Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Fifty Plus (50+) (https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus-50/)
-   -   Young'ns Thread (https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus-50/418282-youngns-thread.html)

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 06:21 PM


Originally Posted by Hobartlemagne (Post 6702031)
Im only 34, but my curmudgeonly attitude fits in well around here

Says who?

:saweeet:

maddmaxx 05-15-08 07:07 PM


Originally Posted by Hobartlemagne (Post 6702031)
Im only 34, but my curmudgeonly attitude fits in well around here

Hey..............you kids...................get off the grass!

SuperDave 05-15-08 07:12 PM

I'm only 49.

My bike has triple chainrings.

With cages, not cleats.

Go ahead. Flame me. I read the Road Bike forum. I can take it.

solveg 05-15-08 07:15 PM


Originally Posted by SuperDave (Post 6702984)
I'm only 49.

My bike has triple chainrings.

With cages, not cleats.

Go ahead. Flame me. I read the Road Bike forum. I can take it.

ME TOO!

Jet Travis 05-15-08 07:32 PM


Originally Posted by SuperDave (Post 6702984)
I'm only 49.

My bike has triple chainrings.

With cages, not cleats.

Go ahead. Flame me. I read the Road Bike forum. I can take it.

Years: 49
Chainrings 3
TOTAL 51

THAT MAKES YOU 50+ BY ANYONE'S MATH. YOU'RE IN.

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 07:39 PM


Originally Posted by Jet Travis (Post 6703092)
Years: 49
Chainrings 3
TOTAL 51

:rolleyes:

Okay, am I missing the obvious?

solveg 05-15-08 07:48 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703123)
:rolleyes:

Okay, am I missing the obvious?

:lol:

BUT! If that logic is valid... I'm 47 with 3 rings. Which just* puts me in!

Jet Travis 05-15-08 08:11 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703123)
:rolleyes:

Okay, am I missing the obvious?

There you go again, foolishly trying to think you're way through one of my posts. Trust Solveg. She has a woman's intuitive grasp of my artistic rendering of silly things like numbers.

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 08:11 PM


Originally Posted by solveg (Post 6703185)
:lol:

BUT! If that logic is valid... I'm 47 with 3 rings. Which just* puts me in!

You are at least 329 in dog years.

Jet Travis 05-15-08 08:14 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703334)
You are at least 329 in dog years.

I've always said it: Tom Bombadil knows what a woman wants to hear.

rdmjr 05-15-08 08:34 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703123)
:rolleyes:

Okay, am I missing the obvious?

How about this for a rationalization - the chain's got to be on one of those 3 rings, so whichever one the chain's on doesn't count?:D

- Bob

solveg 05-15-08 08:35 PM

I am 201 in dog years. The 7 year:1 year thing isn't really accurate.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/dogyears.htm

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 08:54 PM

That calculator is wrong too. There is no standard conversion, as not all breeds of dogs have the same longevity expectation.

I submit that the on-line calculator is no more accurate than the old 7:1 assumption. For the average person lives to roughly 75. Using their calculator, the average dog would have to live to 15.5 for it to be accurate. But the fact is that few dogs live that long. The average across all dog breeds is closer to 12-13.

Here is a chart of expected lifespan by dog breed:
http://www.dog-answers.com/Dog-Longevity-by-Breed.html

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 09:01 PM

So in Pomeranian years, 47 would translate to 235 years
In Great Dane years, you are 376.

solveg 05-15-08 09:01 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703636)
That calculator is wrong too. There is no standard conversion, as not all breeds of dogs have the same longevity expectation.

I submit that the on-line calculator is no more accurate than the old 7:1 assumption. For the average person lives to roughly 75. Using their calculator, the average dog would have to live to 15.5 for it to be accurate. But the fact is that few dogs live that long. The average across all dog breeds is closer to 12-13.

Here is a chart of expected lifespan by dog breed:
http://www.dog-answers.com/Dog-Longevity-by-Breed.html

That chart is very accurate!

Well, help me out here, because I have kind of a headache and not energetically thinking tonight. The actual way of converting years would be to compress human age to adulthood into when dogs reach adulthood, which is between 1.5-3 years if you go to when a dog's growth stabilizes and he's not expected to gain any more weight. So those years are weighted probably 10-1. Then you'd have to take the years remaining of the average lifespan and prorate them to the average lifespan of the human. There would be some male/female thing to consider there.

Then there would be some math magic that would happen to combine the ratio pre-adulthood with the ratio post-adulthood, which is beyond me right now.

Help?

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 09:08 PM

The simplest way is to simply find a ratio between the expected longevity of a particular dog and that of a human. So if a dog breed lives to 10 and a person to 75, then you use 7.5. I really don't see much reason to make it more complex.

A dog who is 5 has lived half of its expected life, as has a human who is 37.5. Although neither of those statements is accurate either, as for both dogs and humans, if you avoid dying from infant death causes and accidents at a young age, your life expectancy changes.

As its just a silly approximation anyway, I see no reason to overthink it.

solveg 05-15-08 09:10 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703728)
The simplest way is to simply find a ratio between the expected longevity of a particular dog and that of a human. So if a dog breed lives to 10 and a person to 75, then you use 7.5. I really don't see much reason to make it more complex.

A dog who is 5 has lived half of its expected life, as has a human who is 37.5. Although neither of those statements is accurate either, as for both dogs and humans, if you avoid dying from infant death causes and accidents at a young age, your life expectancy changes.

As its just a silly approximation anyway, I see no reason to overthink it.

So, why am I thinking that if we go back 30 years, dogs lived longer, and the average was indeed 7:1, but now it's more like 5:1?

solveg 05-15-08 09:11 PM

We would have had some great conversations in college, Tom.

You want to rehash skin tone?

Tom Bombadil 05-15-08 09:26 PM


Originally Posted by solveg (Post 6703743)
So, why am I thinking that if we go back 30 years, dogs lived longer, and the average was indeed 7:1, but now it's more like 5:1?

I would bet that dogs had shorter lives 30 years ago, given that vets do far more to prolong the life of a dog than they used to.

Technically even if dogs and humans lived shorted lives 30-50 years ago, the ratio could have been higher then. Consider the following:

Let's say humans now live 75 and dogs live 12: Ratio is 6.25:1

In the past let's say humans lived to 68 and dogs to 10: Ratio is 6.8:1.

The 7:1 probably stems from people living to around 70 and dogs living to around 10.

solveg 05-16-08 07:29 PM

Jet Travis:

I like your new avatar, but the saddle height looks a little high.

solveg 05-16-08 07:32 PM

No contest ( I actually had to make the dead possum photo kinda cute, because the original dead possum was so incredibly gross--it's still no contest):

Dead Possum:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/13...240d914e39.jpg

Live Possum:

http://www.buzdor.com/_images/grapepossum.jpg

Road Fan 05-16-08 09:40 PM


Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil (Post 6703636)
That calculator is wrong too. There is no standard conversion, as not all breeds of dogs have the same longevity expectation.

I submit that the on-line calculator is no more accurate than the old 7:1 assumption. For the average person lives to roughly 75. Using their calculator, the average dog would have to live to 15.5 for it to be accurate. But the fact is that few dogs live that long. The average across all dog breeds is closer to 12-13.

Here is a chart of expected lifespan by dog breed:
http://www.dog-answers.com/Dog-Longevity-by-Breed.html

Occam's razor: If you're doomed to be wrong anyway, at least keep it simple?

road fan

solveg 05-16-08 11:11 PM


Originally Posted by Road Fan (Post 6710112)
Occam's razor: If you're doomed to be wrong anyway, at least keep it simple?

road fan

That's the most logical thing I've read in a long time!!!!

DnvrFox 05-17-08 04:56 AM


Originally Posted by Hobartlemagne (Post 6702031)
Im only 34, but my curmudgeonly attitude fits in well around here

NOT ALLOWED!

solveg 05-17-08 07:39 AM

EVERYONE is allowed in this thread!!!!!


:welcome


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:36 PM.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.