Sy Reene

How much weight savings is there for a fixie vs a single gear with a freewheel?

timtak

Thank you for all the replies.

I see that my style of writing is being criticised here for lecturing and hyperbole and I will address that first.
It seems to me I have not used more hyperbole nor lecturing, nor other rhetoric, than has been used against me, and that since this a net forum the various rhetorical devices that people use will be freeer than they might otherwise be face to face, and I am okay with that. So I will allow myself to continue to call the demerit of a non-flat backed position a chest parachute, because to mix devices, we seem to be forgetting the parachute in the room, or, on the road. Every day I see people riding along with their chest parachute, and so few people riding in a Cobb-Robbie style position.

Me too. What is it?

Almost all of what I have to say is said by Cobb who suggests that "these days" bikes are less aggressive and recommends dropping the head tube. It was doing what Cobb recommends, mainly, that had enabled me to lose weight, and while I respect that there is are a lot of ways to ride a lot of bikes, I thought that it would be of interest to others.

I have also added to Cobb's position, in the form of a proposition concerning how the bike industry may be involved. I even more unsure about that, but it seemed to be worth saying.

I will say it again. There is I think these days no pro model for the amateur cyclists but it is important for those who wish to sell the sponsored branded bikes that pros ride to maintain this link. The reason why there is a gap between what pros do and and what many amateur cyclists do is because
1) Pros ride in groups in pelotons where the average wind resistances is about 20% of that experienced by a solo ride and ride in breakaways, again often draft in smalll groups, for perhaps only 5% or less of their time on their road bikes. I think in the past there were more breakaways. And I think in the past therefore road bikes were more suited to aggressive amateur solo riding.
2) When they ride solo, like almost all of the amateur riders I see, with the wind hitting them they ride very flat backed time trial bikes (which emphasise flatness and narrowness) but being so narrow, and lacking brakes on the handlebars with the gear change, they are unsuitable for hard/aggressive riding amateur solo riders.
Thus we hard/aggressive riding solo riders who want to say or get not fat, should be looking for some sort of compromise bike. I have called a lanced road bike back when I thought that I should mimic a time trial bike. These days I think that older bikes can provide a good model, as Cobb suggests.
In any event, since the current pros do ride so much of their time in the peloton, which is like riding with a gale force tailwind or behind a truck, their bikes do not present imho an optimal model for the hard aggressive solo rider who wants to get thin, though, it seems to me, there is an economic, and ego-centric incentive for people purchase such "rolex" bling.

One person expressing their views can seem as lecturing to another. I see quite a lot of rich folks, like the dentists mentioned earlier getting fat too. So, as you go on to suggest, maybe time constraints are more predictive.

Hear hear. I don't watch t.v., sit down, or speak to people, (other than here and a couple of other places mainly here) but I ride an hour before breakfast and an extra hour each way on my commute.

I have read about that too. While the statistics regarding how many people dying a year (about 325,000 and increasing in the USA, or c. 1000 a day in fact 890 but the study is old), what I have to say pertains more for those who want to get thin but, I do believe there is considerable effect upon lifespan, and on healthy life span.

The 1000 a day, was from the old study mentioned above from 1999 which factors to 890 a day but I also read there is considerable increase. Mainly I wish to recommend what Cobb has to say and suggests, that to counter the tendency towards "comfort," when we want to ride harder, or more aggressively we ride like Robbie. He is not ignorant. I started out road cycling as a means to counter my obesity and, incorporating Cobb's ideas, I had moderate success. My BMI has been 21 for quite a few years now but perhaps not for much longer (nor even this year, my annual check up is tomorrow). It is a fight.


At my Porkiest, Being Japanese by Timothy Takemoto, on Flickr

Cobb still sells lowering stems on his web site.

Saddle to bar drop is not, as I am sure you know, the only thing that determines flatness/aerodynamics. In the past I used just saddle to bar drop by lowering my bars and raising my saddle. These days I realise that one can get low in a more rood-bike-traditional way by having rearward offset and forward pushing (rearward pulling) pedaling style. But generally speaking, a lower stem will often result in a more aggressive (flat) style. Mr. Cobb seems appears to believe that aggressive riding has gone out of style (to be replaced by comfort), and from my memories of riding 1970's bikes in about 1980, photos, and general impression of youtube videos, I agree with him (though as Kapusta says, I too have not measured).

Again the "lecturing" (I find that words get reused). Are you lecturing?

AlgarveCycling Mentioned various types of bikes and seems to think that I am recommending track bikes. A short while ago I did have a look for old steel bikes on ebay Japan (yahoo acutions Japan) and saw a Sanrensho bike which originated on the track and liked it. But other than my own experimentation, I have only been influenced by Cobb- Robbie style (presented as old style road bike) not track bikes. Maybe some of the bikes that I showed photos of earlier were track bikes?
I am sure there are exceptions but a lot of the bikes on this "old bici" web site in the road and vintage sections seems to have low bar positions
https://www.oldbici.it/shop/bicycles/road-bicycle/
https://www.oldbici.it/shop/bicycles/vintage-bicycle/

Kapusta May be right to say that the racier bikes haven't changed but there is just more variation now. It seems to me that may well be the case. I am not sure. I do recommend therefore that people are wary of the "#entry level road bikes" with "endurance" and "comfort" geometry. It seems to me that in part their prevalence is linked to the spread of obesity and they allow life saving exercise to be done by those (like me) how are or were in this category.

I have used the example of baggy trousers. When you can't fit into tight jeans wear baggies of course. But when you can fit into tight jeans and you keep wearing baggies you may be inclined to fill out the baggies.

I tried to think of another anolgy but recently Nike's super Zoom Fly (and other shoe) technology has made the analogy poor. I will stick with it. Till the invention of Nike Zom Fly (and other) shoes with carbon plates in them, pro athletes including hard surface marathon runners would use thin soled shoes and fatties like me would use some padding. The heavier you are generally the more padding you need to keep running. However if you are thin and athleteic, or get thin and athletic, then the heavier thicker shoes will become an impediment leading to less joy of running and perhaps tendency to return to the weight which made the heavier shoes necessary.

So using the equipment (comfort/endurance/entry) bikes or shoes/trousers made to save and help those who are heavier is good while you are heavy, but like the baggies and heavy shoes, will get in your way when you get less heavy. In the case of shoes and trousers the connection between the style of shoes and the body type is clearer. It did not occur to me at all however that I was riding a bike for a heavy person, until I saw Cobb's videos.

I do not find a flat back to be uncomfortable, but very comfortable as Cobb says.

tomato coupe

Nope. Your content is being criticized, because it's pure nonsense.

indyfabz

I think I’ll have a Cobb Salad for lunch tomorrow.

smd4

Whoever said modern road bikes are “less aggressive” clearly never lived during or read about road bikes in the 1970s/early 1980s, when it was routinely advised that the stem/handlebar be at the same level as the saddle.

Compared to those halcyon days, today’s racing bikes are practically time trial bikes.

timtak

Whoever thought that saddle to bar drop is the main indicator of aggressive, aerodynamic cycling position has not yet worked out the old-school, ankle-down, bunch-up-at-the-back, french-style, carbonfibreboy style (all these mean the same thing to me but there are probably variations) style of pedaling. I did not until recently.

The main (not the only) determinant of aerodynamics is frontal area. The main two ways of changing that on a non recumbent bike is to get low, and to get narrow. (Bent elbows also removes forearm frontal area but it is not so much fun to support your body using bent elbows and implies a shorter span of time in that position.Low affects vision. Narrow effects steering)

Once you get your torso fairly level then there is the problem of where your legs are going to go. Your knees are going to hit your chest. There are at least two solutions.
1) The time-trial solution is to move your saddle forwards and upwards so that your are sort of running on your bike bowed down, generally with considerable saddle to bar drop.
2) The carbonfibreboy style solution involves pushing your saddle backwards, and then pushing not down but forwards with your legs, with your ankles down. If you push forwards with your heels down (as if you are sitting on a tall recumbent while reaching for your toes) and then straighten your foot at the end of the forward push, as if scraping mud off, or applying mortar to a wall in front of you, and then pull back with your glutes, from about 5pm you do not need to have so nearly much space under your body, nor nearly as much saddle to bar drop and still be aerodynamic. I think that is why in the 70s there was not as much saddle to bar drop and yet in photos and videos they were often racing aggressively.

There is no need to use (2) the "heel drop" "French" "old style" "bunched up at the back" technique, as demonstrated by the pros today who rarely use it, But it has advantages in long rides since it applies the force over a larger part of the cycle, shares the load between muscles, and it recruits your butt muscles which is useful to old people (like me at 57) to prevent knee pain and hip instability, and it produces a nice sensation where instead of taking it in turns ones legs help each other, and you can sort of stomp (using your quads) while in a tuck (instead of having to stand to stomp), and you get lower without putting your saddle higher because your legs are pushing forwards more (or at least at an angle forwards). You can also give up on the push part of the stroke sooner safe in the knowledge that you will pull and use a whip technique which means you are serializing your muscles so that instead of taking it in turns, quads then quads, your glutes pull adds speed to your quad push. That being said, repeating, the Pro peloton today prove that this old style is not necessary. I think that the modern Pro peloton is very now more than ever much a group ride where teams form lines where they take it in turns to sprint and this may favour the quad quad quad push push push with the occasional shorter break with bent arms. If you are riding on your own however, as I always am, it may help to return to the push forwards pull back style.

70sSanO

I hope you realize that many if not most of the people here have been cycling for decades. I would be extremely surprised if just about everyone here didn’t already understand aerodynamics.

And, you are only 33 years late to the party because on July 23, 1989 the whole world got to witness the effects of everything you are professing. I guess better late than never.

John

timtak

Indeed, and coached by my favourite, John Cobb
https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2...-lemond-story/

Perhaps if everyone understand everything every one should not say anything. I, and I think John Cobb are into rehashing the past lest we forget it.

When Mr. Cobb says that bikes these days are making us comfortable, but we should be doing it like this -- just after he lowers Robbie's bars by about 5cm, he is saying we should go back to the day you mention when he made a road bike super aero for Greg LeMond to win the tour by 8 seconds. His video below is from 12 years ago but I think the message remains valid and worth rehashing though, to many knowledgeable members of this forum, it may be very old hat. From 4:21 the alast 2 minutes of the video.


I seem to be the only person in my region that rides like Robbie though there is nothing particularly fit, flexible, or otherwise unusual about my body.

koala logs

Heel dropper here. The recruitment of quads is only optional. You can in fact deactivate the quads on certain pedaling mode. There are still a number of pros who drop heel. Some of them are one of the best climbers in the sport like Alberto Contador and Tom Bell.

Dropping the heel allows you to use the calves like a spring in my experience when pedaling out of the saddle. It also makes it easier to push the pedals forward at the top of the stroke. You're simply applying power at different quadrants of the "pedal circle". There really is no tangible evidence one technique is superior than the other. One solid advantage of dropping heel though is reducing frontal area of your legs and bike - lower drag. Because if you're pointing your toes down instead, your feet becomes fully exposed to the airflow. The higher saddle height it needs also results to more seatpost exposed and possibly higher stack height resulting to increased drag of the bike.

I just like dropping heel. I'm able to push a lot harder if I do.

Troul 

would like to see an affordable hybrid hub that accepts a 12 speed free hub cassette while at the same time utilizes an 12 speed IGH. Call it the 1x12:12. Preferably, the cassette would be mechanically shifted & the IGH wireless shifted.

Herzlos

I've watched the video and a few points jump out at me. He says that position is good for A style backs, but not B style backs, where the B style backs are about 75% of riders, thus the advice is wrong from 75% of riders.
The rider he's demonstrating with is a cycle racer already, so in the top few percentile points of cyclists, and even he doesn't look that comfortable in the lower position.

I don't understand how rotating the position forward can result in removing weight from both the seat and the hands, given the weight needs to go somewhere. Is he trying to imply that moving more weight to the feet (the only contact point left) is the way to go?

It'd have been interesting if he'd been using a power meter or something to show the differences in pedaling efficiency between the postures.

livedarklions

Your response to being called out for propagating bs is just to reiterate the same bs in more words. This "if it works for me, it will work for everyone" is the mantra of all sorts of charlatans and purveyors of nonsense in the "weight control" industry. Yours is nothing but another stupid magic bullet idea that can only do harm.

If we're going to argue from anecdote, I somehow managed to go from 320 pounds to about 180 never once putting myself into that absurd riding position. One thing I learned from that is to never give unsolicited advice to people about weight loss because what worked for me (which I worked out by trial and error) was pretty much contrary to almost all of the advice I had been given by doctors, nutritionists, trainers and laypeople. This stuff is incredibly individualized, no "diet" or regimen is known to work for more than a few people, and I have no reason to assume that what works for me (which is pretty extreme and takes more time than most people juggling family and work obligations have) will work for anyone else. Unsolicited advice, which is what you're doing, is almost never going to apply to any other individual, and is really a condescending and obnoxious thing to do, especially coupled with claims about the obese person's health. Hate to break it to you, but there's actually many, many otherwise healthy obese people.


​​​​​​Again, you are arguing from your experience, and this makes the supposed ad hominem of your alcoholism a relevant counter to your argument. You argue this is a comfortable position and that it isn't unsafe. Frankly, I would have no reason to trust any of those observations when they come from someone who is consuming a bottle of wine (at least that much, alcoholics are known for minimizing) per day. Alcohol is a thought distorting depressant, affecting both your ability to tolerate discomfort and your judgment.

No, I am not "lecturing" you, I'm telling you you're entirely full of crap. You want to argue that solo riders will be faster on your stupid bikes, go right ahead. I know next to nothing on the subject other than people vary widely in their flexibility, and that I'd never feel I could ride in that position safely on the crappy, winding bumpy hilly New England roads I ride several thousand miles a year on. Just stop with the damn obesity moral panic rhetoric. It's obvious you're just throwing that in to give your kooky theories heft they can't carry.

WhyFi

TL; DR - did we get pics of Tim on his bike, yet?

GhostRider62

You missed my point

And sorry but you are wrong. I never said saddle height is the only thing that determines flatness as you indicated in your lecture.

Who cares what this guy thinks. People are using 36 bars nowadays, how is that less aggressive than the commonly used Cinelli 66-42 of yore?

You completely missed, ignored, or failed to understand the simple point that forearms narrower than the hips/thighs and more in-line with the torso is more aerodynamic than your antiquated setup because it minimized A while improving Cd of CdA. Do you not think all the Pro teams use wind tunnels? You can test this yourself using Chung Field testing.

Checkout le blaireau's stem. I hear he was a pretty good rider.

indyfabz

Doubt you ever will. There are a couple of noted BF members who talk a lot of this and that but can never produce "proof of life." A certain alleged bent rider comes to mind.

timtak

Returning to Koala Logs

Thank you.

Thank you. I am still not using my calves much. I have a long way to go. I may get too doddery before I learn to use my calves much even though cyclist often have calves in which you can see the sinews (at least in Japan). [/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Yes. yes. Thank you. that is another advantage. I used to think that time-trial stance was the epitome of aero and it may well be but there is at least one aspect in which it loses to heel drop in that toe down to heel drop means you can lower the saddle and get (not only your torso) but also your legs out of the way as you say. THanks.

One other thing. Heel drop is good for old people like me in that you can better avoid knee injury because you are not using gravity only your own strength to push. Unloading the push (forwards) before you over compact your joints (pushing downward with gravity) is that much easier.

Wow. I never knew about internal hubs. It sounds like recumbent technology. I think I'd probably ride one, at least some of the time, if I had the money.

I agree or more so... I think that 25% would be an awful lot of people. I might hope for more like 5% - 10% of people on this forum to say "yeah, (of course) I do that," or "yeah, I do that from time time" or "yeah, "I'll try that." I mention Robbie's style of riding (that I emulate) as much as I do, because of the rejection it gets, as if it is extreme, or uncomfortable, or strange. What is strange is on the contrary for me is, it seems to me that almost all (all?) the people I see on a road bike, both on the net and in person, are riding along like they are riding in a group, even though they are riding alone. Wowee!

I am sure that there must be lots of people that ride like Robbie on their road bike on this forum, but the only person that I am aware of that rides like Robbie (or as "aggressively" -- strange term) on a road bike is beng1. Beng1 is I believe older than me, and not notably flexible, professional, outlier, but he does it. So what is going on? This is what I find bizarre, and attempt to explain by "conspiracy," or rather economic, branding, bike-shop theory.

Dealing with the second point first, it seems that Robbie wanted to go down lower but Cobb brought him up. It was my impression that Robbie was entirely happy with the position. I think I can see him nodding when Cobb says it is no problem (or words to that effect).

Cobb claims that the position is not only for racing but only for riding harder aggressively.

I think that Robbie is simply, not yet fat. He is not a top percentile points because he is a racer, or because he is flexible or whatever and ever, but simply because his belly does not get in the way of his legs.

When I started riding I was a "B type back" and but as I got rid of my belly I moved to a Robbie type position not because I was in any elite race category, any racer "percentile", but simply because my legs and torso did not overlap.

As I have said before the only problem for me was flab. The more the flab reduced the more it was possible. The more I had flab the more my legs and belly could not coexist. There was nothing particularly comfortable or not comfortable just that flab got in my way, or did not get in my way when I reduced my flab.

This is an important point. The reasons to give up (smoking, drinking, or) being overweight are not all that pressing. One more [cigarette, wine] pizza does not make that much difference. But if you can find something that you like, that is motivating, that gives you thrills, that gives you a boost, that requires the cessation, then it becomes a lot easier.

Riding a road bike on your own, like you are riding in a group, comfortably is, comfortable. But I find that solo road bike riding, in a Cobb-Robbie way provides that motivation / thrill / boost. It is thrilling. Zip! Overtake! Fly! Zoom! Even at 57.




I am not understanding really either.. I guess the weight goes to pedals and also the quads (rather than sit bones). The important thing to note is that Robbie' s position is comfortable (if your belly and legs do not overlap).

I agree.

Tim

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.
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, and even then they are in a fairly comfortable position most of the time.

Riding harder aggressively is racing, just not against opponents. Most people aren't cycling to break records.

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.

smd4

I feel quite comfortable referring to TimTak's bike as an MTB--Medieval Torture Bike.

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.

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. 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'.

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,".

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. 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. Several of you have pointed out how he's wrong even about the aerodynamics, yet he continues to talk right past and around that. This is a conversation only in the sense that arguing with a broken record would be. 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 (and he appears to be wrong about those). 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.

smd4

It's apparent that you have never worked in a bike shop in any capacity. 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.

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.

(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!

Rogerogeroge

This thread needs to be shut down before the internet runs out of space. Get a life people.

timtak

I get a lot of that but it is really not what I think. I find that something works for me, and I don't think I am special, so I guess that it will work for some others so I share it.

I feel I do see "magic bullets" to which you refer. I like the videos of Durianrider, a youtuber, a bit but the way in which he promotes carbohydrate consumption ("carb the **** up") like it is a magic bullet, that disturbs me.

As I just wrote I see that the Cobb-Robbie style is only going to interesting to perhaps 10% of people on bikes for reasons such as
1) Traffic (the Cobb-Robie style will not work well in traffic because it reduces field of view)
2) Wanting to see the scenery (likewise)
3) Off road (likewise things to bump into)
4) When one can't bend over due to back problems
5) When one knows that ones belly is not going to go.
6) Wanting to ride in groups (criteriums, pelotons, groups of all sorts)

Nevertheless, I think that there is a large number of riders that could be doing, or aiming for, the Cobb-Robbie style but do not seem to be. So I wish to spread the good news.


First of all well done.
Secondly why would you not share your good news?
Or, not you give the reason, because your new is contrary to the advice given by doctors, nutritionists, trainers and laypeople, does that mean you should not share? I think not. I want to know your way.



I'd like you to share anyway. I think that humans are not all that individualised. Their are loads of differences and loads of similarities. People can pick and choose. Success stories are always valuable, imho, even if they are only applicable to you.

Unsolicited advice? This is a forum, a place for sharing good news. It will sometimes apply to someone else and in very rare occasions it will apply to no one else.

Simultaneously, there are lots of people on these forums saying this is how it is and that is nonsense, horse**** etc and that is better than sharing your successes because it is individual? I can not agree.

I am aware that there are health obese people and affirmed the research presented that supported that assertion. I am also of the belief that obesity tends to negatively affect health. And I also believe that some people would rather not be obese in any event.

​​​​​​Ad homimen (attacking the person) may well be relevant, and in the case of my alcoholism, I am as I stated grateful for it. Where does the "supposed" come from?

You may be right about my alcoholism affecting my appreciation of safety. As someone that lives somewhat dangerously that my pervert my appreciation of what is and is not safe.

I don't think it affects my appreciation of comfort, especially since I don't ride my bike when I have been drinking but, maybe you are right. Does my consumption of alcohol make me think that riding like Robbie is not uncomfortable? I will ponder on this. It seem unlikely.

Ha. Yeah, you tell me!

[QUOTE=livedarklions;22588973]you want to argue that solo riders will be faster on your stupid bikes, go right ahead. [?QUOTE]
I am not so sure about faster. I find that I am myself faster. The main thing I want to suggest is that people will motivated to put our more watts over a longer period of time as is experienced when riding solo.

And as I have been asked more than once, 'why not put out the watts with ones chest parachute?' My response is that riding low can result in a bit more speed, or at least the feeling of speed, whereas heating the atmosphere results in nothing that we can perceive and can feel meaningless.


Then my suggestions are not for you. That is okay, for you, and for me, and the world.

You may be right, to an extent. Hmm....heft. I like the word "heft." A few things
1) I started this to combat my obesity and that remains my main (but not only) motivation. Speed, watts, style, whatever, are fun, but all secondary. I want to remain not-too-fat and I have in the past at least achieved this through the method I propose.
2) I do think that obesity is a mind blowingly big problem. There have been 1 million deaths from Covid in the past approximately 2.5 years. But in the same time there have been almost that number of deaths from obesity according to 1999 research, and the high number of deaths from COvid in the US are also partly due to the high prevalence of obesity.
3) I think that death is only a very small part of the problem of obesity. It can affect quality of life for many (but not all) people in many ways. It is often like, for me (but not sumo wrestlers and many others) a dimming of the lights of life (in my case), a sort of viscosity of life, making movement slower, many things more dangerous, often social appraisals less positive (in my case), and self appraisals less positive (in my case).
4) I don't know too many ways of reducing obesity. Giving up alcohol would be one, it is true. When I went to Australia about 15 years ago the only group of people, or category of people (other than perhaps East Asian Australians) that I noticed that looked non obese were the road bike cyclists.

Take my writing in any way you like or don't read it at all but if you tell me "do not write", I am sorry but respectfully, I am going to ignore that request.

I saw that coming and used the words " the main indicator" in an attempt to fend off "the only thing" criticism, but I failed. Was my "lecture" insufficiently clear? Did you read my "lecture"? I like to think I am reading your lecture.

I do. Robbie seems to. Lance Armstrong and Greg Lemond paid for his advice.

Do you mean 36cm wide bars? I would like some. I replaced the 42 on my Trek with some 38cm bars but I would have preferred thinner, ideally flared so as to get the variation provided by road bike bars in vertical dimension in the horizontal dimension also.
I am sorry I don't understand. It is my impression that bars have got wider but I am not sure what 66-42 even means. Sorry.



First of all, I wish folks would use "Cobb's setsup" more because I am just some "idiot" etc whereas Cobb is a world renown coach.
Secondly I am not sure how Cobb's set up is incompatible with the narrower set up that you are suggesting, particularly because I like to go, and often go narrow, using a very short tri bar on my road bike, using the bars with bend elbow, and using inward pointing brifters. Low and narrow is good, imho.

I think that all the pro teams use wind tunnels, and that they ride in teams. They ride in teams. They ride in teams. Their set up is set up to facilitate riding in teams. They also ride in break always about, or less than 5% of the time. I always, that is to say, always, ride on my own in a break away on a time trial always always always. But the pros get wheeled out all the time, though the ride in a very different way to me and almost all the amateurs I see.

Why do you show me a picture of a person urinating. Do you have not better picture?

Tim

njkayaker

You get "a lot of that" because it's based on what you are writing (and repeating). Here's one example out of many.

You are either not being honest or you are being very careless in how you communicate.

timtak

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.

I agree. My comments are addressed to road bike riders.

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.

I am just out to remain BMI 21 or so. Not to break records or race.

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.

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.


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.

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.

Thank you for the Pope quote.

I am not sure why so many people keep responding to this "crashing bore," but if people do I will respond.

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.

I have often addressed aerodynamics.

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.

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.

Entirely true.

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.

I have not heard that adage till now but I am okay with people thinking me a fool.


I think you are right about the tendency of professors to think they know too much. I try to bear that in mind.

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