Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-09, 11:22 AM   #1
dbikingman
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
dbikingman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Spokane/Tri-Cities WA
Bikes: mountain bike, road bike
Posts: 1,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I'm going metric...

well maybe. No,not ride a metric (is that a double negative?). I am thinking about using the metric measurement system, like everyone else does except the USA. I'm not trying to change for global unity or any worth while cause. Actually, it is pretty petty and self-centered, going metric would make me use smaller numbers in my weight and bigger numbers in my rides

Have a great day and remember spring is right around the corner.
dbikingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 11:39 AM   #2
bautieri
Downtown Spanky Brown
 
bautieri's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Camp Hill, Pennsyltucky
Bikes: 14 Motobecane Phantom Cross Pro 2000 Kona Lana'I
Posts: 2,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You could allways go in stones and hands.

Clydesdales/Athenas, 14.2857143+ stones or 18+ Hands
bautieri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 11:45 AM   #3
DallasSoxFan
Scan Me
 
DallasSoxFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Bikes: 2009 Trek 2.3, 2010 Specialized Secteur Sport
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I've always thought stone was a great measurement for human weight. It helps you focus on a range rather than an increment. I personally want to be between 14 and 15 stone normally. It would allow me to not freak out about the minor fluctuations and focus on the general goal.
DallasSoxFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 12:05 PM   #4
scrapmetal
Senior Member
 
scrapmetal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Quartered safe out here
Bikes: 197x?? Raleigh rescued from scrap metal; Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Metric is good, better than SAE. But if everything is SAE around you, you have to adjust at least a bit.
scrapmetal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 04:00 PM   #5
Mazama
Bikezilla
 
Mazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Flori-Duh
Bikes: Co-Motion Mazama
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I weigh 24 stone
Mazama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 04:13 PM   #6
evblazer
Thread Killer
 
evblazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Marfan Syndrome-Clyde-DFW, TX
Bikes: Fuji Touring Xtracycle, Merlin Road, Bacchetta Giro 26 (Sold), Challenge Hurricane, Cruzbike Sofrider
Posts: 1,845
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazama View Post
I weigh 24 stone
Since we are choosing our own system to use can I pick what stone I use too
evblazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 06:50 PM   #7
cooleric1234
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Bikes: CAAD9-1, Windsor Cliff 29er
Posts: 1,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Metric is so much better than our system. As an engineer I frequently get frustrated that we are the last holdouts. The metric system makes so much more sense, you only have to remember one definition per unit (and some prefixes). If you know meters then you understand kilometers, centimeters, millimeters, and even micrometers. None of this feet, miles, yards, nautical miles, inches, etc. junk. Anyway, I feel I'm preaching to the choir. I've considered just quoting everything metric and forcing others to learn and interpret what I say, but that's kind of passive-aggressive.
cooleric1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 06:57 PM   #8
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapmetal View Post
Metric is good, better than SAE. But if everything is SAE around you, you have to adjust at least a bit.
Bikes are a hodgepodge of both measuring systems. Read up: http://www.active.com/cycling/Articl..._Its_Mind_.htm

DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 07:39 PM   #9
cyclokitty 
Not safe for work
 
cyclokitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Bikes: KHS Town and Country 100 & Jamis Durango Femme 1.0
Posts: 2,115
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How about make up your own system of weights and measures? Random stick, fill a sock with sand, invent microhexalogibutt, etc.
__________________

cyclokitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-09, 10:36 PM   #10
Abacus
Decrepit Member
 
Abacus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Bikes: 2003 Trek 520, 1996 Trek 370, 1996 Bianchi Osprey, too many others.
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The metric system is overated IMO.

Australia went metric in bits and pieces from the early 70's to the late 80's, with most of the activity happening on the mid 70s. But I've never really converted.

I still think of my weight in stones . I'm 18 stone 6 pounds. That's 258 pounds for Americans and 117.5kg for everybody else.

I still work out my car's fuel consumption in mpg. That is to say I take the kilometres and litres, divide the by litres by the kms and multiply by 100 to get L/100kms, and divide that number into 282.4 to get mpg. You would use a different factor in the US because Australia always used real Imperial gallons, not the teensy-weensy Americanised gallons.

The badge on the side of my car says it has a 5.0 litre engine. But I know it's got 302 cubic inches. The metric wannabees couldn't even get the conversion right, it's more like 4.9 litres than 5.0.

I can tell you my bike is 21". I don't know what that is in millimetres. I would have to multiply that by 25.4 to find out, and I can't be arsed.

I'm 5'10. I know that's 178cm because I've had to work it out so many times over the years and it's stuck in my memory. Feet and inches are for real men. Centimetres are for girly men.

A couple of the kids in my office had a laugh the other day when I asked one of them to go out and get a pint of milk. That doesn't bother me, because they are young and stupid. Apparently I should have asked him to go out and get a 600ml carton, for heaven's sake.

When I'm thinking distance I generally work in miles. If I go for a 30 mile ride that means something. A 50km ride could be a walk to the bathroom for all I care.

And when I shuffle off this mortal coil, they'll be burying me 6 feet under, not 1.8288 metres.

Last edited by Abacus; 01-16-09 at 10:04 AM.
Abacus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-09, 12:24 AM   #11
cooleric1234
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Aurora, CO
Bikes: CAAD9-1, Windsor Cliff 29er
Posts: 1,306
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abacus View Post
The metric system is overated IMO.
.
.
.
And when I shuffle off this mortal coil, they'll be burying me 6 feet under, not 1.8288 metres.
This didn't change my mind but I admit it had me laughing.
cooleric1234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-09, 08:53 AM   #12
DieselDan
Senior Member
 
DieselDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Beaufort, South Carolina, USA and surrounding islands.
Bikes: Cannondale R500, Motobecane Messenger
Posts: 8,521
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One argument to switching over to metric in the USA was signage on highways. South Carolina would go bankrupt just replacing all the signs on the interstate highways alone.
DieselDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-09, 09:01 AM   #13
dwilbur3
Freewheelin' Fred
 
dwilbur3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sacramento
Bikes: Surly Cross Check
Posts: 742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I use metric on my GPS because it makes my rides sound longer. 14.5km just sounds better than 9 miles. It's not so great for weight tho, takes a lot longer time to lose a kg than a pound.
dwilbur3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-09, 11:59 AM   #14
VATREKER
Junior Member
 
VATREKER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hampton Va
Bikes: TREK 1400, Schwinn Criss-cross and Iron Horse Warrior
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have been home from Italy for over a year now and just made the change from metric. I simply thought 30 kilometers per hour sounded better that 18.64 MPH.
VATREKER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-09, 01:10 PM   #15
Little Darwin
The Improbable Bulk
 
Little Darwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wilkes-Barre, PA
Bikes: Many
Posts: 8,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwilbur3 View Post
I use metric on my GPS because it makes my rides sound longer. 14.5km just sounds better than 9 miles. It's not so great for weight tho, takes a lot longer time to lose a kg than a pound.
When it comes to losing weight, lose it in grams.

Of course, I guess in imperial weight, we could resort to ounces, but grams are even easier to lose than ounces.
Little Darwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:14 PM.