[Other Sport] Cycling geeks

[Stat Brother]

What is 3 to 9 pedalling?

I think Stat made it up

Actually, I think he is talking about the idea of 'scraping' your foot back at the bottom of the pedal stroke. At least I presume that is what he is on about.

Is it not 9 to 3 pedalling? This was mentioned to me when I had a go on a wattage bike that showed a graph of your power throughout the pedal action. When your foot is at 9 o'clock you push forward toward 3 o'clock as if you are bypassing 12 o'clock (12 o'clock being the highest point of the pedal stroke). Supposed to even out your transitions in the pedal action so that the power is even throughout. Interestingly on the wattage bike it was how amazing it was to go from the graph being a circle (perfect power output) to a figure of '8' shape which effectively meant your efficiency takes a nose dive.

Yep that'll do.

T'is poor mans oval crank.

'We' ride from 12 o'clock pushing down to 6 o'clock.
Thus making a full revolution only 50% capacity, because the leg going from 6 back to 12 does nothing.

The theory being at 3 o'clock you drag your foot back, as if you're scraping something off the bottom of your shoe.

So from 12 to 3 you're pushing down.
From 3 to 9 you're dragging back.
From 9 to 12 you're pulling up.

When you do, you will go faster.
It may well feel smoother.
I can feel it working out my back thigh muscle (I'll look that up).
And then you'll see something shiny, forget and revert back to how you've ridden for the last 40 years.

I've not seen it presented as a forward push, but the principle is still the same.

I can feel it in my biceps femoris


He's got no willy, tee-hee

 

[Pogue Mahone]

This makes a lot of sense. I still wear a helmet though...

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

 

[Hamilton]

This makes a lot of sense. I still wear a helmet though...

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

I read an article by Andrew Gillighan who was saying something similar. His job is to get people on their bikes in London, and essentially he was arguing that biking is a safe activity and we should be doing all we can to encourage people to ride, helmet or know helmet. He used a stat saying that there were 1.8bn bike rides in London each year and 20 deaths. Twenty too many, but compared to other road users it's much safer.

He recognised that there was a need to improve road use right across the board and that better safety for all would come from improved road layouts and behavioral change: Helmets were just window dressing and the type of thing to reinforce the belief that cycling wasn't safe.

I could see where he was coming from, but two things came to mind. First, there's a difference between cycling at 20-30 miles an hour and tootling along at 10. Second, I think anything that keeps your brain protected isn't a bad thing.

 

[bravohotelalpha]

IMHO cyclists need to learn to use roads correctly - and maybe have a licence and insurance too ...

 

[Glanders]

IMHO cyclists need to learn to use roads correctly - and maybe have a licence and insurance too ...

Brilliant. Bit early in the morning for this shite isn't it?

 

[Stat Brother]

My mate that always falls off had a tumbley wumbley on the steep descent behind Bignor Roman Palace.
I didn't see what happened but heard the thud which smashed his helmet, so to speak!!

Id hate to think what his head would have looked like had he been helmetless.

 

[Pantani]

IMHO cyclists need to learn to use roads correctly - and maybe have a licence and insurance too ...

Brilliant. Bit early in the morning for this shite isn't it?

To be fair he does have a point. Some cyclists do need to learn how to use the road properly, not sure about a licence as it is unpoliceable. Insurance really should be a thing though, it should be incredibly cheap though, as the potential for cyclists to cause lasting harm to other road users is extremely small.

 

[Pantani]

My mate that always falls off had a tumbley wumbley on the steep descent behind Bignor Roman Palace.
I didn't see what happened but heard the thud which smashed his helmet, so to speak!!

Id hate to think what his head would have looked like had he been helmetless.

SB this is exactly the point though, riding down steep hills at 40mph plus, of course you are going to want to wear a helmet. Boardman is not talking about that though is he? He is talking about your everyday cyclists (or more importantly potential everyday cyclists) popping down the shops, or riding to work. I am quite happy tearing down hills out on a proper ride in the countryside, I certainly do not ride down Dyke Road, Seven Dials and Queens Road at the speeds I am capable of, during the morning rush hour on my commute. You may not want to wear a helmet in this situation (I do not).

 

[Hamilton]

To be fair he does have a point. Some cyclists do need to learn how to use the road properly, not sure about a licence as it is unpoliceable. Insurance really should be a thing though, it should be incredibly cheap though, as the potential for cyclists to cause lasting harm to other road users is extremely small.

The trouble is, how do you insure a 14 year old on a bike? Can't see how that is workable and will discourage people from riding.

I don't think insurance is needed at all. The amount of damage caused by cyclists in comparison to other motor users is negligible.

I do agree that all road users need to learn how to use the roads.

 

[Stat Brother]

SB this is exactly the point though, riding down steep hills at 40mph plus, of course you are going to want to wear a helmet. Boardman is not talking about that though is he? He is talking about your everyday cyclists (or more importantly potential everyday cyclists) popping down the shops, or riding to work. I am quite happy tearing down hills out on a proper ride in the countryside, I certainly do not ride down Dyke Road, Seven Dials and Queens Road at the speeds I am capable of, during the morning rush hour on my commute. You may not want to wear a helmet in this situation (I do not).

Very much so, my clothing dictates whether I wear a helmet on not.
Stat club jnrs don't touch a bike unless they are wearing a helmet.

I should have said Mr Tumble, bizarrely enough, wasn't actually haring down the descent at 40 mph, but just going round the bend at the top, about 20 yards in.
But it still smashed his helmet to bits.

 

[Pantani]

The trouble is, how do you insure a 14 year old on a bike? Can't see how that is workable and will discourage people from riding.

I don't think insurance is needed at all. The amount of damage caused by cyclists in comparison to other motor users is negligible.

I do agree that all road users need to learn how to use the roads.

You wouldn't insure under 18s. I feel a nominal fee for insurance would be useful, more for the damage we can cause to ourselves than to others though.

 

[Hamilton]

You wouldn't insure under 18s. I feel a nominal fee for insurance would be useful, more for the damage we can cause to ourselves than to others though.

Agree on optional. I'm insured through my membership of British cycling which is good - and has other benefits too.

 

[Stat Brother]

Why do cyclists shave their legs?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/exe...cyclists-shave-their-legs-20140219-32zzo.html

 

[Glanders]

To be fair he does have a point. Some cyclists do need to learn how to use the road properly, not sure about a licence as it is unpoliceable. Insurance really should be a thing though, it should be incredibly cheap though, as the potential for cyclists to cause lasting harm to other road users is extremely small.

Agreed with regard to the insurance point, if only to give the anti-cyclist brigade one less thing to spout off about, but "cyclists need to learn to use the road properly" - really? Sure, some do, as do some car, van and LGV drivers, but this kind of tar-them-all-with-the same-brush nonsense is neither insightful nor constructive. Still, he (she?) got a bite, so well done that man (woman?).

 

[strings]

Be careful out there folks:

Cyclist's crash damages reduced because of 'contributory negligence': looking down at heart rate monitor

 

[Pantani]

Sounds like today's stage in Oman was a good one. Shame it was not on TV! Eurosport coverage of Andalusia starting now. Should be proper, looks very lumpy.

 

[Stat Brother]

Sounds like today's stage in Oman was a good one. Shame it was not on TV! Eurosport coverage of Andalusia starting now. Should be proper, looks very lumpy.

The profile had them needing rope and crampons a stones throw from the finish.

The result would suggest otherwise.

 

[Pantani]

The profile had them needing rope and crampons a stones throw from the finish.

The result would suggest otherwise.

It was only really one climb near the end, I was surprised at who held on though. Tomorrow will be different though. That really does look like it will be tough.

 

[Pantani]

Did you see that? Obvious Valverde win, but G pulled on the front for 1.5km taking the peloton from 30/40 strong to 6. So impressive.

 

[1066familyman]

I saw the ticker for Oman for the last few kms again today. Sounds like a good little dig from Froome & Sagan and they had Canc and Stybar along for the ride too. That's a bloody strong little group so was surprised it ended in a bunch sprint.

Was tempted to put two little bets on last night - Stybar and Sam Bennett. Glad I kept my powder dry in the end.