I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.

The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.

In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50 watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.

Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use. But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>
> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>
> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>
> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>

I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
certainly not bike fit right.

And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.

It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
etc is unlikely to be worth it.

Roger Merriman

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:30:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>
>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>
>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>
>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>
>
>I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
>uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
>certainly not bike fit right.
>
>And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
>also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>
>It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
>etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>
>Roger Merriman
>

It took a lot of experimentation to get my Catrike's grips in just the
right position, and I don't even put any weight on them. If someone
came along and said I had to move them, I'd just bow out.

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 15:30:23 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>>
>>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>>
>>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>>
>>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>>
>>
>> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
>> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
>> certainly not bike fit right.
>>
>> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
>> also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>>
>> It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
>> etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> It took a lot of experimentation to get my Catrike's grips in just the
> right position, and I don't even put any weight on them. If someone
> came along and said I had to move them, I'd just bow out.
>

This is purely a Pro roadie thing, and as ever chasing aero gains.

Quite apart from anything the UCI banned recumbents best part of 100 years
ago!

Roger Merriman

On 4/23/2024 11:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>
>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>
>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>
>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>
>
> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
> certainly not bike fit right.

I've ridden 38 cm bars almost exclusively since I got serious about
cycling in the 80's. Anything wider and I feel like I'm riding with a
drag chute. I can ride with 40's, but I'm more comfortable on 38's

>
> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
> also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>
> It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
> etc is unlikely to be worth it.

The 'wide bar for better handling' is just a fashion trend imo,
especially on MTB. I've never seen the need to ride bars wider than my
shoulders. My Cdale came with 78 cm bars. I had never ridden anything
over 600 before. I tried it for a few weeks - couldn't get used to it. I
kept catching trees on tight single track and the longer movements from
the wider radius to negotiate rocky technical trails took me off the
bike several times. I cut them down to 60 and it was like riding a
different (and much better handling) bike. I've had quite a few other
MTB riders incredulously ask how I can stand riding with such narrow
bars. I reply 'the same way you can stand riding wider bars'.

>
> Roger Merriman
>
>

--
Add xx to reply

On Tue Apr 23 15:30:23 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
> > and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
> > unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
> > outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
> > solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
> >
> > The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
> > races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
> > the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
> >
> > In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
> > watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
> >
> > Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
> > But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
> > on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
> > to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
> > norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
> >
>
> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don?t recall being
> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
> certainly not bike fit right.
>
> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
> also noted that it?s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>
> It?s for Pro?s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
> etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>
> Roger Merriman

The wind tunnel data was for 35, 45 and 50 kph measured through a range of angles. The wattage savings were unbelievable and if it was claimed without hard data I wouldn't believe it. The only one of us that could probably make use of it is Flunky, I might be interested in tryibng a 38 mm standard drop bar because I should really be using a 40 rather than a 42.

On Tue Apr 23 15:57:23 2024 Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/23/2024 11:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
> >> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
> >> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
> >> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
> >> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
> >>
> >> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
> >> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
> >> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
> >>
> >> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
> >> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
> >>
> >> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
> >> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
> >> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
> >> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
> >> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
> >>
> >
> > I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don?t recall being
> > uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
> > certainly not bike fit right.
>
> I've ridden 38 cm bars almost exclusively since I got serious about
> cycling in the 80's. Anything wider and I feel like I'm riding with a
> drag chute. I can ride with 40's, but I'm more comfortable on 38's
>
> >
> > And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
> > also noted that it?s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
> >
> > It?s for Pro?s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
> > etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>
> The 'wide bar for better handling' is just a fashion trend imo,
> especially on MTB. I've never seen the need to ride bars wider than my
> shoulders. My Cdale came with 78 cm bars. I had never ridden anything
> over 600 before. I tried it for a few weeks - couldn't get used to it. I
> kept catching trees on tight single track and the longer movements from
> the wider radius to negotiate rocky technical trails took me off the
> bike several times. I cut them down to 60 and it was like riding a
> different (and much better handling) bike. I've had quite a few other
> MTB riders incredulously ask how I can stand riding with such narrow
> bars. I reply 'the same way you can stand riding wider bars'.
>
> >
> > Roger Merriman

Well, the tested bars were like 20 qnd 22 cm wide on the tops and had sharp spread so that it was 32 mm at the outside of the drops. Riding on the tops seemed OK but riding on the drops looked uncomfortable to me.

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/23/2024 11:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>>
>>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>>
>>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>>
>>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>>
>>
>> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
>> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
>> certainly not bike fit right.
>
> I've ridden 38 cm bars almost exclusively since I got serious about
> cycling in the 80's. Anything wider and I feel like I'm riding with a
> drag chute. I can ride with 40's, but I'm more comfortable on 38's
>
My Gravel bike has 46’s though I suspect I maybe a larger person anyway but
even so Gravel bikes tend to wider sizes, I’ve not felt any need to change
it which perhaps suggests it’s about right!

Plus being somewhat old school MTBer I will ride out of the saddle, be that
up or down tech stuff.

Ie the “attack position” ie up over the saddle and so on, seems to have
multiple names that position.
>>
>> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
>> also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>>
>> It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
>> etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>
> The 'wide bar for better handling' is just a fashion trend imo,
> especially on MTB. I've never seen the need to ride bars wider than my
> shoulders. My Cdale came with 78 cm bars. I had never ridden anything
> over 600 before. I tried it for a few weeks - couldn't get used to it. I
> kept catching trees on tight single track and the longer movements from
> the wider radius to negotiate rocky technical trails took me off the
> bike several times. I cut them down to 60 and it was like riding a
> different (and much better handling) bike. I've had quite a few other
> MTB riders incredulously ask how I can stand riding with such narrow
> bars. I reply 'the same way you can stand riding wider bars'.
>
Maybe possibly just what your used to as well? My old commute bike which is
16/17 years old by now has 600 bars which is fine, arguably better narrower
as it fits though some of the anti motorbike stuff easier.

My full suspension beasties which is 10 years old it’s self, has 700 bars
it feels ungainly on roads which is more than the bars, but the geometry in
general.

But it feels about right once off road, being 10 years old, though a trail
bike it’s geometry now is closer to XC bikes than trail bikes, and is now
short travel.

>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>
Roger Merriman

On 4/24/2024 6:59 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/23/2024 11:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>>>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>>>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>>>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>>>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>>>
>>>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>>>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>>>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>>>
>>>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>>>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>>>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>>>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>>>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>>>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
>>> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
>>> certainly not bike fit right.
>>
>> I've ridden 38 cm bars almost exclusively since I got serious about
>> cycling in the 80's. Anything wider and I feel like I'm riding with a
>> drag chute. I can ride with 40's, but I'm more comfortable on 38's
>>
> My Gravel bike has 46’s though I suspect I maybe a larger person anyway but
> even so Gravel bikes tend to wider sizes, I’ve not felt any need to change
> it which perhaps suggests it’s about right!
>
> Plus being somewhat old school MTBer I will ride out of the saddle, be that
> up or down tech stuff.
>
> Ie the “attack position” ie up over the saddle and so on, seems to have
> multiple names that position.
>>>
>>> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
>>> also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>>>
>>> It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
>>> etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>>
>> The 'wide bar for better handling' is just a fashion trend imo,
>> especially on MTB. I've never seen the need to ride bars wider than my
>> shoulders. My Cdale came with 78 cm bars. I had never ridden anything
>> over 600 before. I tried it for a few weeks - couldn't get used to it. I
>> kept catching trees on tight single track and the longer movements from
>> the wider radius to negotiate rocky technical trails took me off the
>> bike several times. I cut them down to 60 and it was like riding a
>> different (and much better handling) bike. I've had quite a few other
>> MTB riders incredulously ask how I can stand riding with such narrow
>> bars. I reply 'the same way you can stand riding wider bars'.
>>
> Maybe possibly just what your used to as well?

That's only partially true. I tried the 780s for a solid month -
couldn't get used to it.

> My old commute bike which is
> 16/17 years old by now has 600 bars which is fine, arguably better narrower
> as it fits though some of the anti motorbike stuff easier.

There's that point as well. In tight trails wide bars are a liability.
Even with my more narrow bars I've had brush on the side of the trail
"grab" the bar as I went by. Wider bars would have proven disastrous.

>
> My full suspension beasties which is 10 years old it’s self, has 700 bars
> it feels ungainly on roads which is more than the bars, but the geometry in
> general.
>
> But it feels about right once off road, being 10 years old, though a trail
> bike it’s geometry now is closer to XC bikes than trail bikes, and is now
> short travel.
>
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>>
>>
> Roger Merriman
>
>
>

--
Add xx to reply

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 6:59 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2024 11:30 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I just watched a podcast from Xyxling about the new trend in nattow bars
>>>>> and they backed ut up with extensice wind tunnel testibng. For those
>>>>> unaware of it, the UCI forbids the use of handlebars wth an outside to
>>>>> outside measurement of less than 36 cm, The nattow bar xcontinegent
>>>>> solves this by strongly tapering the handlebars out to the legal measurement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The wind tunneol findings were shicking and peoplke like Flunkiy who
>>>>> races should pay attention to them. At the lowest xpeed and sitting up in
>>>>> the normal highest racing position there is a savings of 17 watts.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other positions and higher speeds the savings can be as much as 50
>>>>> watts implying that you can gain another 5 kph in some cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, this has no general use since these are very uncomfortable to use.
>>>>> But the racing gains are so high that they equal ALL other aero savings
>>>>> on a bike. They do not seem to have any handling effects once you're used
>>>>> to them but for normal sport bike riders this does suggest that 38 mm
>>>>> norrmal drop bars aer worthwhile.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have seen/read reviews of such narrow bars, don’t recall being
>>>> uncomfortable though will by nature be a more extreme position and
>>>> certainly not bike fit right.
>>>
>>> I've ridden 38 cm bars almost exclusively since I got serious about
>>> cycling in the 80's. Anything wider and I feel like I'm riding with a
>>> drag chute. I can ride with 40's, but I'm more comfortable on 38's
>>>
>> My Gravel bike has 46’s though I suspect I maybe a larger person anyway but
>> even so Gravel bikes tend to wider sizes, I’ve not felt any need to change
>> it which perhaps suggests it’s about right!
>>
>> Plus being somewhat old school MTBer I will ride out of the saddle, be that
>> up or down tech stuff.
>>
>> Ie the “attack position” ie up over the saddle and so on, seems to have
>> multiple names that position.
>>>>
>>>> And yes narrow bars will effect handling, and is reported as such, though
>>>> also noted that it’s not dangerously bad as some might claim.
>>>>
>>>> It’s for Pro’s possibly worth it, for amateur the benefit over fit/handling
>>>> etc is unlikely to be worth it.
>>>
>>> The 'wide bar for better handling' is just a fashion trend imo,
>>> especially on MTB. I've never seen the need to ride bars wider than my
>>> shoulders. My Cdale came with 78 cm bars. I had never ridden anything
>>> over 600 before. I tried it for a few weeks - couldn't get used to it. I
>>> kept catching trees on tight single track and the longer movements from
>>> the wider radius to negotiate rocky technical trails took me off the
>>> bike several times. I cut them down to 60 and it was like riding a
>>> different (and much better handling) bike. I've had quite a few other
>>> MTB riders incredulously ask how I can stand riding with such narrow
>>> bars. I reply 'the same way you can stand riding wider bars'.
>>>
>> Maybe possibly just what your used to as well?
>
> That's only partially true. I tried the 780s for a solid month -
> couldn't get used to it.

780 to be fair I’ve not used as my bikes are all older, is the new standard
though I believe folks trimming bars down is common though not to 600! As
ever find what works for you.
>
>> My old commute bike which is
>> 16/17 years old by now has 600 bars which is fine, arguably better narrower
>> as it fits though some of the anti motorbike stuff easier.
>
> There's that point as well. In tight trails wide bars are a liability.
> Even with my more narrow bars I've had brush on the side of the trail
> "grab" the bar as I went by. Wider bars would have proven disastrous.
>
I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie drop bars
or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t hook up.

I’ve only ever found the width a problem with anti motorbike barriers as
there absolute width is less than the bars.

In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
overgrown MTB trails/natural trails even with what is a 1st generation 29er
they had a reputation for being barge like, and better on faster more open
trails.
>>
>> My full suspension beasties which is 10 years old it’s self, has 700 bars
>> it feels ungainly on roads which is more than the bars, but the geometry in
>> general.
>>
>> But it feels about right once off road, being 10 years old, though a trail
>> bike it’s geometry now is closer to XC bikes than trail bikes, and is now
>> short travel.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>>
>
Roger Merriman

On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie drop bars
> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t hook up.
....
>
> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...

I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
"bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
has some pretty dense understory.

Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
Thrush any more.

White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
control them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie drop bars
>> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t hook up.
> ...
>>
>> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
>> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...
>
> I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
> bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
> "bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
> has some pretty dense understory.
>
> Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
> Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
> species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
> Thrush any more.
>
> White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
> crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
> control them.
>
Guess you need Wolves!

Though under scrub is generally with smaller trees ie trees that haven’t
reached maturity, the big Beech trees woods there is very little scrub as
the huge trees cover the light, though in sight of the Iron works and so
on, the valley is too steep for trees to be felled and removed so it
survives, and some of the trees are really very large indeed.

But the valley has changed ie slowly the land has began to repopulate with
trees/scrub elsewhere and so the ecology has changed most notably some
birds and deer are back and few have left as too many trees etc.

Roger Merriman

On 4/24/2024 6:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie drop bars
>>> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t hook up.
>> ...
>>>
>>> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
>>> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...
>>
>> I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
>> bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
>> "bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
>> has some pretty dense understory.
>>
>> Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
>> Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
>> species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
>> Thrush any more.
>>
>> White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
>> crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
>> control them.
>>
> Guess you need Wolves!

We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
their work.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 6:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie
>>>> drop bars
>>>> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t
>>>> hook up.
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
>>>> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...
>>>
>>> I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
>>> bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
>>> "bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
>>> has some pretty dense understory.
>>>
>>> Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
>>> Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
>>> species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
>>> Thrush any more.
>>>
>>> White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
>>> crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
>>> control them.
>>>
>> Guess you need Wolves!
>
> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
> their work.
>

That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.

zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 6:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie
>>>>> drop bars
>>>>> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t
>>>>> hook up.
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
>>>>> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
>>>> bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
>>>> "bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
>>>> has some pretty dense understory.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
>>>> Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
>>>> species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
>>>> Thrush any more.
>>>>
>>>> White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
>>>> crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
>>>> control them.
>>>>
>>> Guess you need Wolves!
>>
>> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
>> their work.
>>
>
> That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.
>
This said nature abhors a vacuum mind you do Coyote seems to be a fair bit
smaller and would need a pack? Even with the white tailed which is middling
sort of size by looks.

Ie looks from like you need Wolves, and yes I’m well aware that uk ecology
is lacking large predators and woods in general.

Ie have deer but nothing that preys on it, for most part the Golden Eagle
will take dead or very young plus smaller predators such as foxes!

Ie the Welsh and Scottish hills should be largely woods not open heathland.

Roger Merriman

On 4/25/2024 8:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
>>> their work.
>>>
>>
>> That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.
>>
> This said nature abhors a vacuum mind you do Coyote seems to be a fair bit
> smaller and would need a pack? Even with the white tailed which is middling
> sort of size by looks.

A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
deer, under the right circumstances.

The major "predator" for deer is the automobile.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 4/24/2024 6:13 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 9:23 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’ve only ever found bars that can hook vegetation a liability ie drop bars
>>>> or bar ends, which catch where as flat or rather riser bars don’t hook up.
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> In the woods it doesn’t seem to be a problem, even old twisty somewhat
>>>> overgrown MTB trails/natural trails ...
>>>
>>> I suppose it depends on one's locale. When I bought my first mountain
>>> bike (back when dinosaurs ruled the earth) I very soon sawed the
>>> "bullmoose" bars to make them much narrower. Our local forest preserve
>>> has some pretty dense understory.
>>>
>>> Interestingly (and sadly) that's changed. Overpopulation of White Tailed
>>> Deer has decimated the understory, removing habitat for many understory
>>> species. Sadly, we very seldom hear the beautiful song of the Wood
>>> Thrush any more.
>>>
>>> White Tailed Deer need to be controlled. But the "They're so pretty!"
>>> crowd has actually filed lawsuits to stop efforts to scientifically
>>> control them.
>>>
>> Guess you need Wolves!
>
> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up
> with their work.

Coyotes tend to eat bunnies and housecats. For deer you need mountain
lions. They make mountain biking more exciting, like it is in Colorado.

--

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:36:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/25/2024 8:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
>>>> their work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.
>>>
>> This said nature abhors a vacuum mind you do Coyote seems to be a fair bit
>> smaller and would need a pack? Even with the white tailed which is middling
>> sort of size by looks.
>
>A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
>me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
>deer, under the right circumstances.

Most likely if there was more than one. I once watched white tail doe
chasing an adult coyote. The coyote had it's tail between it's legs.

>The major "predator" for deer is the automobile.

On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 8:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
> >>> their work.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.
> >>
> > This said nature abhors a vacuum mind you do Coyote seems to be a fair bit
> > smaller and would need a pack? Even with the white tailed which is middling
> > sort of size by looks.
>
> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
> deer, under the right circumstances.
>
> The major "predator" for deer is the automobile.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
>

You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend. It is pretty difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.

On Thu Apr 25 12:16:33 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:36:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 4/25/2024 8:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 4/24/2024 11:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We do! We now have coyotes in the area, but they're not keeping up with
> >>>> their work.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That's because it's easier to raid suburban trash cans.
> >>>
> >> This said nature abhors a vacuum mind you do Coyote seems to be a fair bit
> >> smaller and would need a pack? Even with the white tailed which is middling
> >> sort of size by looks.
> >
> >A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
> >me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
> >deer, under the right circumstances.
>
> Most likely if there was more than one. I once watched white tail doe
> chasing an adult coyote. The coyote had it's tail between it's legs.
>
>
> >The major "predator" for deer is the automobile.

I'm trying to be accepting of Frank bht he doesn't seem to have ever been around the block. Is this the sort of guy you would ever take advice from? Not to mention that he always seems to have a convenient frriend to uyse as a source of "expert" information.

I am having a hard time with life's failures always passing out "good advice".

On 4/25/2024 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
>> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
>> deer, under the right circumstances.
>
>
> You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend. It is pretty difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.

<sigh> No, Tom, wrong again.

First, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer

"Bobcats, Canada lynx, grizzly and American black bears, wolverines, and
packs of coyotes usually prey mainly on fawns."

Second, from _Mammals of the Great Lakes Region_ by Kurta, pp. 264-266:
"An adult female [WTD] lives much of the year in an extended family
group with her newest fawns and her female yearling offspring. A male,
in contrast, is solitary or joins a small bachelor group."

The bucks do not protect the females and fawns. Not their job.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/25/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>>
>>> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
>>> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
>>> deer, under the right circumstances.
>>
>>
>> You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend.

Frank, do you actually have a biologit ftiend, or is this just tommy on
gin again?

It is pretty
>> difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.
>
> <sigh> No, Tom, wrong again.
>
> First, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer
>
> "Bobcats, Canada lynx, grizzly and American black bears, wolverines, and
> packs of coyotes usually prey mainly on fawns."
>
> Second, from _Mammals of the Great Lakes Region_ by Kurta, pp. 264-266:
> "An adult female [WTD] lives much of the year in an extended family
> group with her newest fawns and her female yearling offspring. A male,
> in contrast, is solitary or joins a small bachelor group."
>
> The bucks do not protect the females and fawns. Not their job.

3rd, if you score a buck on the point system you don't end up with an
odd number unless there's damage or an abnormality that results in
asymmetry. Points are tallied in part by adding the tips on both sides.

4th, if tommy was implying 3 points on each side, that's a rather
immature buck which would hardly have enough stature to mate, let alone
take on a role of protecting the herd.

But then, knowing the fragility of tommy's ego, he probably would be
impressed by a buck with only three points.

>

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
>>> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
>>> deer, under the right circumstances.
>>
>>
>> You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend. It is pretty
>> difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.
>
> <sigh> No, Tom, wrong again.
>
> First, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer
>
> "Bobcats, Canada lynx, grizzly and American black bears, wolverines, and
> packs of coyotes usually prey mainly on fawns."
>
> Second, from _Mammals of the Great Lakes Region_ by Kurta, pp. 264-266:
> "An adult female [WTD] lives much of the year in an extended family
> group with her newest fawns and her female yearling offspring. A male,
> in contrast, is solitary or joins a small bachelor group."
>
> The bucks do not protect the females and fawns. Not their job.
>

Indeed seems to be way deer/sheep and more work ie males are solitary
(though) the royal parks deer males do collect into to rough groups but
that’s not natural.

But again the males are only feisty during the rut after that are totally
chilled, it’s never a double digit pointer that kills a dog but a doe
protecting her fawn.

Roger Merriman

On Fri Apr 26 12:21:10 2024 Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 4/25/2024 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
> >>> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
> >>> deer, under the right circumstances.
> >>
> >>
> >> You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend. It is pretty
> >> difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.
> >
> > <sigh> No, Tom, wrong again.
> >
> > First, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer
> >
> > "Bobcats, Canada lynx, grizzly and American black bears, wolverines, and
> > packs of coyotes usually prey mainly on fawns."
> >
> > Second, from _Mammals of the Great Lakes Region_ by Kurta, pp. 264-266:
> > "An adult female [WTD] lives much of the year in an extended family
> > group with her newest fawns and her female yearling offspring. A male,
> > in contrast, is solitary or joins a small bachelor group."
> >
> > The bucks do not protect the females and fawns. Not their job.
> >
>
> Indeed seems to be way deer/sheep and more work ie males are solitary
> (though) the royal parks deer males do collect into to rough groups but
> that?s not natural.
>
> But again the males are only feisty during the rut after that are totally
> chilled, it?s never a double digit pointer that kills a dog but a doe
> protecting her fawn.
>
> Roger Merriman
>

Roger, congregations or herds of deer in the USA during fawning season are the rule rather than the exception and the bucks are very protective. The fact that Wikipedia is the source that Frank believes is reliable proves that he has a very low IQ. Wikipedia uses aources such as Liebermann who is anything but educated. In high school I knew more about electronics than he with his precious 4 year (that should have been 2 year) degree that took him 6 years tO achieve showing that knowledge was not his intent but rather avoiding the draft. he wasn't smart enough to know that he could have done That like my brother by joining the Army reserve and takiung 6 weeks of training and never seen a uniform again. As for Frank, he achieved his degree probably the same manner 3with actual knowledge secondary to his belief that he could make more money as an engineer. But he couldn't. There is nothing strange or odd about this because only 8-10% of people with degree ever spend one day in the knowledge base they achieved a degree in. At least Frank gave it a try. My wife got a degree in teaching because she was already teaching music, And then, 50 years ago that cost her $10,000.

I was born and educated in the San Francisco bay area long before it was populated like today and was a nature buff. While I normally haunted the salt marshes that have since been land-filled absolutely destoying the ecosystem, I also did a great deal of hiking the hills. I even remember when the hills were covered with native Coastal Redwood trees rather than Eucalyptus from Australia as now.

I grow very tired of no-information people like Liebermann, Frank and Flunky. There is nothing wrong with not knowing something but those three like to make it public in the face of correct informa5tion.

Do you know what the mRNA vaccibe is? It is an experimental military test of gerrm warefare. GMO's (Genetic Modified Organisms) are illegal anmd against the Geneva convention since WW I. The change from mRNA to DNA is also known and has been for over 20 years. So why did 1. Fauci finance modifying a bat virus without a GMO licence with which he wouch have been required to show why such a thing shjould be undertaken and provide the highest levels of containment and 2. how were pharmaceutical companird allowed to produce a GMO countermeasure without the same GMO licence using a technology invented by the military for large scale murder in wartime? 3. Why were these fact hidden from the people paying for it? 4. Why do the pharmaceutical compsnies not have to report bribery on a scale so massive that it exceeds the gross national product of many European countries?

Moreover, remember that safe and effective were tauted by Liebermann, Flunky and Frank not because they knew one thing about it, but because I warned everyone here about it any they wished to prove me wrong. How many lives will it cost? I can make a guess that most people that took three or more shots will die from cancer. Whats more, if they had these shots brfore having children the have passed that on as part of their genome.

But I'm sure that Frank can quote us a Wikipedia article saying something else. Nothing like being so stupid as to believe that if cayotes ate fawns that there would be a lot more cayotes and less deer. There nature is right in front of you and Wikipedia says differently.

On Thu Apr 25 23:43:38 2024 zen cycle wrote:
> On 4/25/2024 11:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 4/25/2024 6:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Thu Apr 25 11:36:55 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A biologist friend who lives nearby (with multiple acres of woods) tells
> >>> me coyotes mostly take fawns. But I suppose they could take an adult
> >>> deer, under the right circumstances.
> >>
> >>
> >> You should have another talk with your biologit ftiend.
>
> Frank, do you actually have a biologit ftiend, or is this just tommy on
> gin again?
>
> It is pretty
> >> difficult to get a fawn with a 3 pointer buck pretecting the herd.
> >
> > <sigh> No, Tom, wrong again.
> >
> > First, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer
> >
> > "Bobcats, Canada lynx, grizzly and American black bears, wolverines, and
> > packs of coyotes usually prey mainly on fawns."
> >
> > Second, from _Mammals of the Great Lakes Region_ by Kurta, pp. 264-266:
> > "An adult female [WTD] lives much of the year in an extended family
> > group with her newest fawns and her female yearling offspring. A male,
> > in contrast, is solitary or joins a small bachelor group."
> >
> > The bucks do not protect the females and fawns. Not their job.
>
> 3rd, if you score a buck on the point system you don't end up with an
> odd number unless there's damage or an abnormality that results in
> asymmetry. Points are tallied in part by adding the tips on both sides.
>
> 4th, if tommy was implying 3 points on each side, that's a rather
> immature buck which would hardly have enough stature to mate, let alone
> take on a role of protecting the herd.
>
> But then, knowing the fragility of tommy's ego, he probably would be
> impressed by a buck with only three points.

Some hunters count the points on one side of the horns and others on both sides. Why don't you show us a Wikipedia article saying otherwise you wicked, wicked hunter who murders poor little fawns. Oh, wait, like Frank you're afraid of guns save to keep one to show how manly you are.