Well, my new gravel bike arrived at 9 pm last night so I left the box in the front room. I was up as usual at 5 am and after coffee me and the cat assembled it. I unpacked it and she knocked everything over until she knocked the bike over which woke up my wife who was afraid that I had fallen over. Presently the bike is sitting along side the house waiting for me to get ready to go for a ride. I have a 25 mile course that should work out OK if it doesn't rain. They aren't predicting rain but that is what they always say in this sort of miserable weather.

One of the things that will no doubt have to be repaired is that the rear derailleur is short arm and the gearing plainly shows that either this guy never rode off-road of where ever he lived was flatter than a pancake. So that will have to be changed sooner or latter even though the routes I want to use it on are flat. I think that in the summer I can do a 2000 foot hard climbing loop.

On this route I can outrun that mountain bikes everywhere except on 25% or more climb with loose ground. With the heavy rain there is one bridge I have to cross instead of riding across what is usually a dry flat. Presently we have 200% of the usual seasonal total levels of rain and rain normally comes in late January and February so with any luck, at the end of this winter the declared drought will be over. The snow pack in places is 400% normal..

But my gravel ride should turn out OK since the temperature is 54 degrees when the normal is in the 40's. No doubt them will blame that on climate change. It is sort of interesting that people that don't know shit about science are willing to believe that somehow CO2 has and effect on the atmosphere..

The temperature regulation in the atmosphere is due to the density of the atmosphere and not what it is composed of. This is why the super-dense atmosphere of Venus keeps that planet hotter than the sunny side of Mercury which has no atmosphere. And while Mar's atmosphere composed largely of CO2 is near freezing all year round.

We can always ask Russell what a scientist is because he seems to think that you can get a degree in "science".

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 9:45:34 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Well, my new gravel bike arrived at 9 pm last night so I left the box in the front room. I was up as usual at 5 am and after coffee me and the cat assembled it. I unpacked it and she knocked everything over until she knocked the bike over which woke up my wife who was afraid that I had fallen over.. Presently the bike is sitting along side the house waiting for me to get ready to go for a ride. I have a 25 mile course that should work out OK if it doesn't rain. They aren't predicting rain but that is what they always say in this sort of miserable weather.
>
> One of the things that will no doubt have to be repaired is that the rear derailleur is short arm and the gearing plainly shows that either this guy never rode off-road of where ever he lived was flatter than a pancake. So that will have to be changed sooner or latter even though the routes I want to use it on are flat. I think that in the summer I can do a 2000 foot hard climbing loop.
>
> On this route I can outrun that mountain bikes everywhere except on 25% or more climb with loose ground. With the heavy rain there is one bridge I have to cross instead of riding across what is usually a dry flat. Presently we have 200% of the usual seasonal total levels of rain and rain normally comes in late January and February so with any luck, at the end of this winter the declared drought will be over. The snow pack in places is 400% normal.
>
> But my gravel ride should turn out OK since the temperature is 54 degrees when the normal is in the 40's. No doubt them will blame that on climate change. It is sort of interesting that people that don't know shit about science are willing to believe that somehow CO2 has and effect on the atmosphere.
>
> The temperature regulation in the atmosphere is due to the density of the atmosphere and not what it is composed of. This is why the super-dense atmosphere of Venus keeps that planet hotter than the sunny side of Mercury which has no atmosphere. And while Mar's atmosphere composed largely of CO2 is near freezing all year round.
>
> We can always ask Russell what a scientist is because he seems to think that you can get a degree in "science".
Well, after assembling the bike, yesterday I went out and did a 24 mile gravel ride. Pushing 37 mm wide tires through gravel was exhausting enough but the front disk was also dragging. Not much but the slightest dragging wears you out rapidly. With that exhaustion the Cannondale ultra-stiff frame hurt my back and tomorrow's Saturday ride will be pretty slow until it works the kinks out of my back. I will have to remember to ride those Cannondale tires at 40 or so lbs.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:

> front disk was also dragging. Not much but the slightest dragging
> wears you out rapidly

Sure. From a quick and rough calculation I would expect a low single
digit loss, most likely below 1 W.

> With that exhaustion the Cannondale ultra-stiff frame

Sure.

> I will have to remember to ride those Cannondale tires at 40 or so
> lbs.

Yes. And before you complain about the stiffness of the frame, re-read
your science textbooks about the resulting stiffness of springs in
series. As a bonus task, calculate the effect of a perfectly rigid frame
compared to "vertically compliant" carbon frame. Hint:

https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality

Otherwise, have fun with your "universal weapon"!

Axel

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:38:18 AM UTC-8, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > front disk was also dragging. Not much but the slightest dragging
> > wears you out rapidly
> Sure. From a quick and rough calculation I would expect a low single
> digit loss, most likely below 1 W.
> > With that exhaustion the Cannondale ultra-stiff frame
> Sure.
> > I will have to remember to ride those Cannondale tires at 40 or so
> > lbs.
> Yes. And before you complain about the stiffness of the frame, re-read
> your science textbooks about the resulting stiffness of springs in
> series. As a bonus task, calculate the effect of a perfectly rigid frame
> compared to "vertically compliant" carbon frame. Hint:
>
> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
>
> Otherwise, have fun with your "universal weapon"!

I would have guessed about that much. If I rolled the front wheel it would go about 3 revolutions and come to a stop. I put in 5,000 miles last year and 1,000 miles in December. And yet this small amount of drag plus pushing the 37 mm knobby through the gravel totally exhausted me on just a 24 mile ride with about 5 miles total of on road riding. And not just exhausted me but while I was riding, I couldn't support myself properly on the bumps so that I hurt my back to the point that I cannot stand upright easily. This will go away probably by tomorrow, but it ain't no fun.

On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> front disk was also dragging. Not much but the slightest dragging
>> wears you out rapidly
>
> Sure. From a quick and rough calculation I would expect a low single
> digit loss, most likely below 1 W.
>
>> With that exhaustion the Cannondale ultra-stiff frame
>
> Sure.
>
>> I will have to remember to ride those Cannondale tires at 40 or so
>> lbs.
>
> Yes. And before you complain about the stiffness of the frame, re-read
> your science textbooks about the resulting stiffness of springs in
> series. As a bonus task, calculate the effect of a perfectly rigid frame
> compared to "vertically compliant" carbon frame. Hint:
>
> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
>
> Otherwise, have fun with your "universal weapon"!
>
> Axel

Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
generated those pie charts. Certainly, frame geometry, tire size and
more have big and variable effects.

In particular, with the modern fashion for straight fork blades, I'm
surprised that the fork's deflection is almost as great as that of the
tire.

But I have no trouble believing that the deflection due to the frame's
flexing is tiny, despite all the hype about "vertical compliance" in
frames.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:24:04 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> > Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> front disk was also dragging. Not much but the slightest dragging
> >> wears you out rapidly
> >
> > Sure. From a quick and rough calculation I would expect a low single
> > digit loss, most likely below 1 W.
> >
> >> With that exhaustion the Cannondale ultra-stiff frame
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> >> I will have to remember to ride those Cannondale tires at 40 or so
> >> lbs.
> >
> > Yes. And before you complain about the stiffness of the frame, re-read
> > your science textbooks about the resulting stiffness of springs in
> > series. As a bonus task, calculate the effect of a perfectly rigid frame
> > compared to "vertically compliant" carbon frame. Hint:
> >
> > https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
> >
> > Otherwise, have fun with your "universal weapon"!
> >
> > Axel
> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
> generated those pie charts. Certainly, frame geometry, tire size and
> more have big and variable effects.
>
> In particular, with the modern fashion for straight fork blades, I'm
> surprised that the fork's deflection is almost as great as that of the
> tire.
>
> But I have no trouble believing that the deflection due to the frame's
> flexing is tiny, despite all the hype about "vertical compliance" in
> frames.

They are speaking both of bicycles in general and gravel bikes in particular. Surely you noticed a HUGE softening of the ride from larger tires? If you look at those charts you can see that your shorts have more softening of the ride than your frame or wheel.

Looking at those pie charts plainly shows what you can discover for yourself via simple experimentation. To tell you the truth, it was my belief that steel framesets had quite a bit of compliance but apparently it is entirely in the forks and steerer. My Cannondale with its 3" downtube is apparently not much stiffer than the steel Basso I had. But the carbon fiber heavy duty fork is.

In passing I can tell you that I absolutely HATE those disk brakes. They are so powerful that they are going to take a LOT of getting used to. With the normal pressure you put on a rim brake to slow down the disk brakes lock up. I suppose that I will get used to it, but I really can't see any reason for it.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
>> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality

[...]

> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
> generated those pie charts.

From the older state on that site (some years back, when I first found
that article), it seemed to me they were measuring all this on a stock
Cervelo (which makes sense). But it is/was not mentioned precisely.

The pragmatical bottom line of the pie charts is:

- At the front, tire and fork account for 2/3 of the compliance. With 38
mm wide tires and a very slender and nicely curved fork on my
randonneur, I consider myself all set.

- At the rear, tire and saddle account for 2/3 of the compliance. With
42 mm wide tires and a Brooks B17 on my randonneur, I consider myself
all set.

You have to consider that this (presumably, see above caveat) holds for
a hardcore road bike. Once you have 40 mm and a B17, they will account
for a much large share of the overall displacement/compliance. By then
you can completely forget about the frame stiffness.

(-:

There used to be a bundle of technical articles about this (which is
where I got the stuff with the springs in series), but I was too lazy to
dig them up, let's see ...

Got them, the stuff I had in mind was and is on the Silca page:

https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/part-3-tire-pressure-and-comfort

A nice quote to counter all the pseudo science about vertical compliance
of a triangulated framework from this (but read yourself, it is quite
rewarding):

the difference in vertical stiffness between 4 of the 5 frames is less
than the gauge error of a standard bicycle pump (+/-5%)

Axel

On 1/7/2022 4:23 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
>>> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
>
> [...]
>
>> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
>> generated those pie charts.
>
> From the older state on that site (some years back, when I first found
> that article), it seemed to me they were measuring all this on a stock
> Cervelo (which makes sense). But it is/was not mentioned precisely.
>
> The pragmatical bottom line of the pie charts is:
>
> - At the front, tire and fork account for 2/3 of the compliance. With 38
> mm wide tires and a very slender and nicely curved fork on my
> randonneur, I consider myself all set.
>
> - At the rear, tire and saddle account for 2/3 of the compliance. With
> 42 mm wide tires and a Brooks B17 on my randonneur, I consider myself
> all set.
>
> You have to consider that this (presumably, see above caveat) holds for
> a hardcore road bike. Once you have 40 mm and a B17, they will account
> for a much large share of the overall displacement/compliance. By then
> you can completely forget about the frame stiffness.
>
> (-:
>
> There used to be a bundle of technical articles about this (which is
> where I got the stuff with the springs in series), but I was too lazy to
> dig them up, let's see ...
>
> Got them, the stuff I had in mind was and is on the Silca page:
>
> https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/part-3-tire-pressure-and-comfort
>
> A nice quote to counter all the pseudo science about vertical compliance
> of a triangulated framework from this (but read yourself, it is quite
> rewarding):
>
> the difference in vertical stiffness between 4 of the 5 frames is less
> than the gauge error of a standard bicycle pump (+/-5%)
>
> Axel

Very good article. And it includes the implication that lowering tire
pressure need not make a rider slower. That was heresy a few years ago,
but it's apparently true.

Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ sometimes seems to imply that one needs
what he calls "supple" tires to enjoy the benefit of lower pressures
with no speed penalty. However, he often treats "supple" as a binary
quantity, as if a tire is either supple or not, with no in-between. He'd
do better to precisely define the term, and rate tires "suppleness"
numerically, based on actual measurements.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:45:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 4:23 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> >>> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
> >> generated those pie charts.
> >
> > From the older state on that site (some years back, when I first found
> > that article), it seemed to me they were measuring all this on a stock
> > Cervelo (which makes sense). But it is/was not mentioned precisely.
> >
> > The pragmatical bottom line of the pie charts is:
> >
> > - At the front, tire and fork account for 2/3 of the compliance. With 38
> > mm wide tires and a very slender and nicely curved fork on my
> > randonneur, I consider myself all set.
> >
> > - At the rear, tire and saddle account for 2/3 of the compliance. With
> > 42 mm wide tires and a Brooks B17 on my randonneur, I consider myself
> > all set.
> >
> > You have to consider that this (presumably, see above caveat) holds for
> > a hardcore road bike. Once you have 40 mm and a B17, they will account
> > for a much large share of the overall displacement/compliance. By then
> > you can completely forget about the frame stiffness.
> >
> > (-:
> >
> > There used to be a bundle of technical articles about this (which is
> > where I got the stuff with the springs in series), but I was too lazy to
> > dig them up, let's see ...
> >
> > Got them, the stuff I had in mind was and is on the Silca page:
> >
> > https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/part-3-tire-pressure-and-comfort
> >
> > A nice quote to counter all the pseudo science about vertical compliance
> > of a triangulated framework from this (but read yourself, it is quite
> > rewarding):
> >
> > the difference in vertical stiffness between 4 of the 5 frames is less
> > than the gauge error of a standard bicycle pump (+/-5%)
> >
> > Axel
> Very good article. And it includes the implication that lowering tire
> pressure need not make a rider slower. That was heresy a few years ago,
> but it's apparently true.
>
> Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ sometimes seems to imply that one needs
> what he calls "supple" tires to enjoy the benefit of lower pressures
> with no speed penalty. However, he often treats "supple" as a binary
> quantity, as if a tire is either supple or not, with no in-between. He'd
> do better to precisely define the term, and rate tires "suppleness"
> numerically, based on actual measurements.

When I was first recovering from my concussion I was still using 23 mm tires. When I changed to 28 mm tires I was flabbergast that the bike actually rode faster. And easier and more comfortable. I think that people that rode 27 x 1 1/4 tires never noticed that because those tires were so heavy and didn't have the slighted give to them.

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:45:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ sometimes seems to imply that one
>> needs what he calls "supple" tires to enjoy the benefit of lower
>> pressures with no speed penalty.

Yes, because you want to be decoupled from the road vibrations, see
below.

>> However, he often treats "supple" as a binary quantity, as if a tire
>> is either supple or not, with no in-between. He'd do better to
>> precisely define the term, and rate tires "suppleness" numerically,
>> based on actual measurements.

Yes, he tends to formulate things in an opinionated (black and white?)
manner, perhaps to bring his (very important) points across.

> When I changed to 28 mm tires I was flabbergast that the bike
> actually rode faster. And easier and more comfortable.

Sure. (:

In

https://www.renehersecycles.com/why-we-call-it-a-revolution/

there is a nice quote:

you can choose whether you want to dissipate the vibrations in your
tires or in your body

We had it here from springs in series before (frame stiffness negligible
with respect to total compliance). For the tires, you can come up with a
similarly simple "ersatz" model:

The tire is a spring and a damper. The body on top of it is mostly a
damper. The body damps much more than the tire. So you have to make the
spring soft in order to decouple the body from the road vibrations. In
the border case of a rigid tire (pre-Dunlop bone-shakers) without
damper, your body will dissipate a lot of energy.

My first ride on an extra-light Rene Herse Barlow Pass (38 mm) was
mind-blowing. (I do not care about weight, but bought the extra-light
variant only for the black colour.)

Best regards

Axel

P. S.: The book "The all-road bike revolution" is a nice summary of all
the findings in the last, say, 10 years.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/7/2022 4:23 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
>>>> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
>>> generated those pie charts.
>>
>> From the older state on that site (some years back, when I first found
>> that article), it seemed to me they were measuring all this on a stock
>> Cervelo (which makes sense). But it is/was not mentioned precisely.
>>
>> The pragmatical bottom line of the pie charts is:
>>
>> - At the front, tire and fork account for 2/3 of the compliance. With 38
>> mm wide tires and a very slender and nicely curved fork on my
>> randonneur, I consider myself all set.
>>
>> - At the rear, tire and saddle account for 2/3 of the compliance. With
>> 42 mm wide tires and a Brooks B17 on my randonneur, I consider myself
>> all set.
>>
>> You have to consider that this (presumably, see above caveat) holds for
>> a hardcore road bike. Once you have 40 mm and a B17, they will account
>> for a much large share of the overall displacement/compliance. By then
>> you can completely forget about the frame stiffness.
>>
>> (-:
>>
>> There used to be a bundle of technical articles about this (which is
>> where I got the stuff with the springs in series), but I was too lazy to
>> dig them up, let's see ...
>>
>> Got them, the stuff I had in mind was and is on the Silca page:
>>
>> https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/part-3-tire-pressure-and-comfort
>>
>> A nice quote to counter all the pseudo science about vertical compliance
>> of a triangulated framework from this (but read yourself, it is quite
>> rewarding):
>>
>> the difference in vertical stiffness between 4 of the 5 frames is less
>> than the gauge error of a standard bicycle pump (+/-5%)
>>
>> Axel
>
> Very good article. And it includes the implication that lowering tire
> pressure need not make a rider slower. That was heresy a few years ago,
> but it's apparently true.
>
> Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ sometimes seems to imply that one needs
> what he calls "supple" tires to enjoy the benefit of lower pressures
> with no speed penalty. However, he often treats "supple" as a binary
> quantity, as if a tire is either supple or not, with no in-between. He'd
> do better to precisely define the term, and rate tires "suppleness"
> numerically, based on actual measurements.
>
I strongly suspect that it’s fairly complex and depends on use case.

For example I have big Apples on the commute bike, lovely tires and do have
lovely feel but it does mean that it’s not supported as well.

Essentially if fitted to my MTB ignoring the grip or rather lack of it with
BigApple’s I suspect the sidewalls wouldn’t cope with the loads.

Though probably faster on a fire road say, particularly up.

Roger Merriman.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 8:07:12 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 1/7/2022 4:23 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 1/7/2022 2:38 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> >>>> https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Interesting link. I'd like to know more about the specific bike that
> >>> generated those pie charts.
> >>
> >> From the older state on that site (some years back, when I first found
> >> that article), it seemed to me they were measuring all this on a stock
> >> Cervelo (which makes sense). But it is/was not mentioned precisely.
> >>
> >> The pragmatical bottom line of the pie charts is:
> >>
> >> - At the front, tire and fork account for 2/3 of the compliance. With 38
> >> mm wide tires and a very slender and nicely curved fork on my
> >> randonneur, I consider myself all set.
> >>
> >> - At the rear, tire and saddle account for 2/3 of the compliance. With
> >> 42 mm wide tires and a Brooks B17 on my randonneur, I consider myself
> >> all set.
> >>
> >> You have to consider that this (presumably, see above caveat) holds for
> >> a hardcore road bike. Once you have 40 mm and a B17, they will account
> >> for a much large share of the overall displacement/compliance. By then
> >> you can completely forget about the frame stiffness.
> >>
> >> (-:
> >>
> >> There used to be a bundle of technical articles about this (which is
> >> where I got the stuff with the springs in series), but I was too lazy to
> >> dig them up, let's see ...
> >>
> >> Got them, the stuff I had in mind was and is on the Silca page:
> >>
> >> https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/part-3-tire-pressure-and-comfort
> >>
> >> A nice quote to counter all the pseudo science about vertical compliance
> >> of a triangulated framework from this (but read yourself, it is quite
> >> rewarding):
> >>
> >> the difference in vertical stiffness between 4 of the 5 frames is less
> >> than the gauge error of a standard bicycle pump (+/-5%)
> >>
> >> Axel
> >
> > Very good article. And it includes the implication that lowering tire
> > pressure need not make a rider slower. That was heresy a few years ago,
> > but it's apparently true.
> >
> > Jan Heine of _Bicycle Quarterly_ sometimes seems to imply that one needs
> > what he calls "supple" tires to enjoy the benefit of lower pressures
> > with no speed penalty. However, he often treats "supple" as a binary
> > quantity, as if a tire is either supple or not, with no in-between. He'd
> > do better to precisely define the term, and rate tires "suppleness"
> > numerically, based on actual measurements.
> >
> I strongly suspect that it’s fairly complex and depends on use case.
>
> For example I have big Apples on the commute bike, lovely tires and do have
> lovely feel but it does mean that it’s not supported as well.
>
> Essentially if fitted to my MTB ignoring the grip or rather lack of it with
> BigApple’s I suspect the sidewalls wouldn’t cope with the loads.
>
> Though probably faster on a fire road say, particularly up.

The Cannondale is fitted with 37 mm WTB knobbies and I had them pumped up to 60 psi. I suspect I will need to reduce that to 40 or 45. And push the saddle back a full inch.