, long way from actually
sailing it.
I've sailed smaller boats many
times, sometimes alone, sometimes with help.
If you did, it was probably a simple cat rig.
I have several very good
friends who are avid sailors. No, I'm not an expert. But (wait for it!)
I don't need to be. ;-)
More imaginary friends? Like I said, You have no idea what it means
trim the sails, let alone, how one goes about it. Sailing, real
sailing requires knowledge about anchoring, and making headway against
the wind.
I doubt you
have any idea what a cat rig is, let alone how you trim the sails.
:-) I thought you were advocating learning _only_ what one _needs_ to >>know!
No, pay attention, dumbass. The discussion and my position was
opposite of that. It was about not bothering to learn things you
didn't need to know. You claimed that I was wrong about that, and now
you seem to gave changed your mind about it. No charge for the >enlightenment..
But "I've little time for learning about stuff I have no need to know" >>>> shows a general lack of curiosity, which leads to a general lack of<LOL> You're the dullest individual I've ever come across.
knowledge - as evidenced in our discussions! It makes for a dull person. >>>
Oh please! You're fascinated by me! You read every post I make and
respond to almost all of them! I give meaning to your dull life. :-)
I find your "look at me posts" to be amusing. You're desperate for >recognition and respect here in RBT because you don't get it in your
real life.
Contrast with, say, Andrew Muzi, who had no need to learn as much
history as he obviously knows. John Slocomb who had no need to learn how >>>> to build a bike frame... and all the countless people who pursue their >>>> own interests, their own art, their own pastimes. Hell, I had no real
need to learn machining, welding, music, woodworking and more. But life >>>> is much richer with more knowledge.
I had no need to learn welding, music, woodworking either, but I did.
Logic alert: Does this man not realize he's now arguing against his own >>position?
Krygowski, as usual snips out the stuff he can't deal with.
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
Am 22.05.2025 um 02:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
In some countries, cultural education like this is part of the high
school curriculum.
On 5/22/2025 5:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 20:16:06 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
I guess Krygowski can't answer those questions.
Andrew suggested we stop arguing about this, so I didn't answer. But I
see your compulsion is still in control.
I did not learn about Stoicism in a classroom. But then, I seem to have
more curiosity and general desire to learn than you do.
Figure it out on your own - if you can.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:40:08 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 22.05.2025 um 02:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
In some countries, cultural education like this is part of the high
school curriculum.
Indeed, that would be a group thinking session about group thinking.
Not altogether different than what happens in churches.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:40:08 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 22.05.2025 um 02:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned
anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never
heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
In some countries, cultural education like this is part of the high
school curriculum.
Indeed, that would be a group thinking session about group thinking.
Not altogether different than what happens in churches.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 5/23/2025 5:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:40:08 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 22.05.2025 um 02:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned >>>>>>> anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never >>>>>> heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism?
Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing
that term be of value to that someone?
In some countries, cultural education like this is part of the high
school curriculum.
Indeed, that would be a group thinking session about group thinking.
Not altogether different than what happens in churches.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Perhaps but perhaps not.
There's a difference between how to think and what to think.
The education racket has fallen from the former to the
latter but that is not inherent.
On 5/23/2025 8:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 07:56:55 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/23/2025 5:45 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 10:40:08 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 22.05.2025 um 02:16 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 19:08:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 5/21/2025 3:12 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2025 13:33:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
(How _does_ a person become a mature adult without having learned >>>>>>>>> anything about Stoicism? That's just astonishing.)
Actually I know it well, in fact I pretty much live it, but I never >>>>>>>> heard the term Stoicism.
Wow.
Where would someone with a real life come across the term stoicism? >>>>>> Maybe in some group think session in a classroom. How would knowing >>>>>> that term be of value to that someone?
In some countries, cultural education like this is part of the high
school curriculum.
Indeed, that would be a group thinking session about group thinking.
Not altogether different than what happens in churches.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Perhaps but perhaps not.
There's a difference between how to think and what to think.
The education racket has fallen from the former to the
latter but that is not inherent.
I don't believe you can teach anyone how to think. I believe how much
one does it, vs relying on input from external sources is an intrinsic
characteristic.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I disagree. Fundamentals of logic and argument, exercises
in criticism with examples and then switching sides in
argument are very good at teaching how to think.
On 5/23/2025 6:40 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
You _pretend_ or _imagine_ you've figured me out. You're an increasingly >feeble man with no documented achievements, so you claim to have
My knowledge about the motivation and resulting behavior of people is
how I so quickly and accurately figured you out.
"figured me out" to give yourself a bit of self-congratulation.
You're uneducated, ignorant, and deluded. And clearly, you're obsessed
with me.
You're not worth talking to.
On 5/23/2025 10:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/23/2025 8:37 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I disagree. Fundamentals of logic and argument, exercises in criticism
I don't believe you can teach anyone how to think. I believe how much
one does it, vs relying on input from external sources is an intrinsic
characteristic.
with examples and then switching sides in argument are very good at
teaching how to think.
"How to think" can be taught not only for issues like popular debate
topics, but for approaching and solving technical problems. It's a >fundamental component of engineering and science education.
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
On Wed, 21 May 2025 18:46:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The conversation so far should have made it clear that everyone is
ignorant about _some_ things.
Everyone is ignorant about most things.
24 May 2025
I've been fafiating.
On 5/22/2025 3:15 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
On a couple tours, I or we have found ourselves on roads being readied
What I try to avoid are long stretches of rough surfaces and/or with
many potholes, because riding these ist grueling and serves no purpose,
when it comes to become and to stay fit. In addition, I like to visit
places. I'm still looking for parts of my region I haven't visited yet,
at least not by bike. I wouldn't be able to continue that on bad roads
or gravel.
for repaving - ones that have had the pavement "scarfed" or ground off
by a sort of impact grinding. It produces a very rough surface that's
the worst I know for pavement roughness. It's very unpleasant even in a
car. But when I came across it on the bike, I had no alternative but to >continue.
Around here, I find most gravel roads to be reasonably rideable, unless
the gravel is fresh, new and thick.
I try to ride where the car tires
have compacted it best.
But I do prefer smooth pavement, by far.
On Wed May 21 19:17:51 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms >>>> of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively
morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that
time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Indeed doesn?t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension >>> and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on >>> Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very
little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing
speed. Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
Because touring bikes are supposed to be slower, people often don't
notice that the wide tires actuallu make them faster. It certainly took
long enout to notice that and I was as guilty as anyone else.
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms >>> of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively >morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that
time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Indeed doesn’t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension >> and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on >> Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.
And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very >little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing
speed.
Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
Am Wed, 21 May 2025 19:17:51 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms >>>> of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively
morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that
time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Problem is, some people generalize the fact that a good suspension
increases downhill speed on some undergrounds to circumstances where one
or all of these preconditions do not apply. Suspension adds weight and converts some of the potential energy to heat. When riding downhill, additional weight has essentially no disadvantage, it might even help.
On rough underground and at speeds where air resistance is the main parameter, helping the rider to hold a better aerodynamic position has
more effect than that little bit of energy loss.
Almost nothing of all that applies while riding on reasonably flat
ground or uphill. Some modern wider tires have lower rolling resistance
than narrow high pressure road tires of the old and offer enough
suspension for most roads that aren't not completely broken.
Indeed doesn’t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension
and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on >>> Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.
And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very
little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing
speed.
Not necessarily. In recent years, some wider tires have become better in terms of rolling resistance at lower pressure and without compromising puncture resistance. It's not that people have recognized something that
has always been the case. The wider the better doesn't apply, either.
The optimum has only shifted a little, again.
Roads degrading faster due to heavier vehicles might be a reason, too.
Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
Of course.
On 5/25/2025 1:45 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 21 May 2025 19:17:51 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms >>>>> of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively >>> morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that
time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Problem is, some people generalize the fact that a good suspension
increases downhill speed on some undergrounds to circumstances where one
or all of these preconditions do not apply. Suspension adds weight and
converts some of the potential energy to heat. When riding downhill,
additional weight has essentially no disadvantage, it might even help.
On rough underground and at speeds where air resistance is the main
parameter, helping the rider to hold a better aerodynamic position has
more effect than that little bit of energy loss.
Almost nothing of all that applies while riding on reasonably flat
ground or uphill. Some modern wider tires have lower rolling resistance
than narrow high pressure road tires of the old and offer enough
suspension for most roads that aren't not completely broken.
Indeed doesn’t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension
and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on >>>> Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.
And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very
little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing
speed.
Not necessarily. In recent years, some wider tires have become better in
terms of rolling resistance at lower pressure and without compromising
puncture resistance. It's not that people have recognized something that
has always been the case. The wider the better doesn't apply, either.
The optimum has only shifted a little, again.
Roads degrading faster due to heavier vehicles might be a reason, too.
Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
Of course.
Offroad cyclists (I am not among them) tell me that for all
suspension's weight and sloppiness, they cannot brake or
turn with a wheel in midair so suspension is necessary for that.
On 5/25/2025 4:31 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
I very much doubt that an older touring bike with 32mm tyres was faster
Because touring bikes are supposed to be slower, people often don't
notice that the wide tires actuallu make them faster. It certainly took
long enout to notice that and I was as guilty as anyone else.
than race bike with 23mm tyres, you need to be comparing like with like.
I think many people could use a review about what actually makes a bike faster for road riding. There are always a lot of myths circulating.
One way to think about the question is to first list what are the
physics of resistance to forward motion? What actually slows a bike
down? Where does the lost energy go?
On 5/25/2025 4:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 5/25/2025 1:45 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:Even on the flat ground suspension is well fast, I regularly pass Gravel
Am Wed, 21 May 2025 19:17:51 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 5/21/2025 4:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
A full suspension bike is far more efficient over rough terrain in terms
of speed and comfort.
I dimly recall an article in _Bicycling_ magazine (before it effectively >>>>> morphed into "Buycycling") that documented the measured increase in
downhill speed of a suspended bike compared to a rigid bike. At that >>>>> time, it was an unfamiliar concept.
Problem is, some people generalize the fact that a good suspension
increases downhill speed on some undergrounds to circumstances where one >>>> or all of these preconditions do not apply. Suspension adds weight and >>>> converts some of the potential energy to heat. When riding downhill,
additional weight has essentially no disadvantage, it might even help. >>>> On rough underground and at speeds where air resistance is the main
parameter, helping the rider to hold a better aerodynamic position has >>>> more effect than that little bit of energy loss.
Almost nothing of all that applies while riding on reasonably flat
ground or uphill. Some modern wider tires have lower rolling resistance >>>> than narrow high pressure road tires of the old and offer enough
suspension for most roads that aren't not completely broken.
Indeed doesn’t take a particularly rough gravel road for my MTB suspension
and tyres to make it a faster bike, vs the Gravel bike be that my times on
Strava or unfortunate Gravel riders on the Ridgeway etc.
And in the past few years, many people have realized that it takes very >>>>> little roughness to make wider, cushier tires valuable for increasing >>>>> speed.
Not necessarily. In recent years, some wider tires have become better in >>>> terms of rolling resistance at lower pressure and without compromising >>>> puncture resistance. It's not that people have recognized something that >>>> has always been the case. The wider the better doesn't apply, either.
The optimum has only shifted a little, again.
Roads degrading faster due to heavier vehicles might be a reason, too. >>>>
Bumping the rider about has serious energy costs.
Of course.
Offroad cyclists (I am not among them) tell me that for all
suspension's weight and sloppiness, they cannot brake or
turn with a wheel in midair so suspension is necessary for that.
folks on the Ridgeway which is one of the older roads in the uk, it’s not >> technical it’s essentially a gravel road, but the MTB just flows and isn’t
kicked about like the gravel bikes are.
I once knew a local guy, a club member, who closed down his bike shop to become a full time professional bike tourist. He got a job with a large
bike touring company, where he spent the entire year riding, leading
paying customers on bike tours. This was in the late 1990s, IIRC.
On one trip the group he was leading was passing through our area.
Someone organized a club ride to meet up with them, so I got to see the
bike he had chosen for his job. It was unlike anything he used to ride before. As I recall, it had undersized wheels (maybe 24 inch?) that were
very aero (trispoke, I think), an aero bar, and full suspension.
The aero benefits were easy to understand, but I think for long mileage
day after day, he learned that the benefits of not being as jostled by
bumps exceed the energy losses of suspension bits heating up.
ISTM that would be one of those tradeoffs, depending on the smoothness
of the riding surface. But few roads are as smooth as we'd like.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 47:17:54 |
| Calls: | 9,834 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,193,944 |
