On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 23:03:00 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 10:32:18 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Sep 2022 11:45:47 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >In the last 12 months I have only done about 4500 miles but I have also climbed 118,000 feet. So I've traded speed and distance for climbing.

>> Let's see how that works:
>> 4500 miles / 365 days = 12.3 miles/day
>> At an estimated 15 miles/hr average speed, that's:
>> 1 / 12.3 miles/day / 15 miles/hr = 1.22 hrs/day
>>
>> Each ride is 12.3 miles long or:
>> 12.3 miles * 5280 ft/mile = 65,000 ft/ride
>>
>> The elevation gain per ride is:
>> 118,000 ft / 365 days = 323 ft elevation gain per ride.
>>
>> Therefore, the average slope would is:
>> 323 / 65,000 * 100% = 0.497% slope.
>> or
>> arctan(323 ft / 65,000 ft) = arctan(0.00497) = 0.285 degrees

>Jeff, the way you calculated the slope, climb, is for every single mile. So every mile ridden is 0.285 degrees. Always riding uphill. Slight uphill, but still up. That sounds kind of like the old tales of walking 5 miles to school uphill and against a headwind. And walking home from school 5 miles uphill and against a headwind. Now it is possible to have a headwind going to and from school. But I don't think it can be uphill both directions.

I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.

<https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
"Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."

>Now I am ignoring the fact we are talking about Tommy. I'm sure in his mind he is always riding uphill or into a headwind to prove how tough he is. Even if he rides back home on every ride. Its uphill all the way for Tommy. Somehow.

You may have missed my camouflaged point. Tom actually did something
right. The two numbers, distance and altitude gain seem to be real,
within acceptable error limits and probably not contrived for the
occasion. However, I am a little disappointed with the sub-par slope.
Even so, this is a step in the right direction by Tom.

>> Congratulations. Your numbers pass my sanity check and appear to be
>> quite probable. However, I don't think a 0.28 degree average slope
>> constitutes much of feat in climbing. I calculated the average slope
>> of 10 random SF Bay area rides, from a month ago, which I found on
>> Strava. The idea was to avoid any rides in the current heat wave.
>> Most were in the 1 degree slope region. Nicely done, but hardly
>> exceptional.

It's midnight. Some things are best done under cover of darkness.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
>
> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:

What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".

But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.

I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.

Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is it possible to implement
one without a Garmin?

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
> Then there's the winter:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2CblIavxRwIIf_eYvQLwEKIHRGELiro/view?usp=sharing
>
> “To me, it doesn’t matter whether it’s raining or the sun is shining or whatever: as long as I’m riding a bike I know I’m the luckiest guy in the world.” - Mark Cavendish.
I see the stupid six have started another lame conversation about a one week heat wave. In September of 1913 the entire nation was locked in a heat wave that set every record in the United States including the hottest temperatures ever recorded on the planet of 132 degrees in Death Valley. Imagine some lame brained accountant pretending that he even knows how to look things up when the hottest temperature ever recorded in Berkeley was set and at THAT time Berkeley was surrounded by the cooling shroud of Redwood groves.

Why would you suppose the stupid six love to pretend knowledge of something when they repeat outright lies from the government under the Democrats?

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 08:37:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-7, William Crowell wrote:
>> Then there's the winter:
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N2CblIavxRwIIf_eYvQLwEKIHRGELiro/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> “To me, it doesn’t matter whether it’s raining or the sun is shining or whatever: as long as I’m riding a bike I know I’m the luckiest guy in the world.” - Mark Cavendish.
> I see the stupid six have started another lame conversation about a one week rheat wave. In September of 1913 the entire nation was locked in a heat wave that set every record in the United States including the hottest temperatures ever recorded on the planet of 132 degrees in Death Valley. Imagine some lame brained accountant pretending that he even knows how to look things up when the hottest temperature ever recorded in Berkeley was set and at THAT time Berkeley was surrounded by the cooling shroud of Redwood groves.
>
>Why would you suppose the stupid six love to pretend knowledge of something when they repeat outright lies from the government under the Democrats?

Well old Tommy gets it wrong again....
The hottest month in U.S. history was .... wait for it Tommy...

this past July was the hottest month in the recorded history of the
lower 48 states. The highest recorded average temperature notched
since the government started keeping records in 1895.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/hottest-month-united-states-history-numbers/
and
But when it comes to surface temperature, two spots have Death Valley
beat. A new analysis of high-resolution satellite data finds the Lut
Desert in Iran and the Sonoran Desert along the Mexican-U.S. border
have recently reached a sizzling 80.8°C (177.4°F).
https://www.science.org/content/article/move-over-death-valley-these-are-two-hottest-spots-earth
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
>> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
>> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
>> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
>> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
>> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
>> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
>> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
>> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
>> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
>> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
>>
>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
>> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
>> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."

>I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
>
>What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
>ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
>rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
>rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
>and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
>
>But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
>30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
>may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
>
>I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
>parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
>not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
>
>Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is it possible to implement
>one without a Garmin?
>
>- Frank Krygowski

I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
"difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.

What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
(watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
(watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.

So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
by a few parsecs?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:58:17 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
> >> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
> >> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
> >> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
> >> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
> >> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
> >> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
> >> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
> >> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
> >> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
> >> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
> >>
> >> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
> >> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
> >> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."
>
> >I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
> >
> >What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
> >ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
> >rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
> >rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
> >and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
> >
> >But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
> >30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
> >may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
> >
> >I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
> >parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
> >not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
> >
> >Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is it possible to implement
> >one without a Garmin?
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
> I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
> a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
> interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
> the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
> interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
> unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
> bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
> parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
> "difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
> rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
> non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.
>
> What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
> (watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
> meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
> (watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
> to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
> standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
> 3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
> would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
> will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.
>
> So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
> by a few parsecs?

The problem I have in mind is rating or comparing ride difficulties. My
initial interest was to accurately describe rides to potential club members,
but it occurs to me that if such a rating system were already widely accepted,
Tom could use it to impress us with the difficulty of his rides.

I like the idea of using Watts and Watt-hours in some way, but of course that,
like anything else, is complicated. Both are dependent on speed and weight.
If an overweight and slow person did a particular ride, his power and energy
consumption would be much different than those of a real athlete.

I'm just musing while watching TV. But this discussion is more interesting than
most of the totally off-topic things posted here.

- Frank Krygowski

If you integrate a graph of a ride's elevation vs. distance, isn't the result the amount of work done? Or am I missing something?

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:58:17 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
>>>> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
>>>> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
>>>> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
>>>> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
>>>> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
>>>> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
>>>> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
>>>> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
>>>> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
>>>> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
>>>>
>>>> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
>>>> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."
>>
>>> I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
>>>
>>> What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
>>> ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
>>> rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
>>> rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
>>> and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
>>>
>>> But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
>>> 30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
>>> may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
>>>
>>> I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
>>> parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
>>> not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
>>>
>>> Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is
>>> it possible to implement
>>> one without a Garmin?
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
>> a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
>> interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
>> the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
>> interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
>> unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
>> bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
>> parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
>> "difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
>> rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
>> non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.
>>
>> What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
>> (watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
>> meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
>> (watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
>> to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
>> standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
>> 3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
>> would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
>> will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.
>>
>> So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
>> by a few parsecs?
>
> The problem I have in mind is rating or comparing ride difficulties. My
> initial interest was to accurately describe rides to potential club members,
> but it occurs to me that if such a rating system were already widely accepted,
> Tom could use it to impress us with the difficulty of his rides.
>
> I like the idea of using Watts and Watt-hours in some way, but of course that,
> like anything else, is complicated. Both are dependent on speed and weight.
> If an overweight and slow person did a particular ride, his power and energy
> consumption would be much different than those of a real athlete.
>
> I'm just musing while watching TV. But this discussion is more interesting than
> most of the totally off-topic things posted here.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

It would certainly be a complex calculation. Uphill sections should be
linearly proportional to slope up to a point, at which the rating should
start shooting skyward (a 20% slope is more than 4 times worse than a 5%
slope). Similarly you should get some credit for downhill portions, but
past a certain amount, it also becomes a liability.

William Crowell <retroguybilly@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you integrate a graph of a ride's elevation vs. distance, isn't the
> result the amount of work done? Or am I missing something?
>

Aerodynamic drag. And relative effort vs actual power output.

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 11:26:19 PM UTC-4, William Crowell wrote:
> If you integrate a graph of a ride's elevation vs. distance, isn't the result the amount of work done? Or am I missing something?

I think things are more complicated in at least two ways. First, work done obviously depends on
speed as well as elevation gain, not to mention other factors like total weight, aero drag, etc. You're
considering only the work against gravity.

But more fundamental regarding this problem: Gaining 1000 feet at 2% gradient constitutes
the same work against gravity as gaining 1000 feet at 20% gradient. But they are very, very
different in difficulty.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 20:13:53 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:58:17 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
>> >> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
>> >> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
>> >> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
>> >> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
>> >> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
>> >> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
>> >> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
>> >> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
>> >> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
>> >> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
>> >>
>> >> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
>> >> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
>> >> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."
>>
>> >I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
>> >
>> >What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
>> >ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
>> >rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
>> >rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
>> >and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
>> >
>> >But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
>> >30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
>> >may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
>> >
>> >I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
>> >parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
>> >not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
>> >
>> >Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is it possible to implement
>> >one without a Garmin?
>> >
>> >- Frank Krygowski
>> I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
>> a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
>> interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
>> the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
>> interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
>> unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
>> bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
>> parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
>> "difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
>> rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
>> non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.
>>
>> What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
>> (watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
>> meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
>> (watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
>> to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
>> standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
>> 3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
>> would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
>> will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.
>>
>> So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
>> by a few parsecs?

>The problem I have in mind is rating or comparing ride difficulties. My
>initial interest was to accurately describe rides to potential club members,
>but it occurs to me that if such a rating system were already widely accepted,
>Tom could use it to impress us with the difficulty of his rides.

That's what I guessed you were trying to accomplish. I have a little
ancient experience with that. A former customer deals with rating
trails for handicapped access.
<https://www.beneficialdesigns.com/assessment/trails/>
<https://www.beneficialdesigns.com/assessment/trails/tools/utap/>
Basically, it's a bicycle fork and wheel, loaded with sensors,
connected to a data logger, and pushed along by a cart. The sensors
record trail characteristics, which is eventually fed to a computer
program for analysis. I don't know the capabilities of the current
device, but I suspect some of the technology could be adapted to
characterize (or model) cycling roads. It would be rather interesting
and amusing to try modeling a singletrack MTB trail.

>I like the idea of using Watts and Watt-hours in some way, but of course that,
>like anything else, is complicated. Both are dependent on speed and weight.
>If an overweight and slow person did a particular ride, his power and energy
>consumption would be much different than those of a real athlete.

I can think of some additional factors that might cause problems. What
I see is that there are so many variables in characterizing a road,
that the product of the errors and variations caused by all these
variable could result is a useless and inconsistent road rating.

The real problem I have with the idea of rating roads and trails is
the lack of a useful purpose. If we had an "index of difficulty" on
various bicycle routes, how would it be used? A single number for a
given ride tells me nothing useful. It's as bad as using the sum of
the ascents to gauge difficulty, while long flat rides as zero effort.
With a single number, it would probably be possible be possible for a
short but bumpy ride, to be equally "difficult" as a long ride on a
long flat road. So, we add numbers for road characteristics, such as
surface roughness. But roads are not homogenous and vary
substantially along their length. Do we assign a different
"difficulty" number for each mile? Anyway, I like the idea, but I
don't see any way to make it useful.

>I'm just musing while watching TV. But this discussion is more interesting than
>most of the totally off-topic things posted here.

Most of what I write in RBT is off topic. When I used to dive deep
into bicycle related topics, there was usually someone who didn't like
the idea of making measurements and doing calculations, who suggested
that I should simply build and ride such a bicycle and not bother with
the engineering. That's when I realized that in RBT, a report from a
test ride is far more convincing than detailed calculations.

>- Frank Krygowski

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:26:34 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:58:17 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
> >>>> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
> >>>> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
> >>>> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
> >>>> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
> >>>> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
> >>>> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
> >>>> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
> >>>> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
> >>>> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
> >>>> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
> >>>>
> >>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
> >>>> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."
> >>
> >>> I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
> >>>
> >>> What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
> >>> ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
> >>> rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
> >>> rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
> >>> and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
> >>>
> >>> But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
> >>> 30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
> >>> may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
> >>>
> >>> I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
> >>> parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
> >>> not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is
> >>> it possible to implement
> >>> one without a Garmin?
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
> >> a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
> >> interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
> >> the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
> >> interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
> >> unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
> >> bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
> >> parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
> >> "difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
> >> rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
> >> non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.
> >>
> >> What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
> >> (watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
> >> meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
> >> (watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
> >> to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
> >> standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
> >> 3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
> >> would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
> >> will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.
> >>
> >> So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
> >> by a few parsecs?
> >
> > The problem I have in mind is rating or comparing ride difficulties. My
> > initial interest was to accurately describe rides to potential club members,
> > but it occurs to me that if such a rating system were already widely accepted,
> > Tom could use it to impress us with the difficulty of his rides.
> >
> > I like the idea of using Watts and Watt-hours in some way, but of course that,
> > like anything else, is complicated. Both are dependent on speed and weight.
> > If an overweight and slow person did a particular ride, his power and energy
> > consumption would be much different than those of a real athlete.
> >
> > I'm just musing while watching TV. But this discussion is more interesting than
> > most of the totally off-topic things posted here.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> It would certainly be a complex calculation. Uphill sections should be
> linearly proportional to slope up to a point, at which the rating should
> start shooting skyward (a 20% slope is more than 4 times worse than a 5%
> slope). Similarly you should get some credit for downhill portions, but
> past a certain amount, it also becomes a liability.

Frank who does a 5 mile flat ride several times a week believes that I'm trying to impress him with records of my rides. I am nothing more than another rider around here and things like our Tuesday ride may draw 15 riders of which I and two others are the slowest of the group. I assume that this upsets Frank because he isn't capable any more of riding like that. I think that I saw in a previous quote that Seaton is so disturbed by this that he was looking for a map that would prove that there are no hills in the Bay Area. He must have discovered the listings since he shut up rapidly enough. I've climbed every peak in the listings including those without a road but an MTB trail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_summits_of_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area

While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:48:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.

California Fish and Game: Gray Wolf
<https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf>

Known Wolves in California
<https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf#la-559682741-known-wolves-in-california>

Me, on the night of the full moon (1997):
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif>
<https://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is it possible to implement
>one without a Garmin?

Strava has a crude route difficulty calculator:
<https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/8471904145677-Route-Difficulty>
<https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/8471952550669-Route-Terrain>
It doesn't provide a number so that different routers can be compared.
Just 3 levels of difficulty indicated by different colors:
"Swipe to the difficulty map to see the route’s polyline displayed as
a gradient of color based on the difficulty. Easier sections will be
green, moderate sections will be blue and hard sections will be
black."

I just tried it on both the PC and Android version and couldn't make
it work. I'll try again tomorrow.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 8:26:34 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 7:58:17 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 3:12:04 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I didn't have much choice in how I calculated the slope and average
> > >>>> angle. The only numbers I had to work with were the calculated length
> > >>>> of the daily ride (65,000 ft) and the total elevation gain (323) ft
> > >>>> along the route. I did not have any data for dealing with any
> > >>>> intermediate changes in slope. The only parts of the ride that count
> > >>>> for climbing are the uphill segments. Flat and downhill require much
> > >>>> less effort. Therefore, the total elevation gain is simply the sum of
> > >>>> only the uphill segments. The flat and downhill segments can be
> > >>>> ignored. Presumably, an all uphill ride up a long ramp, at the
> > >>>> calculated average slope, would require the same effort as a roller
> > >>>> coaster style ride with the same elevation gain as the ramp.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <https://www.reddit.com/r/Strava/comments/bge407/running_how_does_strava_calculate_elevation_gain/>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Elevation gain is the elevation _gained_. It does not count any
> > >>>> downhills, so it's only counting when you're running uphill."
> > >>
> > >>> I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I don't recall any definitive solutions:
> > >>>
> > >>> What's the best metric for "hilliness" of a ride? I first thought about this decades
> > >>> ago. I was a club officer back at a time when our club's calendar was full of unique
> > >>> rides. That is, members would put effort into finding new, interesting routes. The
> > >>> rides would be listed in the club calendar with brief descriptions of distance, pace
> > >>> and terrain - usually "flat" or "rolling" or "hilly".
> > >>>
> > >>> But is there a consistent way to rate hilliness? A Rocky Mountain climb may involve
> > >>> 30 miles of 3% grade, so maybe 5000 feet of climbing. That's easy. A Western PA ride
> > >>> may involve 100 climbs of 50 feet, each one hitting 10% gradient. That's murderous.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've briefly pondered the RMS scale used to measure surface roughness of machined
> > >>> parts, but haven't thought deeply about how - or whether - it might apply. And BTW, I'm
> > >>> not a Strava or Garmin guy, so maybe there's a solution I don't know about.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there a widely respected metric for hilliness? If so, what is it? Is
> > >>> it possible to implement
> > >>> one without a Garmin?
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >> I think you're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using a bicycle as
> > >> a precision measuring instrument of surface roughness would be
> > >> interesting, but not really necessary. While it would nice to compare
> > >> the relative difficulty of various rides using something more
> > >> interesting than just a crude slope estimate, it would be useless
> > >> unless we included all the myriad of other variables. Hauling a
> > >> bicycle wheel behind and automobile and measuring as many road surface
> > >> parameters as possible might give a suitable metric for road
> > >> "difficulty". However, that would change immediately after the first
> > >> rain, resurfacing, oil spill, change in temperature, etc. A
> > >> non-repeatable measurement tends to be rather useless.
> > >>
> > >> What I think makes more sense is to measure how much energy
> > >> (watt-hours) is required to travel a given road section. The power
> > >> meters, sensors, and software are already available for graphing power
> > >> (watts) and energy (watt-hrs) output. Now, all that's needed is a way
> > >> to calibrate the sensors for a standard rider, standard bicycle, and
> > >> standard roadway. That should provide an "index of difficulty" if the
> > >> 3 parameters were known. At this time, I don't have anything that
> > >> would produce such a thing, but I'm sure I can contrive something that
> > >> will give someone else a starting point towards an improved method.
> > >>
> > >> So, is this the problem you're trying to solve, or did I miss the mark
> > >> by a few parsecs?
> > >
> > > The problem I have in mind is rating or comparing ride difficulties. My
> > > initial interest was to accurately describe rides to potential club members,
> > > but it occurs to me that if such a rating system were already widely accepted,
> > > Tom could use it to impress us with the difficulty of his rides.
> > >
> > > I like the idea of using Watts and Watt-hours in some way, but of course that,
> > > like anything else, is complicated. Both are dependent on speed and weight.
> > > If an overweight and slow person did a particular ride, his power and energy
> > > consumption would be much different than those of a real athlete.
> > >
> > > I'm just musing while watching TV. But this discussion is more interesting than
> > > most of the totally off-topic things posted here.
> > >
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > It would certainly be a complex calculation. Uphill sections should be
> > linearly proportional to slope up to a point, at which the rating should
> > start shooting skyward (a 20% slope is more than 4 times worse than a 5%
> > slope). Similarly you should get some credit for downhill portions, but
> > past a certain amount, it also becomes a liability.
> Frank who does a 5 mile flat ride several times a week believes that I'm trying to impress him with records of my rides. I am nothing more than another rider around here and things like our Tuesday ride may draw 15 riders of which I and two others are the slowest of the group. I assume that this upsets Frank because he isn't capable any more of riding like that. I think that I saw in a previous quote that Seaton is so disturbed by this that he was looking for a map that would prove that there are no hills in the Bay Area.

I'm 110% positive in the past I have mentioned being in San Francisco. Work jobs. And I mentioned walking up the hills in San Francisco. In the evening after supper. We stayed at hotels downtown. The hills/streets with stairs in the sidewalks. I found that amazing. But all of those steep streets are one way only down the hill. Never two way and up the hill. Tommy, I have also driven across the Golden Gate Bridge and seen Alcatraz island. From the shore, did not take the boat ride out for the tour. Tommy, I have also been to Sacramento and Eureka. Driven across the Sierra Nevada mountains. Been in Los Angeles and San Diego too. And been through Death Valley. I would not be surprised if I have not been in more of California than you, a lifetime resident of California. Never made it over to Oakland though.

> He must have discovered the listings since he shut up rapidly enough. I've climbed every peak in the listings including those without a road but an MTB trail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_summits_of_the_San_Francisco_Bay_Area
>
> While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:27:40 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:48:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.
> California Fish and Game: Gray Wolf
> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf>
>
> Known Wolves in California
> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf#la-559682741-known-wolves-in-california>

Jeff, are you saying the State Government of California is calling Tommy a liar?

>
> Me, on the night of the full moon (1997):
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif>
> <https://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:27:40 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:48:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.
>> California Fish and Game: Gray Wolf
>> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf>
>>
>> Known Wolves in California
>> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf#la-559682741-known-wolves-in-california>

>Jeff, are you saying the State Government of California is calling Tommy a liar?

No. I'm agreeing with Tom. Yes, the California Dept of Fish and Game
web site indicates that there are wolves in California. I don't
understand what Tom meant by "directly", but I'll assume he provided
his critics with a direct link to the appropriate web site. The
incoherent 2nd sentence suggests numerous revisions to make it sound
believable, which makes me suspect that there was no confrontation, at
least not in a public forum:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+kunich%22+wolf>
Nothing found.

I think this might be Tom's original wolf sighting from Apr 2022:
<https://narkive.com/E12qLQrf.16>
"When I reported I saw a wolf on Mt Hamilton which is adjacent to a
HUGE area that has almost no population, our pretend environmentalists
were standing in line to tell me I didn't see what I plainly saw."

I guess his persecutors, the environmentalists, have now been demoted
to "brain dead asses".
>> Me, on the night of the full moon (1997):
>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif>
>> <https://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt>

Being a werewolf does give me some credibility on the topic.

I found an article by Tom in the Google 50 plus cyclist group:
<https://sites.google.com/site/50pluscyclist/gallery9>
(near bottom of page)

"But since I have ALL of these really neat bikes I'm going to wallow
in elitism. I'll get them really dirty and let the decals on the Ti
bike get all beat up and then look down my nose at all of you lower
class people riding Schwinn Varsitys"

14 bicycles? Decals? Lower class? Now I understand why he wants so
many bicycles.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 00:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 23:40:29 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
><ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:27:40 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 13:48:53 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California. It finally took statements from the California Fish and Game and sighting directly where I said I had watched this to shut these asses up.
>>> California Fish and Game: Gray Wolf
>>> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf>
>>>
>>> Known Wolves in California
>>> <https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/mammals/gray-wolf#la-559682741-known-wolves-in-california>
>
>>Jeff, are you saying the State Government of California is calling Tommy a liar?
>
>No. I'm agreeing with Tom. Yes, the California Dept of Fish and Game
>web site indicates that there are wolves in California. I don't
>understand what Tom meant by "directly", but I'll assume he provided
>his critics with a direct link to the appropriate web site. The
>incoherent 2nd sentence suggests numerous revisions to make it sound
>believable, which makes me suspect that there was no confrontation, at
>least not in a public forum:
><https://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+kunich%22+wolf>
>Nothing found.
>
>I think this might be Tom's original wolf sighting from Apr 2022:
><https://narkive.com/E12qLQrf.16>
>"When I reported I saw a wolf on Mt Hamilton which is adjacent to a
>HUGE area that has almost no population, our pretend environmentalists
>were standing in line to tell me I didn't see what I plainly saw."
>
>I guess his persecutors, the environmentalists, have now been demoted
>to "brain dead asses".
>
>>> Me, on the night of the full moon (1997):
>>> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif>
>>> <https://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/nooze/werewolf.txt>
>
>Being a werewolf does give me some credibility on the topic.
>
>I found an article by Tom in the Google 50 plus cyclist group:
><https://sites.google.com/site/50pluscyclist/gallery9>
>(near bottom of page)
>
>"But since I have ALL of these really neat bikes I'm going to wallow
>in elitism. I'll get them really dirty and let the decals on the Ti
>bike get all beat up and then look down my nose at all of you lower
>class people riding Schwinn Varsitys"
>
>14 bicycles? Decals? Lower class? Now I understand why he wants so
>many bicycles.

It's rather pitiful, isn't it? When one's sole claim to fame is owning
14 dirty, old, bicycles.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California.

Who exactly said that, Tom? It certainly wasn't me.

Given your copious memory problems, such a declaration may have been all in your imagination.
To prove it was real, it would help if you would give links to the relevant posts, or at least accurate direct quotations.
Certainly, nobody here trusts your memory. Even you seem to know better than that!

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 14:49:40 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 00:26:03 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>>I found an article by Tom in the Google 50 plus cyclist group:
>><https://sites.google.com/site/50pluscyclist/gallery9>
>>(near bottom of page)
>>
>>"But since I have ALL of these really neat bikes I'm going to wallow
>>in elitism. I'll get them really dirty and let the decals on the Ti
>>bike get all beat up and then look down my nose at all of you lower
>>class people riding Schwinn Varsitys"
>>
>>14 bicycles? Decals? Lower class? Now I understand why he wants so
>>many bicycles.

>It's rather pitiful, isn't it? When one's sole claim to fame is owning
>14 dirty, old, bicycles.

Pitiful? In my prime, I was able to only collect 5 bicycles. There's
one more bicycle missing from the photo:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/5bikes.JPG>
However, it didn't take my long to realize that I had created a
problem. Today, I'm down to two bicycles. Of the original 6, one was
sold. The others were given to college students and one friend.

I've never seen a photo with more than one of Tom's bicycles in one
place. Whenever Tom has a bicycle to sell, there are usually photos.
As I recall, the bicycles all seem to be very clean. Tom recently
mentioned that:
"In the last 12 months I have only done about 4500 miles..."
For 14 bicycles, that would be an average of 0.88 miles per bicycle
per day. If I had ridden my bicycle(s) less than a mile per day, they
would not have become very dirty.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:04:53 AM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California.
> Who exactly said that, Tom? It certainly wasn't me.

It must have been the evil environmentalists in RBT.
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/E12qLQrf/thursday-ride#post16>
"When I reported I saw a wolf on Mt Hamilton which is adjacent to a HUGE area that has almost no population, our pretend environmentalists were standing in line to tell me I didn't see what I plainly saw."

That was 6 months ago. The next critique of Tom sighting a wolf on Mt Hamilton will likely be attributed to the Democrats, liberals, eBike riders, fact checkers, ecologists, global warming activists, immigrants and other groups that have lost Tom's favor and support.

>Given your copious memory problems, such a declaration may have been all in your imagination.
>To prove it was real, it would help if you would give links to the relevant posts, or at least accurate direct quotations.
>Certainly, nobody here trusts your memory. Even you seem to know better than that!

Tom rarely provides URL's or substantiations. When he does, it typically doesn't say what he claimed or was from a politically right source. If you search RBT using Google Groups for "wolf" or "wolves", you'll find very few hits. Only one is attributable to you under the topic "Is Frank Crying Wolf?" which is unrelated to Tom sighting a wolf on Mt Hamilton:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=wolf+author%3AFrank+author%3AKrygowski>

With the fires in California and their seemingly close to Joerg's neck of the woods, I wonder how he's doing and if he's safe.

Hey Joerg, are you still around?

Cheers

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 14:36:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cycle_pathic@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>With the fires in California and their seemingly close to Joerg's neck of the woods, I wonder how he's doing and if he's safe.
>Hey Joerg, are you still around?
>Cheers

I sure hope so. Try sending Joerg an email a phone call:
<https://www.analogconsultants.com>
Say hello from everyone in RBT.

Cameron Park in El Dorado County, CA.
The Mosquito Fire is burning in El Dorado County:
<https://www.edcgov.us/wildfire/Pages/Mosquito-Fire.aspx>
Looks good so far. I think he will be ok.

Cameron Park is shown on the maps in the south-west part of the
county, in the Ed Dorado Hills, near Hwy 50, and south-east of Folsom
Lake. My guess(tm) is 20 miles from the fire. It does NOT appear to
be in the evacuation zones. The fire is moving in the opposite
direction (toward the north-east).

Better fire map:
<https://eldoradocounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/ca1dcb9343b14baabf7c86842588cf94>

Evacuation map:
<https://eldoradocounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bfbfd933f4254a0db4bdbb2ebe866c10>

Watch Duty:
<https://app.watchduty.org/incident/1275#allow-back>

Google Maps:
<https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/7/viewer?mid=1sWVUTY50R-0MqZRtU2f80mlaTGj3fF0&ll=38.99910960782757%2C-120.71759999999999&z=11>
<https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8721411,-121.0366522,10.54z/data=!4m2!21m1!1s%2Fg%2F11tfdb_dst!5m1!1e8>
<https://goo.gl/maps/C4x514yWVyaG99rm7>

Inciweb:
<https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/8398/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:09:35 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:04:53 AM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California.
> > Who exactly said that, Tom? It certainly wasn't me.
> It must have been the evil environmentalists in RBT.
> <https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/E12qLQrf/thursday-ride#post16>
> "When I reported I saw a wolf on Mt Hamilton which is adjacent to a HUGE area that has almost no population, our pretend environmentalists were standing in line to tell me I didn't see what I plainly saw."
> That was 6 months ago. The next critique of Tom sighting a wolf on Mt Hamilton will likely be attributed to the Democrats, liberals, eBike riders, fact checkers, ecologists, global warming activists, immigrants and other groups that have lost Tom's favor and support.

"Lost Tom's favor and support" implies he once favored and supported said groups. I am very doubtful ever supported immigrants. He has constantly denigrated the supposed immigrants who install roofs in his neighborhood. I believe he even accused them of stealing his bike from a shed in his backyard. He believes they watched him put the bike in the shed when they were on the roof of the house across the street.

I find it slightly hypocritical of Tommy to lambast immigrants since he often times boasts about himself being an immigrant. From east Europe, Caucuses mountains, Mongol ancestors.

> >Given your copious memory problems, such a declaration may have been all in your imagination.
> >To prove it was real, it would help if you would give links to the relevant posts, or at least accurate direct quotations.
> >Certainly, nobody here trusts your memory. Even you seem to know better than that!
> Tom rarely provides URL's or substantiations. When he does, it typically doesn't say what he claimed or was from a politically right source. If you search RBT using Google Groups for "wolf" or "wolves", you'll find very few hits. Only one is attributable to you under the topic "Is Frank Crying Wolf?" which is unrelated to Tom sighting a wolf on Mt Hamilton:
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=wolf+author%3AFrank+author%3AKrygowski>

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:21:34 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 2:09:35 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 10:04:53 AM UTC-7, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > While I was climbing Mt. Hamilton I watched a wolf running across the hillside and upon mentioning it these brain dead asses declared that there were no wolves in California.
>> > Who exactly said that, Tom? It certainly wasn't me.
>> It must have been the evil environmentalists in RBT.
>> <https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/E12qLQrf/thursday-ride#post16>
>> "When I reported I saw a wolf on Mt Hamilton which is adjacent to a HUGE area that has almost no population, our pretend environmentalists were standing in line to tell me I didn't see what I plainly saw."

>> That was 6 months ago. The next critique of Tom sighting a wolf on Mt Hamilton will likely be attributed to the Democrats, liberals, eBike riders, fact checkers, ecologists, global warming activists, immigrants and other groups that have lost Tom's favor and support.

Oops. I meant to label those groups as the groups which Tom finds
lacking in merit and which get blamed for everything that goes wrong
(scapegoats?). I selected "favor and support" which was a very bad
choice. Thanks for catching my mistake.

>"Lost Tom's favor and support" implies he once favored and supported said groups. I am very doubtful ever supported immigrants. He has constantly denigrated the supposed immigrants who install roofs in his neighborhood. I believe he even accused them of stealing his bike from a shed in his backyard. He believes they watched him put the bike in the shed when they were on the roof of the house across the street.

Chuckle. I remember that discussion.

When my parents emigrated from Germany after WWII and eventually
settled in Los Angeles (1954?), we landed in a very mixed nationality
neighborhood. Very few were born in the USA and nobody spoke proper
English. Of course, us kids formed gangs, according to the movie
template on how to be an American. The problem was that these gangs
were hardly along racial, nationalist, or language lines. It was just
a big mess of kids beating up on each other. The parents failed to
appreciate our innovation and preceded to reorganize our gangs into
something more closely resembling what they saw in the movies. I
don't recall exactly, but it took 5 to 10 years before we had our
first race riot and could celebrate becoming an American.

>I find it slightly hypocritical of Tommy to lambast immigrants
>since he often times boasts about himself being an immigrant. From
>east Europe, Caucuses mountains, Mongol ancestors.

Oh-oh. I might be related to Tom. I ran a DNA test in 2016(?). The
test declared that I had ancestors mostly from eastern Europe, but
also from China (Mongol?). I have reason to believe that there may
have been errors and am tempted to try again.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558