Originally Posted by
Herzlos
Why? I assume most riders don't ride any differently in a group to when they are on their own, except they might go a bit faster/further in a group. Unless you're in a peloton conserving energy in a race, then it doesn't really make that much difference.
Wind resistance is very different, and wind resistance is that which road bike riders are putting in effort to overcome, so yes, riders will go "a bit" (or several times) faster/further in a group, such as a pro peloton where, according to one paper the wind resistance is about 20% that of a solo rider, as I keep quoting. This very large difference between group and solo riding could/might/should (? you pick. My pick is should) result in a large difference in riding style.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
Most of the people I see riding are on flat bars, except for when I'm deep in the countryside (who must be doing 20+ mile rides) where only the more serious riders are
I agree. My comments are addressed to road bike riders.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
and even then they are in a fairly comfortable position most of the time.
I agree entirely, and sugest that folks don't ride in this "comfortable" position because it does not result in a good work out and because the "non-comfortable" position is in fact quite comfortable if your belly and knees do not overlap.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
Riding harder aggressively is racing, just not against opponents. Most people aren't cycling to break records.
I am just out to remain BMI 21 or so. Not to break records or race.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
That's largely what I mean. He's able to get into a position that I reckon most riders can't get into. He's slim enough to get away with it, and as a racer has plenty of practice getting low. He's probably spent more time practicing getting low than most of us spend riding. I dare say that most cyclists have a bit of a belly.
Largely agreed. I think that the only thing about Robbie is that he doesn't have the belly that a lot of us (including myself in the past and nacently now) have. Now that approaching (by 2030) 50% of people are obese in the USA that becomes the new (60 years ago) normal, that "most riders can't" do.
Originally Posted by
badger1
In bold 1: that is because they are probably interested in riding for more than 1 hour at a time. Rides of 2 to 4+ hours. Riding in a fake, cobbled-together 'time trial' position is not conducive to that -- or anything much else -- for the typical elite/pro-level road rider, let alone recreational road cyclist.
I generally ride only (?) 1 hour at a time and once a week at most 2 - 2.5 hours at a time. I am not sure what the average amateur ride length is but it may be only (?) about one hour at a time. I am not sure whether or not "elite" riders who ride 32 to 4 plus hours will be interested in Robbie's style or not, but recreational cyclists that want to get or remain non-overweight may, in my humble experience be interested.
Originally Posted by
badger1
And that is the problem with your bizarre 'theories'. You insist on holding time-trialling up as the paradigm to which all road cyclists should aspire.
I ride about one hour at a time on my own. I rarely see people riding in groups. I see other people riding alone every day. I think riders "should" ride the ride that they are riding and this, in cases where they want to ride fast, hard, energetically, resembles -- most out of the pro race styles -- a time trial.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
Nonsense. Doing so might work for you and your limited ambitions with cycling, but so what? Doing so would make absolutely no sense for me, for example, or I suspect for the vast majority of recreational road cyclists, whether riding in a group or alone. And yes -- I ride solo, always. It would make no sense either for the professional road racing cyclists to whom you keep referring. They know that time-trialling is a specialized sub-discipline within 'road cycling/racing'.
My ambitions with cycling are to try to be not overweight. I have as you say limited ambitions with cycling in terms of winning races. I guess that quite a few bike purchasers, and recreational road cyclists, have a similar ambition to me but I may be wrong. I don't see why you think that your ambitions are more representative of the recreational rider than mine.
I agree that pros would not be interested because they ride in groups, or in cordoned off roads.
Originally Posted by
Herzlos
So, everything you've written in this thread is informed by an attitude best summed up as 'everyone is out of step except me', and this leads you to blather on with your silly conspiracy theories (in bold 2). What you've written in this thread also demonstrates quite well the truth expressed by A. Pope long ago:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing ; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring : There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,".
Thank you for the Pope quote.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
OK, I'm as guilty of it as anyone, but isn't it time to quit feeding this flat earther troll?
This had been an interesting thread (I admit that grudgingly because I think that was despite a very poor OP), but this is the second General Cycling thread this guy has managed to hijack in a week and sorry, but discussing this ad nauseum is a crashing bore.
I am not sure why so many people keep responding to this "crashing bore," but if people do I will respond.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
This guy has nothing, no data, no evidence of any kind, just his hero worship of a washed-up trainer and some really truly bizarrely idiotic ideas about bike position and weight control.
I was thinking of taking a video of me riding along in a low position not looking uncomfortable but other than speak of my experience as is common, I am not sure
what kind of data do others provide or would you like me to provide.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Several of you have pointed out how he's wrong even about the aerodynamics, yet he continues to talk right past and around that.
I have often addressed aerodynamics.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Getting back to the topic of the thread, obviously this guy has determined that any innovation that increases comfort is evil and that only innovations that increase speed are valid
This is the biggest issue I think. I am not saying that comfort is evil but when it is overemphasised it leads to ill health. I like to be comfortable but when Robbie's riding sytle is said to be uncomfortable and that grand-fondo/ endurance/ entry level road bikes are offered to people who'd be fine in Robbies positon, then I take issue.
Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Frankly, this essentially criminalizes the industry where the bulk of innovations in the non-racing cycling world (which is what, 90+% of it?) is in the proliferation of types of bikes for purposes other than racing and fast road-riding. The flat earther tries to make this part of a conspiracy to make everybody fat, and I don't think we owe him the courtesy of treating that as anything but the complete nonsense that it is--in other words, it's not worth even discussing.
I don't think that anyone has an objective of making anyone fat.
I think that economics encourages the sale of things that suit the person as they are at the time of sale rather than that which they aspire to be. The availability of products that allow people such as me and people of all shapes and sises, to cycle are, of course, very helpful. At the same time, the normalisation of styles of riding (trousers, running, shoes) that facilitate overweight might (I argue may, or should) profitably be avoided.
Originally Posted by
smd4
It's apparent that you have never worked in a bike shop in any capacity.
Entirely true.
Originally Posted by
smd4
I worked in one (actually, several) for 10 years. I assure you, you have no idea nor understanding about what you are talking about. There was no bike manufacturer rep breathing down my neck telling me what bike I should recommend to a person. Nor were the owners of the shop. We did not work on commission. The store wasn't forced to pick one style of bike over another. THERE IS NO GRAND CONSPIRACY. As a salesman, believe it or not we actually spent more time listening to our customers, finding out their likes and dislikes, what kind of cycling they wanted to do, and actually tailored the bike choices for their needs, and sometimes wants--not the bike industry's. I also assure you that most people coming into the shop were not interested in full-on road racing bikes, although we did sell them. We may have had one TT bike in the shop, sort of like a gimmick--this was the mid 1980s, when such bikes seemed "cool," especially after the 1984 Olympics.--knowing that it might be a long time before it sold. I suppose it did eventually. My guess is it's been hanging upside down in someone's garage for the last 40 years.
Thank you for your contribution to society.
Mr. Cobb, and many many other bike and bike equipment sellers, are not aiming to sell UCI branded bikes. I have had really good experiences with some of them.
"Conspiracy" suggests that there are a bunch of nasty guys sitting around a table plotting the downfall of the biker. I don't think that is the case at all. At the same time imho there are economic reasons for the promotion and proliferation of pro sponsoring bikes. And attention to the race formats that pros ride may inform purchasers when to be wary of the "the pros ride the best bike type" rhetoric.
Originally Posted by
smd4
I have no idea what kind of a "professor" you are, but I thank God that my kids won't be learning anything from you. Please stay far away from any colleges or universities in the States. Remember the old adage about keeping your mouth shut and letting people think you're a fool, or ...Ooops--too late.
I have not heard that adage till now but I am okay with people thinking me a fool.
Originally Posted by
smd4
(As a side note, in my professional dealings with "professors," they often think of themselves as all-knowing in all subjects. This frequently gets them into all kinds of trouble because they get in over their heads in something, and refuse to acknowledge their lack of knowledge in a subject, and end up digging deeper, and deeper, and deeper...) And here we are!
I think you are right about the tendency of professors to think they know too much. I try to bear that in mind.
Originally Posted by
Rogerogeroge
This thread needs to be shut down before the internet runs out of space. Get a life people.
At least once in the past that when someone asks for a thread to be shut down, it has been shut down, though, I don't think that the internet is likely to run out of space.
In any event, I remain grateful
m(._.)m
Tim