# "Airnimals" look straight out of scrapheap challenge



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

continued from
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=598&page=10



Flying_Monkey said:


> Bonj - the extent to which you will make yourself look like an idiot never ceases to amaze...
> 
> You may well not like the look of the Airnimal. But apart from that you know nothing about it (or about bikes in general by the sound of it), but you're doing your usual thing of taking a prejudice and to retrospectively make it sound like this was the outcome of some rational thinking.
> 
> ...



The same tired old mantras "you make yourself look an idiot", "you're prejudiced", "you're irrational" - change the record.

I've asked questions which still haven't been answered, namely (1) surely the distance the handlebars stick out from the stem, and the length the steerer tube extends above the headset causes a much higher than normal forward and downwards moment about the headset, putting much higher bending stress on the steerer tube, and (2) if they're any good why aren't they more popular?


----------



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Bonj, do me the honour of reading my post if you can't be @rsed to click the link (the one thats three or four above this one), the one that states "Improved traction - the wheels do not bounce going through corners or on rough surfaces" near the end. If you can't be bothered to at least make an effort to inform yourself when you're supplied with the information (or the means to obtain it) Shut Up


Yeah yeah yeah, I get the gist of it - somebody's done scientific research to prove using physics that smaller wheels theoretically have advantages.
But please answer me the question of why bikes in the tour de france don't have casters then?
Why aren't 22" wheels more popular on road bikes, if they're that good?
You can link to all the equations in the world if you want, but it still doesn't make sense if no-one uses it! There must be some reason why there's a difference between theory and practice.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

> Bonj
> 
> 1)You did physics (apparently). You know how strong metal is. you tell us.


OK. It will bend the steerer tube fractionally, but under normal riding won't be enough to break it. But surely it's better not to have that bending stress if you can avoid it. I would imagine the slight bending will cause the headset bearings to wear fractionally faster.


> 2) Recumbents are very good. They're not popular.


WHY, though?!
And under what grounds are they 'very good'?


----------



## Yorkshireman (27 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, I get the gist of it - somebody's done scientific research to prove using physics that smaller wheels theoretically have advantages.
> But please answer me the question of why bikes in the tour de france don't have casters then?
> Why aren't 22" wheels more popular on road bikes, if they're that good?
> You can link to all the equations in the world if you want, but it still doesn't make sense if no-one uses it! There must be some reason why there's a difference between theory and practice.



Bonj.
In all good faith I posted a link to a site that deals exclusively with the machine in question, and the man who designs and builds them. I also posted extracts from the site that covered some of the areas that you appear to be lacking information/knowledge in. It's obvious (to me anyway) that you have no real interest in this subject other than to try to take the piss from those of us who are prepared to take you seriously, so I won't waste any more of my time. I'll leave you with a short resume of Dr Alex Moulton's work and qualifications :-

Dr Alex Moulton CBE RDI FEng 
Dr Moulton is an outstanding British Engineer whose whole professional life has been devoted to research, development, design and manufacture of advanced innovative products for sale in world markets. 
His successful designs, which have been commercially exploited in world-wide markets including Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the USA and the UK include: 

Flexitor 
Rubber Suspension for Mini car 
Hydrolastic Suspension for BL110 car 
Revolutionary Moulton Bicycle 
Moulton Safety Coach 
hydragas Suspension for Allegro and Princess cars 
The Alex Moulton Bicycle 
hydragas Suspension for Rover Metro 
(Awarded Royal Academy of Engineering MacRobert Award) 
The Moulton APB Bicycle
1957 
1959 
1962 
1962 
1969 
1973/5 
1983 
1990 

1992 
Dr Moulton's Achievements have received recognition in many ways: 
CBE 
The Diploma di Medagli d'Oro, Milan 
Queen's Award for Technical Innovation 
Honorary Doctorate, Royal college of Art 
Elected to the Faculty of Royal Designers for Industry 
Honorary DSc, University of Bath 
Elected a Fellow of The Royal Academy of Engineering 
(Subsequently Vice President 1985-88) 
Elected Master of the Faculty of Royal Designers for Industry 
Hon DSc, Cranfield University 1976 
1964 
1967 
1967 
1968 
1971 
1980 

1981-83 
1994 
Dr Moulton has had, and continues to exert a major influence on British engineering design technique.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Bonj.
> In all good faith I posted a link to a site that deals exclusively with the machine in blah blah blah




Great. The only new information there is that that website was written by the designer of that bike, about that particular bike. Well he _would_ claim it's the best thing since sliced bread, wouldn't he - if he's designed it.

*Why aren't they more popular then, if they're that good?* Post more statistics if you like - I'll only keep asking the same question, so you might aswell at least _try_ to answer it.


----------



## Yorkshireman (27 Jul 2007)

Bonj.
I'll admit to anyone that I'm not the sharpest knife in the box, but even at my fairly advanced age I'm still eager to learn. I believe I have learned something to-day ... I thought that you played the fool/cretin for a laugh ... now I realise that you're not playing ....


----------



## bonj2 (27 Jul 2007)

So you can't answer the question - so we're all agreed then. They're crap.
But oh no! Hang on! There's scientific _evidence_ that smaller wheels are better than larger ones! Who can argue with scientific evidence? So, there can only be one explanation - the people who ride bikes with small wheels must be the ENGLIGHTENED ONES!


----------



## Yorkshireman (27 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> So you can't answer the question - so we're all agreed then. They're crap.
> But oh no! Hang on! There's scientific _evidence_ that smaller wheels are better than larger ones! Who can argue with scientific evidence? So, there can only be one explanation - the people who ride bikes with small wheels must be the ENGLIGHTENED ONES!



If you're asking me Bonj ... Which question were you directing at me? Regarding smaller V larger wheels, it's horses for courses. Lots of people are able to argue with scientific evidence (providing that they look at it). The people who ride bikes with small wheels are the people who choose to ride them for a particular reason/purpose ... Next.
And where did you go just now ... sneaking off for warm milk and biccies ... without offering em round


----------



## bonj2 (28 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> If you're asking me Bonj ... Which question were you directing at me?


Why smaller wheels aren't more popular on non-folding bikes if they're that good.


----------



## Yorkshireman (28 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Why smaller wheels aren't more popular on non-folding bikes if they're that good.



Haven't a clue Bonj ... It's not a question I have had reason/interest to research. I don't know why Marmite isn't more popular than it is either.


----------



## bonj2 (28 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Haven't a clue Bonj ... It's not a question I have had reason/interest to research. I don't know why Marmite isn't more popular than it is either.



Marmite is quite popular. Popular enough to be sold in pretty much every supermarket, spar and corner shop.


----------



## Yorkshireman (28 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Marmite is quite popular. Popular enough to be sold in pretty much every supermarket, spar and corner shop.



Right Bonj, just been shopping (on the small wheeled non-folding shopper), and yes I did see Marmite on the shelf. I asked one of the store supervisors (the lengths I go to to educate the younger generation) what the turnover was like for that particular delicacy ... She replied "Very, very slow ... Don't Know why we stock it, but it's very long dated". Whilst at the supermarket I checked the bike racks ... Out of 30 bikes that I saw 10 were 'small' wheelers' of varying types. On the way back home I called in at the LBS and guess what ... they had 4 'small' wheelers on the shop floor display, and are able and prepared to order others if required. Now whether these observations/results are peculiar to my area or not I don't know, neither do I know if they are significant in any way nor do I rally care.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> continued from
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=598&page=10
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but only some time after wading in with an opinion that was based almost entirely on ignorance (you didn't know what the bike was, why it was made the way it was etc.). In other words you tried to pretend you had some rational basis for what was basis for what amounted to nothing more than laughing and pointing.

Please do us a favour, and go do some of your own research on folding bikes, and on the Airnimal. It's no particular fun discussing with someone who is not interested in learning. 

And, BTW, small-wheeled bikes are specifically banned by the UCI in road cycling events... something you could also easily look up yourself.


----------



## Yorkshireman (28 Jul 2007)

Bonj isn't up for discussion FM. His favourite game is Poking the Cat with a pointy stick and see if it spits/bites/scratches (if he realises that some of us might be having more fun than he is ... ).


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jul 2007)

I tour with an Airnimal because it carries full panniers, and I can clear my heels.

It is a proven design, and an adaptation of a geometry which goes back as far as the 1920s with the straight tube. It is fast, comfortable and safe with common sense. 

By that I mean if set up properly - in the same way as leaving the nuts on a car wheel undone is unsafe. The QR and pivot on the seat stem is solid and does not move or flex. The same applies to the bottom bracket.

Suspension is not really an advantage at this level as it does not compress that much, but does smooth out rough surfaces on 25mm tyres at 100 psi!

For folding - typically I look at the trains. Sensible companies like SCotrail and Virgin no problem. Those with stupid policies and poor allowance for space - a minute to fold and a minute to unfold is shorter than the time taken to argue with the train staff!


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Right Bonj, just been shopping (on the small wheeled non-folding shopper), and yes I did see Marmite on the shelf. I asked one of the store supervisors (the lengths I go to to educate the younger generation) what the turnover was like for that particular delicacy ... She replied "Very, very slow ... Don't Know why we stock it, but it's very long dated". Whilst at the supermarket I checked the bike racks ... Out of 30 bikes that I saw 10 were 'small' wheelers' of varying types. On the way back home I called in at the LBS and guess what ... they had 4 'small' wheelers on the shop floor display, and are able and prepared to order others if required. Now whether these observations/results are peculiar to my area or not I don't know, neither do I know if they are significant in any way nor do I rally care.



<bonj mode> Yeah, well, it's all very well, Yorkshireman, coming on here with your 'evidence'. You'll prove anything with that. Well, my evidence is that I think the opposite, which of course is more important than your silly 'real life facts'... </bonj mode>

In another thread, bonj said recumbents were crap, and listed all the reasons that ignorant people usually list (and which all recumbentists know are false), plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it. So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill. We have to allow for the fact that he might only just have taken the stabilisers off his MTB... And remember before, when he tried to ride a roadbike that apparently wasn't the right size, or set up for him, and pronounced it rubbish?


----------



## Yorkshireman (30 Jul 2007)

Bonj hasn't been out to play for some time ... Wonder if he's been naughty ... Grounded?


----------



## derall (30 Jul 2007)

bonj said:


> Why smaller wheels aren't more popular on non-folding bikes if they're that good.



In a word, Moulton. 

If you want a full explanation of the pros and cons of small wheels, then read 'Bicycle Design' by Mike Burrows. There's a very clear description. Basically, small wheels are better for lower rotating mass so are faster. Large wheels are better at going over bumps. Small wheels are great if they can be coupled to some form of suspension, as on the Moulton. Without suspension, bigger is better so it's a compromise between comfort and rotating mass.


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

I would so like to lock bonj in a room with Mike Burrows, except, he's (Mike) a lovely man, and doesn't deserve that...

Of course one of the reasons small wheels aren't as numerous as large is that the unthinking general public have a very fixed idea of what a bike should look like, so they go for that. Which is why you see so many people on badly sized bikes. They don't bother to find out any of the stuff most of us have learned, so they accept what's offered - generally run of the mill cheapo MTBs - and the myth is perpetuated.

I think bonj rides an MTB. Perhaps he'd like to tell us why he has a bike with 26" wheels, and not a bike with 27" ones.


----------



## Yorkshireman (30 Jul 2007)

Arch, you could lock Bonj up in a room with Burrows, Moulton and Einstein and the only one to come out unchanged would be Bonj ... The other three would come out gibbering ... ( Bonj is 'in the house' )

PS
He didn't stay long!


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Arch, you could lock Bonj up in a room with Burrows, Moulton and Einstein and the only one to come out unchanged would be Bonj ... The other three would come out gibbering ...





Claim to fame. Mike Burrows washed my shorts once...

And another time, made me blush tomato red with a remark about dumplings...


----------



## TimO (30 Jul 2007)

Mike is a very interesting guy to talk to, and speaks a lot of common sense. I think he'd have little time for bonj, he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly.

I'd love to have talked to Alex Moulton, but I suspect at his current age he's probably beyond popping down the pub for a quick one much these days!

I've always quite liked the look of the space frame Moultons, although being of a dismantlable design rather than a folder, one would not be as useful to me as my Brompton (and the Bromptons are a lot cheaper than most of the Moultons!)

Incidentally, I've certainly seen people racing on Moultons in the past, although whether they are still legal for racing/TT's I know not.

If someone hasn't mentioned it already, the reason why the UCI banned recumbents from racing was because they were *too fast* compared to standard safety type bike designs. It had nothing to do with safety.


----------



## Yorkshireman (30 Jul 2007)

Arch said:


> Claim to fame. Mike Burrows washed my shorts once...
> 
> And another time, made me blush tomato red with a remark about dumplings...



Hmmm. Washed y'shorts Arch ... Why would he need to do that? ...
As for him making you blush ... If you will go 'putting it about' amongst 'older 'men ... Hang about here ... I might be 'in' with a chance


----------



## derall (30 Jul 2007)

TimO said:


> Incidentally, I've certainly seen people racing on Moultons in the past, although whether they are still legal for racing/TT's I know not.
> 
> If someone hasn't mentioned it already, the reason why the UCI banned recumbents from racing was because they were *too fast* compared to standard safety type bike designs. It had nothing to do with safety.



No, the Moulton is not UCI-legal. Same reason as for 'bents - the combination of the small wheels and huge gearing makes them just too damn fast for competition.

One day I'll add a Moulton Speed-1 to the stable. Beautiful bike and _so_ fast.


----------



## Arch (30 Jul 2007)

TimO said:


> Mike is a very interesting guy to talk to, and speaks a lot of common sense.



Yes, and about many subjects. And the refreshing thing is, if he doesn't know about something and you do, he'll ask, instead of just airing false assumptions...



> I think he'd have little time for bonj, he doesn't seem to suffer fools gladly.



plus, his wisdom would be wasted...




> I'd love to have talked to Alex Moulton, but I suspect at his current age he's probably beyond popping down the pub for a quick one much these days!



I dunno. Picture of him in the latest edition of Cycle, he looks pretty sprightly..



> If someone hasn't mentioned it already, the reason why the UCI banned recumbents from racing was because they were *too fast* compared to standard safety type bike designs. It had nothing to do with safety.



That was what I understood, yes...


----------



## TimO (30 Jul 2007)

derall said:


> No, the Moulton is not UCI-legal. Same reason as for 'bents - the combination of the small wheels and huge gearing makes them just too damn fast for competition.


That's what I thought, but I do have a memory of seeing pictures occasionally in Cycling Weekly (yonks back, when I used to read it), of people racing on Moultons. I guess they were possibly just entering in races that either didn't care about UCI rules, or didn't count in the final results.

I remember Mike Burrows saying that the tricycle people weren't half as worried about recumbents, and that he and Andy Pegg used to race Speedy's (Speedies?) against conventional upright trikes.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (31 Jul 2007)

So where's Bonj gone? I do enjoy seeing him get utterly pasted in an, ahem, "argument" such as this one, fighting an increasingly precarious corner without recourse to anything so inconvenient as facts or evidence but, instead, mere preconceived opinion.
Is that a fair summary?


----------



## Yorkshireman (1 Aug 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> So where's Bonj gone? I do enjoy seeing him get utterly pasted in an, ahem, "argument" such as this one, fighting an increasingly precarious corner without recourse to anything so inconvenient as facts or evidence but, instead, mere preconceived opinion.
> Is that a fair summary?



I think he got a bit carried away in his all consuming quest re small wheeled transport. He sold his big white van, bought the latest, most expensive Moulton, loaded up, and .............
















Went touring .................................

























In The Alps 






There is a sort of 'eerie' silence without him


----------



## Christopher (1 Aug 2007)

Yep, absolute cycle speed records are usually held by fully-faired recumbents. I sometimes daydream about one with a carbon-fibre shell with a graphite coating, aero dimples and a boat-tail to reduce vortex shedding off the back.


----------



## mosschops2 (1 Aug 2007)

Not that "eerie" to be fair!!!! More "peaceful".

Or Calm. 
Tranquil even.


----------



## Arch (1 Aug 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> So where's Bonj gone? I do enjoy seeing him get utterly pasted in an, ahem, "argument" such as this one, fighting an increasingly precarious corner without recourse to anything so inconvenient as facts or evidence but, instead, mere preconceived opinion.
> Is that a fair summary?



Try the recumbent thread in Commuting...

It did occur to me, he's never posted a pic of his bike at all. Afraid one of us might find something we don't like about it?

Or just embarrassed by the stabilisers...


----------



## spen666 (1 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> continued from
> http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=598&page=10
> 
> 
> ...




Betamax video recorders were good- far better than VHS ones, but they were not popular

Being good does not equal being popular


----------



## Yorkshireman (1 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Try the recumbent thread in Commuting...
> 
> It did occur to me, he's never posted a pic of his bike at all. Afraid one of us might find something we don't like about it?
> 
> Or just embarrassed by the stabilisers...



Now I feel that Bonj has let us down ... He's been hiding from us


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Aug 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> Now I feel that Bonj has let us down ... He's been hiding from us



No, having been told here, he's just having a similar go at recumbents over in Commuting...


----------



## Yorkshireman (1 Aug 2007)

Flying_Monkey said:


> No, having been told here, he's just having a similar go at recumbents over in Commuting...



Ah! So I see ... That's blown it ... Same style (nearly word for word at times) ... One trick pony .


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Aug 2007)

I must not do it............................

















Well OK then.........











A few years ago Richard Loke actually prototyped an Airnimal recumbent!

That will confuse Bonj!


----------



## rikki (8 Aug 2007)

Frustruck said:


> Yep, absolute cycle speed records are usually held by fully-faired recumbents. I sometimes daydream about one with a carbon-fibre shell with a graphite coating, aero dimples and a boat-tail to reduce vortex shedding off the back.



How do these help?

Golf balls have dimples. They give them lift (with rotation of the ball) but do they make (let) them go faster?


----------



## Peyote (8 Aug 2007)

rikki;35392][quote name= said:


> and a boat-tail to reduce vortex shedding off the back.



How do these help?

Golf balls have dimples. They give them lift (with rotation of the ball) but do they make (let) them go faster?[/QUOTE]

Isn't it something to do with breaking up the tiny eddy currents that create the drag as the ball moves through the air?[/COLOR]


----------



## Arch (8 Aug 2007)

Peyote said:


> Isn't it something to do with breaking up the tiny eddy currents that create the drag as the ball moves through the air?



I think the phrase to use if you want to sound impressive is "tripping the boundary layer".

Of course, you only use it if you can then explain what it is to the uniniated, but it sounds good...


I've heard (non-serious) discussions on whether shaving legs actually makes them more aero, or whether the hairs trip the boundary layer...


----------



## Peyote (8 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> I think the phrase to use if you want to sound impressive is "tripping the boundary layer".
> 
> Of course, you only use it if you can then explain what it is to the uniniated, but it sounds good...



You're right (assuming the usual caveats about Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_ball#Aerodynamics

I doubt I could explain it even having just read it, but that'll teach me to try and get my head around fluid dynamics!



Arch said:


> I've heard (non-serious) discussions on whether shaving legs actually makes them more aero, or whether the hairs trip the boundary layer...



A bit like the little spines that cover shark skin!


----------



## rikki (9 Aug 2007)

Arch;35559][quote name= said:


> I've heard (non-serious) discussions on whether shaving legs actually makes them more aero, or whether the hairs trip the boundary layer...



I've seen comments before attributed to Mike Burrows that the hairs on your arms are better than a smooth shiny skin suit could ever be.

Some birds can fly (fall) a lot faster than any hairy animal can. So we should try to grow feathers if we want to be seriously aero.


----------



## rikki (9 Aug 2007)

How fast does the vehicle have to going (wind speed of course) before dimples on the aero surfaces would have any effect on drag?

Can a faired recumbent travelling down a long hill reach this speed?


----------



## Arch (9 Aug 2007)

rikki;36357][quote name= said:


> Peyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it would Mike Burrows I learned it from...
> ...


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

Yorkshireman said:


> ...I did see Marmite on the shelf. I asked one of the store supervisors (the lengths I go to to educate the younger generation) what the turnover was like for that particular delicacy ... She replied "Very, very slow ... Don't Know why we stock it, but it's very long dated".


That's because most people only have a tiny bit of it on toast at a time, consequently they take ages to get through a jar. Not because not many people have it. A large proportion of people have it and regularly eat it, but that doesn't mean a lot of it gets eaten because only small amounts of it get eaten at once.



Yorkshireman said:


> Whilst at the supermarket I checked the bike racks ... Out of 30 bikes that I saw 10 were 'small' wheelers' of varying types.


I've never seen that...



Yorkshireman said:


> Now whether these observations/results are peculiar to my area or not I don't know


I think they must be somehow.


----------



## Arch (9 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> Yorkshireman said:
> 
> 
> > Whilst at the supermarket I checked the bike racks ... Out of 30 bikes that I saw 10 were 'small' wheelers' of varying types.
> ...



Yes, but it's much harder to see properly with blinkers on.



> Yorkshireman said:
> 
> 
> > Now whether these observations/results are peculiar to my area or not I don't know
> ...



Not based on what I see about town they aren't.


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yes, but only some time after wading in with an opinion that was based almost entirely on ignorance (you didn't know what the bike was, why it was made the way it was etc.). In other words you tried to pretend you had some rational basis for what was basis for what amounted to nothing more than laughing and pointing.


I have got a rational explanation. And I don't see you succeeding in even attempting to debunk it. Which means it must be well-founded.



Flying_Monkey said:


> Please do us a favour, and go do some of your own research on folding bikes, and on the Airnimal. It's no particular fun discussing with someone who is not interested in learning.


_You_ do some research. I've told you why the headset will wear faster. Now you tell me why it won't.



Flying_Monkey said:


> And, BTW, small-wheeled bikes are specifically banned by the UCI in road cycling events... something you could also easily look up yourself.


What does that prove?


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

I don't know why I'm bothering, but i'll correct you on a few points.


Arch said:


> In another thread, bonj said recumbents were crap, and listed all the reasons that ignorant people usually list (and which all recumbentists know are false),



I initially said they were crap, but towards the end of the argument have come round to the belief that they have their advantages. I still maintain that the main disadvantage I cited of them, that they are harder to balance, is true, they are - but what I now accept that I didn't before is that once the skill is learnt, it probably doesn't matter too much.



Arch said:


> plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.



I only said this to prevent the arguments 'but you haven't ever ridden one bonj so all your opinions are by definition invalid', and it worked. I then later admitted this to be a lie...



Arch said:


> So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill.


...so therefore this inference is completely invalid and unfounded.




Arch said:


> We have to allow for the fact that he might only just have taken the stabilisers off his MTB...


Funny.



Arch said:


> And remember before, when he tried to ride a roadbike that apparently wasn't the right size, or set up for him, and pronounced it rubbish?


Ah, that bike _was_ rubbish. IIRC that was when I bought a puch that was made of steel and had drop handlebars, it was a genuine work of crapola. I couldn't ride it very well because it had downtube shifters and the bottom bracket was completely f**ked. However it did enable me to arrive at the answer to the question of whether I wanted a bike with drop handlebars or not, which was 'no'. So for commuting to work I bought a road bike with flat handlebars.
I left it outside against a railing with a notice on inviting any passer-by to take it, but it just got put on the other side of the railing so nobody could see it.
I then dumped it in a charity shop. Wonder what's happened to it now...


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

derall said:


> No, the Moulton is not UCI-legal. Same reason as for 'bents - *the combination of the small wheels and huge gearing makes them just too damn fast for competition*.




********. They're faster to accelerate maybe, but that's it.
Once a large-wheeled bike is up to speed, the small-wheeler has no advantage whatsoever. If it did then why don't you see them on club runs and overtaking lycra-clad chain gangs on a sunday?


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

derall;29480][quote name= said:


> Basically, small wheels are better for lower rotating mass so are faster.



"are faster" isn't a very scientific statement.
Small wheels have lower rotating mass, that's fine. But a rotating mass requires a moment (rotational force) to make it accelerate or decelerate. A bigger wheel requires a larger rotational force to make it decelerate from a given rolling speed to zero than a small wheel does. So therefore it is easier to maintain speed on it.


----------



## Arch (9 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> I don't know why I'm bothering, but i'll correct you on a few points.
> 
> 
> Arch said:
> ...



So I was right. What's your correction?



> but towards the end of the argument have come round to the belief that they have their advantages. I still maintain that the main disadvantage I cited of them, that they are harder to balance, is true, they are - but what I now accept that I didn't before is that once the skill is learnt, it probably doesn't matter too much.



Well done on learning that.



> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.
> ...



So, let's get this right. You are correcting me on an inference I made because you told a lie, and you think that's a victory of some sort? You don't think it just shows you up as dishonest?



> Arch said:
> 
> 
> > And remember before, when he tried to ride a roadbike that apparently wasn't the right size, or set up for him, and pronounced it rubbish?
> ...



Whereas many people manage to ride with downtube shifters perfectly well. Also, with drop handlebars, which is your main gripe. Fair enough, if they don't suit you - they don't suit me all that well. But I don't go around pronouncing any bike with them crap, which is pretty much what you did, I seem to remember...


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> So I was right. What's your correction?


The fact that you didn't tell all sides of the story, but only the one that projected the image that you wanted to project.


Arch said:


> Well done on learning that.


It wasn't a _learning_, that would imply it is fact - it was a matter of changing my opinions/viewpoint, as opposed to learning.




Arch said:


> plus the fact that he tried to ride one once, fell off several times and didn't like it.



I only said this to prevent the arguments 'but you haven't ever ridden one bonj so all your opinions are by definition invalid', and it worked. I then later admitted this to be a lie...



Arch said:


> So we've learnt that he's not a natural cyclist, with little patience for learning a new skill.


...so therefore this inference is completely invalid and unfounded.



Arch said:


> So, let's get this right. You are correcting me on an inference I made because you told a lie, and you think that's a victory of some sort?


It's not a victory OR a defeat. It just means your inference is incorrect. You should stop thinking about this in 'war' terms. Not everything has to be a 'victory' for somebody.



Arch said:


> You don't think it just shows you up as dishonest?


No on the contrary, it shows me up as honest because on the rare occasion when I have to tell a lie I at least admit it, which is more than a lot of people do.



Arch said:


> Whereas many people manage to ride with downtube shifters perfectly well.


People used to 'manage' with candles, instead of electricity - but I bet you've got it in your home. People used to 'manage' without pneumatic rubber tyres on their bike even, but I bet you've got them on your bike.
People used to 'manage' or still do 'manage' with a lot of things, but it doesn't mean that they're still a good idea or that the alternative doesn't make life a hell of a lot easier.


Arch said:


> Also, with drop handlebars, which is your main gripe. Fair enough, if they don't suit you - they don't suit me all that well. But I don't go around pronouncing any bike with them crap, which is pretty much what you did, I seem to remember...


I didn't pronounce it crap because it had drop handlebars, I pronounced it crap because it was heavy as it was made of steel, its bottom bracket had gone, it had an uncomfy saddle, it had downtube shifters, was generally bad quality and was an absolute pile of shite.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Aug 2007)

Well bowl me over with a feather!!! Bonj actually learnt something.


----------



## Arch (9 Aug 2007)

BentMikey said:


> Well bowl me over with a feather!!! Bonj actually learnt something.




No, I think his last post says he didn't after all... As you were, chaps.


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Aug 2007)

i have a friend who, when he purchased his bike about 8 years ago, was offered a choice of downtube shifters or stis. he prefered downtube shifters, and always asks how i "manage" with stis.

horses for courses no?


----------



## bonj2 (9 Aug 2007)

probably only because he wants to look 'old-skool'. Has he also got a ford cortina and a council telly?


----------



## Peyote (9 Aug 2007)

I've been thinking about going back to down tube shifters, or maybe bar end shifters. They seem to be a lot cheaper than STI's and my Sora levers aren't in great nick anymore.

What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?


----------



## alecstilleyedye (9 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> probably only because he wants to look 'old-skool'. Has he also got a ford cortina and a council telly?



erm, no an mg sports car and a tv the size of bournemouth. likes real ale though and won't go on a ride that has no pubs en route.


----------



## Arch (13 Aug 2007)

Peyote said:


> What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?




Maybe it only shows the worst daytime telly and Big Brother...


----------



## alecstilleyedye (13 Aug 2007)

[QUOTE38671]


Arch;38660 said:


> Peyote" said:
> 
> 
> > What's a 'council telly'? Is it like a 'council house'?
> ...



I wondered that. I wonder whether he means the ones that had a money slot?[/QUOTE]
what, richard and judy?


----------



## velocipede2288 (2 Dec 2007)

Stop quarreling guys, let's just have some civilised chat....please! :-)


----------



## bonj2 (2 Dec 2007)

(but they DO look like something off of scrapheap challenge.)


----------

