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 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: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.
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, maybe?
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.
zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.
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.
One of the things I noticed when I first had a full suspension MTB was its technical climbing ability, it can find grip and much less likely to stall
on edges of rocks etc.
and
| 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: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 knowSuch a simplistic thinker! It should be obvious that a person can be
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 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 >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.
<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.
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. 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 doubt you
have any idea what a cat rig is, let alone how you trim the sails. Do
you even know what trimming the sails is all about? Scuba diving
safely requires enough knowledge that most people, me included, attend classes to do it. I doubt you have any idea what limitations you need
to be aware of.
...and then, I'd love to watch you try to skin and butcher a deer.
Actually, I doubt you'd be able to field dress a deer.
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. As near as
I can see, you've never done anything that involved any real risk.
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.
The machining was a requirement for working in a machine shop, which I
did. I had no need to learn scuba diving, or sailing, raising horses,
or laying cement block or brick, which I also did... I had no need to
build a small barn which I also did, including the roofing. I did have
a need to learn how to raise my kids as a single dad, including all
the household and family duties as well as holding a full time job.
Yes, I had full custody and became a pretty decent cook, something I
still do regularly even though I have no need to do it. I had no need
to volunteer at assisted living homes, but I did that, too. I learned
how to do karaoke programs there, which I also took out on the road
and made a little money at. I learned how to perform as a singer,
which I also made a lttle money at. The entertainment thing was simply
for the joy of doing it. The money was piddly. Did I forget to mention
that I worked as a bartender several times as a favor for my friend
who did wedding receptions. I make a pretty decent old fashioned, but
that money was piddly too. I was doing really well at my job at that
point. Later I tended bar at the assisted living homes for free.
(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. I do know what stoic means and I believe I
have used that term in my books.
Funny how tommy keeps yabbering on about things he has no experience with.
https://zwiftinsider.com/crr/
"Zwift?s physics model includes varied rolling resistance of virtual
wheels across different surfaces."
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:
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.
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.
Good idea. Tom might already have a power meter somewhere: <https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=89085&group=rec.bicycles.tech#89085>
"Like I said, I had a power meter on my Colnago and after reading a
couple of times and recording that 298 watts it matched what I thought
I was making and I had no further need for it. It is still laying
around here somewhere but I couldn't care less."
Tom could start by connecting his existing power meter to his
computer, install the app, create an account, and he's ready to ride.
Or, he can use his Garmin speed/cadence sensor(s). With Tom's
impressive wealth, cost should not be an obstacle. 14 day free trial.
After that, $20/month or $200/year plus sales tax.
"Zwift: your complete guide" <https://www.bikeradar.com/features/zwift-your-complete-guide>
"If you have a power meter, you can make do with any kind of trainer
or rollers. Zwift will use the data from your power meter to calculate
your in-game speed, but obviously you?ll miss out on simulated
gradients and controlled Workouts that come with using an indoor
training bike or smart trainer. A speed/cadence sensor is the most
basic option and enables you to use your regular bike (with no power
meter) attached to a conventional trainer."
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 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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:20:05 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,467 |
| Posted today: | 1 |