On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:58:59 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:12:16 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 9/8/2022 11:14 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> >> >> > Sir Ridesalot said: "I learned that a tubular tire will fit a clincher rim after I need to take my bicycle to the shop in order to get a new tire after the clincher tire on it had become unrideable."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Very, very dangerous because the edges of the clincher rim are carrying all the weight, pressing into the tubular tire, and if you go over the slightest bump it will immediately puncture it and there will be nothing holding the tubular tire on the rim, so the tire will get wound up in the rim and you'll be sliding along the road on the rim of a seized wheel. I saw someone get seriously hurt once from doing this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On a tubeless rim perhaps but probably not on a plain clincher. The rims of the clincher aren't high enough to offer much of a problem. Of course tubular tires would be the safest, but a previously glued tubular works OK if not great.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tom, I don't understand why you are arguing with my post, and it was on a plain clincher rim. As I stated, I have personally witnessed someone get seriously injured when they tried to do this. You admit that you have not witnessed such an accident, but are instead just speculating. Why would you argue in a situation like that? It makes no sense to me. Please stop arguing with everybody for no reason.
> >> >> >
> >> >> I agree a tubular on a clincher rim is not a great idea.
> >> >>
> >> >> What ever difference cold tubeless compatible rim or not
> >> >> make in that regard?
> >> >
> >> >How many tires have you destroyed in normal use? I suppose you could run over a broken bottle and slice your tire into un-useability. (I have done this) Or you could ride a tire until it wears completely out. (I've almost done this). If you are in fear of this why wouldn't you simply carry a folded clincher tire like a Gatorskin tied under the saddle rails? Tubulars are a hell of a lot more difficult to carry.
> >> What's the problem? Carry a tube patch kit for tube failures, a spare
> >> tube for a tube that can't be patched, and tire boots for actual tire
> >> failure. That took care of me a few years back when I first rode the
> >> Florida Keys trail both ways. Two hundred plus miles in three days and
> >> that included two tube patches and a tube replacement. I had no tire
> >> failures which surprised me because bridges are full of broken glass
> >> and truck tire debris. The following year I did have a tire failure
> >> crossing a bridge next to speeding traffic. I had to walk the Catrike
> >> off the bridge rather than work on the tire a foot and a half away
> >> from hi-speed traffic. That year I only had one other flat.
> >>
> >> So maybe you guys all use tubeless tires and are weight weenies
> >> besides. Perhaps I've drifted into the wrong forum. I'm not
> >> interested in electric cars or electric bicycles.
> >
> >Most people here are not aware of just how fast a recumbent is. A friend of mine was pretty fast on an upright. He bought a recumbent and told me that he was averaging 40 mph on the LA bike path. He did this route every day to and from work.
> The Catrike is a three-wheeler with two wheels in front. I never heard
> of a Catrike or any similar three-wheelers going that fast. Several
> years ago I could steam along in the mid-twenties on flat ground for a
> few miles. I was 70+ years old at the time and big enough to hinder
> aerodynamics, so maybe a younger, more fit individual could do 40.

My friend rides a two wheel recumbent. I am just reporting what he told me and as I said he was VERY fast one a normal bike. On one stage of the Vuelta they rode for over an hour at 30 mph on flat ground. Low two wheel recumbents

As for speed on a normal bike look at this from the Garmin. See the top speed of 87mph? I let the bike go a lot further up the hill than usual. But I used to let it go flat out from the top so I wonder how fast I hit on those occasions. At that speed, you can't look at anything but the road.

Distance
38.88 mi
Distance
Nutrition & Hydration
467
Resting Calories
1680
Active Calories
2,147
Total Calories Burned
--
Calories Consumed
-2,147
Calories Net
5441 ml
Est. Sweat Loss
-- ml
Fluid Consumed
-5441 ml
Fluid Net
Training Effect
0.0 No Benefit
Aerobic
0.0 No Benefit
Anaerobic
0 Exercise Load
Timing
5:44:19
Time
4:17:51
Moving Time
5:44:19
Elapsed Time
Elevation
1,847.1 ft
Total Ascent
1,840.6 ft
Total Descent
53.8 ft
Min Elev
1,209.3 ft
Max Elev
Pace/Speed
Pace Speed
6.8 mph
Avg Speed
9.0 mph
Avg Moving Speed
87.2 mph
Max Speed
Bike Cadence
46 rpm
Avg Bike Cadence
95 rpm
Max Bike Cadence
Temperature
79.2 °F
Avg Temp
69.8 °F
Min Temp
86.0 °F
Max Temp
Strokes
7591
Total Strokes

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:25:54 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:58:59 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:12:16 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> >> On 9/8/2022 11:14 PM, William Crowell wrote:
> > >> >> > Sir Ridesalot said: "I learned that a tubular tire will fit a clincher rim after I need to take my bicycle to the shop in order to get a new tire after the clincher tire on it had become unrideable."
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Very, very dangerous because the edges of the clincher rim are carrying all the weight, pressing into the tubular tire, and if you go over the slightest bump it will immediately puncture it and there will be nothing holding the tubular tire on the rim, so the tire will get wound up in the rim and you'll be sliding along the road on the rim of a seized wheel. I saw someone get seriously hurt once from doing this.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On a tubeless rim perhaps but probably not on a plain clincher. The rims of the clincher aren't high enough to offer much of a problem. Of course tubular tires would be the safest, but a previously glued tubular works OK if not great.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Tom, I don't understand why you are arguing with my post, and it was on a plain clincher rim. As I stated, I have personally witnessed someone get seriously injured when they tried to do this. You admit that you have not witnessed such an accident, but are instead just speculating. Why would you argue in a situation like that? It makes no sense to me. Please stop arguing with everybody for no reason.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> I agree a tubular on a clincher rim is not a great idea.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> What ever difference cold tubeless compatible rim or not
> > >> >> make in that regard?
> > >> >
> > >> >How many tires have you destroyed in normal use? I suppose you could run over a broken bottle and slice your tire into un-useability. (I have done this) Or you could ride a tire until it wears completely out. (I've almost done this). If you are in fear of this why wouldn't you simply carry a folded clincher tire like a Gatorskin tied under the saddle rails? Tubulars are a hell of a lot more difficult to carry.
> > >> What's the problem? Carry a tube patch kit for tube failures, a spare
> > >> tube for a tube that can't be patched, and tire boots for actual tire
> > >> failure. That took care of me a few years back when I first rode the
> > >> Florida Keys trail both ways. Two hundred plus miles in three days and
> > >> that included two tube patches and a tube replacement. I had no tire
> > >> failures which surprised me because bridges are full of broken glass
> > >> and truck tire debris. The following year I did have a tire failure
> > >> crossing a bridge next to speeding traffic. I had to walk the Catrike
> > >> off the bridge rather than work on the tire a foot and a half away
> > >> from hi-speed traffic. That year I only had one other flat.
> > >>
> > >> So maybe you guys all use tubeless tires and are weight weenies
> > >> besides. Perhaps I've drifted into the wrong forum. I'm not
> > >> interested in electric cars or electric bicycles.
> > >
> > >Most people here are not aware of just how fast a recumbent is. A friend of mine was pretty fast on an upright. He bought a recumbent and told me that he was averaging 40 mph on the LA bike path. He did this route every day to and from work.
> > The Catrike is a three-wheeler with two wheels in front. I never heard
> > of a Catrike or any similar three-wheelers going that fast. Several
> > years ago I could steam along in the mid-twenties on flat ground for a
> > few miles. I was 70+ years old at the time and big enough to hinder
> > aerodynamics, so maybe a younger, more fit individual could do 40.
> My friend rides a two wheel recumbent. I am just reporting what he told me and as I said he was VERY fast one a normal bike. On one stage of the Vuelta they rode for over an hour at 30 mph on flat ground. Low two wheel recumbents
>
> As for speed on a normal bike look at this from the Garmin. See the top speed of 87mph? I let the bike go a lot further up the hill than usual. But I used to let it go flat out from the top so I wonder how fast I hit on those occasions. At that speed, you can't look at anything but the road.
>
> Distance
> 38.88 mi
> Distance
> Nutrition & Hydration
> 467
> Resting Calories
> 1680
> Active Calories
> 2,147
> Total Calories Burned
> --
> Calories Consumed
> -2,147
> Calories Net
> 5441 ml
> Est. Sweat Loss
> -- ml
> Fluid Consumed
> -5441 ml
> Fluid Net
> Training Effect
> 0.0 No Benefit
> Aerobic
> 0.0 No Benefit
> Anaerobic
> 0
> Exercise Load
> Timing
> 5:44:19
> Time
> 4:17:51
> Moving Time
> 5:44:19
> Elapsed Time
> Elevation
> 1,847.1 ft
> Total Ascent
> 1,840.6 ft
> Total Descent
> 53.8 ft
> Min Elev
> 1,209.3 ft
> Max Elev
> Pace/Speed
> Pace Speed
> 6.8 mph
> Avg Speed
> 9.0 mph
> Avg Moving Speed
> 87.2 mph
> Max Speed
> Bike Cadence
> 46 rpm
> Avg Bike Cadence
> 95 rpm
> Max Bike Cadence
> Temperature
> 79.2 °F
> Avg Temp
> 69.8 °F
> Min Temp
> 86.0 °F
> Max Temp
> Strokes
> 7591
> Total Strokes

So someone who claims an average moving speed of 9.0 mph also claims a maximum speed of 87.2 mph. Hmmm? And a max elevation of 1209 feet. Less than a quarter mile high. At a 20% grade, it would take about 1.25 miles of descending to get down to zero elevation. Can a bicycle reach 87.2 mph going downhill in that short of distance? I recall years ago descending mountains on my loaded touring bike. And hitting 60 mph. But that took a mile or two of going downhill to reach that slow 60 mph. And Tommy's max cadence is only 95. So he would have needed a 200 gear inch gear to get up to high speeds at that slow of rpm.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:32:40 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 6:25:54 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 11:58:59 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:49:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 4:12:16 PM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> > >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Friday, September 9, 2022 at 2:42:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> > >> >> On 9/8/2022 11:14 PM, William Crowell wrote:
>> > >> >> > Sir Ridesalot said: "I learned that a tubular tire will fit a clincher rim after I need to take my bicycle to the shop in order to get a new tire after the clincher tire on it had become unrideable."
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Very, very dangerous because the edges of the clincher rim are carrying all the weight, pressing into the tubular tire, and if you go over the slightest bump it will immediately puncture it and there will be nothing holding the tubular tire on the rim, so the tire will get wound up in the rim and you'll be sliding along the road on the rim of a seized wheel. I saw someone get seriously hurt once from doing this.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > On a tubeless rim perhaps but probably not on a plain clincher. The rims of the clincher aren't high enough to offer much of a problem. Of course tubular tires would be the safest, but a previously glued tubular works OK if not great.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Tom, I don't understand why you are arguing with my post, and it was on a plain clincher rim. As I stated, I have personally witnessed someone get seriously injured when they tried to do this. You admit that you have not witnessed such an accident, but are instead just speculating. Why would you argue in a situation like that? It makes no sense to me. Please stop arguing with everybody for no reason.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> I agree a tubular on a clincher rim is not a great idea.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> What ever difference cold tubeless compatible rim or not
>> > >> >> make in that regard?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >How many tires have you destroyed in normal use? I suppose you could run over a broken bottle and slice your tire into un-useability. (I have done this) Or you could ride a tire until it wears completely out. (I've almost done this). If you are in fear of this why wouldn't you simply carry a folded clincher tire like a Gatorskin tied under the saddle rails? Tubulars are a hell of a lot more difficult to carry.
>> > >> What's the problem? Carry a tube patch kit for tube failures, a spare
>> > >> tube for a tube that can't be patched, and tire boots for actual tire
>> > >> failure. That took care of me a few years back when I first rode the
>> > >> Florida Keys trail both ways. Two hundred plus miles in three days and
>> > >> that included two tube patches and a tube replacement. I had no tire
>> > >> failures which surprised me because bridges are full of broken glass
>> > >> and truck tire debris. The following year I did have a tire failure
>> > >> crossing a bridge next to speeding traffic. I had to walk the Catrike
>> > >> off the bridge rather than work on the tire a foot and a half away
>> > >> from hi-speed traffic. That year I only had one other flat.
>> > >>
>> > >> So maybe you guys all use tubeless tires and are weight weenies
>> > >> besides. Perhaps I've drifted into the wrong forum. I'm not
>> > >> interested in electric cars or electric bicycles.
>> > >
>> > >Most people here are not aware of just how fast a recumbent is. A friend of mine was pretty fast on an upright. He bought a recumbent and told me that he was averaging 40 mph on the LA bike path. He did this route every day to and from work.
>> > The Catrike is a three-wheeler with two wheels in front. I never heard
>> > of a Catrike or any similar three-wheelers going that fast. Several
>> > years ago I could steam along in the mid-twenties on flat ground for a
>> > few miles. I was 70+ years old at the time and big enough to hinder
>> > aerodynamics, so maybe a younger, more fit individual could do 40.
>> My friend rides a two wheel recumbent. I am just reporting what he told me and as I said he was VERY fast one a normal bike. On one stage of the Vuelta they rode for over an hour at 30 mph on flat ground. Low two wheel recumbents
>>
>> As for speed on a normal bike look at this from the Garmin. See the top speed of 87mph? I let the bike go a lot further up the hill than usual. But I used to let it go flat out from the top so I wonder how fast I hit on those occasions. At that speed, you can't look at anything but the road.
>>
>> Distance
>> 38.88 mi
>> Distance
>> Nutrition & Hydration
>> 467
>> Resting Calories
>> 1680
>> Active Calories
>> 2,147
>> Total Calories Burned
>> --
>> Calories Consumed
>> -2,147
>> Calories Net
>> 5441 ml
>> Est. Sweat Loss
>> -- ml
>> Fluid Consumed
>> -5441 ml
>> Fluid Net
>> Training Effect
>> 0.0 No Benefit
>> Aerobic
>> 0.0 No Benefit
>> Anaerobic
>> 0
>> Exercise Load
>> Timing
>> 5:44:19
>> Time
>> 4:17:51
>> Moving Time
>> 5:44:19
>> Elapsed Time
>> Elevation
>> 1,847.1 ft
>> Total Ascent
>> 1,840.6 ft
>> Total Descent
>> 53.8 ft
>> Min Elev
>> 1,209.3 ft
>> Max Elev
>> Pace/Speed
>> Pace Speed
>> 6.8 mph
>> Avg Speed
>> 9.0 mph
>> Avg Moving Speed
>> 87.2 mph
>> Max Speed
>> Bike Cadence
>> 46 rpm
>> Avg Bike Cadence
>> 95 rpm
>> Max Bike Cadence
>> Temperature
>> 79.2 °F
>> Avg Temp
>> 69.8 °F
>> Min Temp
>> 86.0 °F
>> Max Temp
>> Strokes
>> 7591
>> Total Strokes
>
>So someone who claims an average moving speed of 9.0 mph also claims a maximum speed of 87.2 mph. Hmmm? And a max elevation of 1209 feet. Less than a quarter mile high. At a 20% grade, it would take about 1.25 miles of descending to get down to zero elevation. Can a bicycle reach 87.2 mph going downhill in that short of distance? I recall years ago descending mountains on my loaded touring bike. And hitting 60 mph. But that took a mile or two of going downhill to reach that slow 60 mph. And Tommy's max cadence is only 95. So he would have needed a 200 gear inch gear to get up to high speeds at that slow of rpm.

Well, lets see... 87.2 MPH = 1.453 MPMinute and that is 7,673.59
ft/minute divided by 46 RPM pedal speed is 166.8 ft per pedal stroke
and half that is 83.4 feet, or 27.8 yards, every time he pushed the
pedal down.

I wonder what gear ratio he got on that bicycle?
--
Cheers,

John B.

Am 11.09.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think any halfway typical rider, even a sport rider, would need a full fairing to do 40 mph
>>> on level ground. Or a motor, meaning it wouldn't count as a bicycle.
>>>
>>> Or they'd have to hire a farmer to bolt a big plywood air shield across the back of a truck, plus
>>> tow the bicyclist up to speed using a rope tied to the truck.
>>>
>>> But of course, that latter trick would be both unbelievable and stupid.
>>>
>> The effort required rises exponentially in relation to speed,
>> aerodynamics being the primary rexistance. Reducing wind resistance is
>> the key to speed. I know riders do get up over 80 MPH on bikes with a
>> full aerodynamic shell, and low rider recumbents are pretty
>> aerodynamic.
>
> Yes, they are. For a while I owned a low recumbent trike (which is not a claim that I rode it much).
> And I've had quite a few friends who owned more conventional recumbents.
>
> But averaging 40 mph, as Tom claimed, isn't going to be possible for anyone without a
> very special fairing system. Really, I think it would require a total IHPVA-style streamlined enclosure.
>
> BTW, one of my riding buddies rode a more normal, unfaired short wheelbase recumbent until
> two or three years ago. It was interesting to me that I slightly exceeded his downhill coasting
> speeds by tucking down on my aero bars. Unfaired recumbents probably have lower frontal
> area, but tend to be pretty dirty aerodynamically.

Unfaired SWB recumbents with handle bars ahead the body can be pretty
slick. On my gravel bike, I averaged 25 km/h on a good day and 22 km/h
on typical day for the way to work. With the recumbent, I'm doing 25
km/h average on a typical day and 28 km/h on a good day.

Both have similar setup: slick road tires, mudguards, pannier with
laptop and change of clothes.

Below-seat steering increases frontal area significantly.

Unfaired Recumbent trikes are a completely differnt kettle of fish:
frontal area is significantly larger, three tire tracks slow you down a
lot on gravel or snow.

Rolf

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 12:57:07 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 03:58:45 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> wrote:
> >On 2022-09-09, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> >> Foundit:
> >>
> >> "A Little Summer Ride"
> >><https://web.archive.org/web/20211205012808/http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/ALittleSummerRide.htm>
>
> >Huzzah! Thanks for this, Jeff.
> Ye'r welcome. Interesting reading.
> >Frank sounds like the exact opposite of me--resilient and good-natured.
> He's a teacher. One has to have a stoic disposition, infinite
> patience, invulnerable to criticism and a permanent positive attitude
> in order to be a successful teacher.
> >pH
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com I
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Thanks for sharing that. Good story, and goes to show how a positive attitude can triumph over adversity.

As far as patience goes, this is off topic a bit, but despite the cop in his story I've been astounded by the patience of some police. I've wasted several hours watching youtube videos of police encounters with people who are "sovereign citizens" or "individually responsible." They are so amazing it's hard not to click on the next one.

The plot is always the same. Police stops vehicle for some traffic infraction, no license, expired tags, etc. Occupant explains the law doesn't apply to them because it's not a vehicle, it's property protected by the constitution, and they're traveling not driving so they don't need a driver's license. Cop patiently explains they can sign the ticket, go home, and fight it in court. Occupant locks car and refuses to comply. Cop spends the NEXT FORTY-FIVE MINUTES trying to explain they can sign and go home, or be arrested and the car towed. After 45 minutes they smash the window, haul the driver out, take him/her to jail. If I were the cop I think it might be more like 45 seconds.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:45:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 11.09.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think any halfway typical rider, even a sport rider, would need a full fairing to do 40 mph
>>>> on level ground. Or a motor, meaning it wouldn't count as a bicycle.
>>>>
>>>> Or they'd have to hire a farmer to bolt a big plywood air shield across the back of a truck, plus
>>>> tow the bicyclist up to speed using a rope tied to the truck.
>>>>
>>>> But of course, that latter trick would be both unbelievable and stupid.
>>>>
>>> The effort required rises exponentially in relation to speed,
>>> aerodynamics being the primary rexistance. Reducing wind resistance is
>>> the key to speed. I know riders do get up over 80 MPH on bikes with a
>>> full aerodynamic shell, and low rider recumbents are pretty
>>> aerodynamic.
>>
>> Yes, they are. For a while I owned a low recumbent trike (which is not a claim that I rode it much).
>> And I've had quite a few friends who owned more conventional recumbents.
>>
>> But averaging 40 mph, as Tom claimed, isn't going to be possible for anyone without a
>> very special fairing system. Really, I think it would require a total IHPVA-style streamlined enclosure.
>>
>> BTW, one of my riding buddies rode a more normal, unfaired short wheelbase recumbent until
>> two or three years ago. It was interesting to me that I slightly exceeded his downhill coasting
>> speeds by tucking down on my aero bars. Unfaired recumbents probably have lower frontal
>> area, but tend to be pretty dirty aerodynamically.
>
>Unfaired SWB recumbents with handle bars ahead the body can be pretty
>slick. On my gravel bike, I averaged 25 km/h on a good day and 22 km/h
>on typical day for the way to work. With the recumbent, I'm doing 25
>km/h average on a typical day and 28 km/h on a good day.
>
>Both have similar setup: slick road tires, mudguards, pannier with
>laptop and change of clothes.
>
>Below-seat steering increases frontal area significantly.
>
>Unfaired Recumbent trikes are a completely differnt kettle of fish:
>frontal area is significantly larger, three tire tracks slow you down a
>lot on gravel or snow.

I don't ride on gravel or snow, but I was matching those speeds on my
daily bike trail rides on my three wheeled Catrike. Granted that was a
few years ago when I was only 70 years old and I was only doing 40/50
mile rides. Two months before my 70th birthday I made 41 mile ride at
an average speed of 18 MPH. I hit 28 MPH on that run. I admit to
taking a half-way ten minute stop for a quick pee and an apple.

>Rolf

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:46:39 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 12:57:07 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 03:58:45 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> > wrote:
> > >On 2022-09-09, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> > >> Foundit:
> > >>
> > >> "A Little Summer Ride"
> > >><https://web.archive.org/web/20211205012808/http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/ALittleSummerRide.htm>
> >
> > >Huzzah! Thanks for this, Jeff.
> > Ye'r welcome. Interesting reading.
> > >Frank sounds like the exact opposite of me--resilient and good-natured..
> > He's a teacher. One has to have a stoic disposition, infinite
> > patience, invulnerable to criticism and a permanent positive attitude
> > in order to be a successful teacher.
> > >pH
> > --
> > Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> > PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com I
> > Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> Thanks for sharing that. Good story, and goes to show how a positive attitude can triumph over adversity.
>
> As far as patience goes, this is off topic a bit, but despite the cop in his story I've been astounded by the patience of some police. I've wasted several hours watching youtube videos of police encounters with people who are "sovereign citizens" or "individually responsible." They are so amazing it's hard not to click on the next one.
>
> The plot is always the same. Police stops vehicle for some traffic infraction, no license, expired tags, etc. Occupant explains the law doesn't apply to them because it's not a vehicle, it's property protected by the constitution, and they're traveling not driving so they don't need a driver's license. Cop patiently explains they can sign the ticket, go home, and fight it in court. Occupant locks car and refuses to comply. Cop spends the NEXT FORTY-FIVE MINUTES trying to explain they can sign and go home, or be arrested and the car towed. After 45 minutes they smash the window, haul the driver out, take him/her to jail. If I were the cop I think it might be more like 45 seconds.

San Jose has become a city known for side shows. These are invariably illegal aliens. They will drive up onto the wide spots in the hills around here to practice. So on many hill rides there might be a tenth of an inch of rubber on the road and on the descents you have to watch for that. San Jose now rarely interferes with side shows just as in the rest of the area they seldom interfere with red light runners or people making left turns against a light.

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:32:15 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:45:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
> >Am 11.09.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> >> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think any halfway typical rider, even a sport rider, would need a full fairing to do 40 mph
> >>>> on level ground. Or a motor, meaning it wouldn't count as a bicycle.
> >>>>
> >>>> Or they'd have to hire a farmer to bolt a big plywood air shield across the back of a truck, plus
> >>>> tow the bicyclist up to speed using a rope tied to the truck.
> >>>>
> >>>> But of course, that latter trick would be both unbelievable and stupid.
> >>>>
> >>> The effort required rises exponentially in relation to speed,
> >>> aerodynamics being the primary rexistance. Reducing wind resistance is
> >>> the key to speed. I know riders do get up over 80 MPH on bikes with a
> >>> full aerodynamic shell, and low rider recumbents are pretty
> >>> aerodynamic.
> >>
> >> Yes, they are. For a while I owned a low recumbent trike (which is not a claim that I rode it much).
> >> And I've had quite a few friends who owned more conventional recumbents.
> >>
> >> But averaging 40 mph, as Tom claimed, isn't going to be possible for anyone without a
> >> very special fairing system. Really, I think it would require a total IHPVA-style streamlined enclosure.
> >>
> >> BTW, one of my riding buddies rode a more normal, unfaired short wheelbase recumbent until
> >> two or three years ago. It was interesting to me that I slightly exceeded his downhill coasting
> >> speeds by tucking down on my aero bars. Unfaired recumbents probably have lower frontal
> >> area, but tend to be pretty dirty aerodynamically.
> >
> >Unfaired SWB recumbents with handle bars ahead the body can be pretty
> >slick. On my gravel bike, I averaged 25 km/h on a good day and 22 km/h
> >on typical day for the way to work. With the recumbent, I'm doing 25
> >km/h average on a typical day and 28 km/h on a good day.
> >
> >Both have similar setup: slick road tires, mudguards, pannier with
> >laptop and change of clothes.
> >
> >Below-seat steering increases frontal area significantly.
> >
> >Unfaired Recumbent trikes are a completely differnt kettle of fish:
> >frontal area is significantly larger, three tire tracks slow you down a
> >lot on gravel or snow.
> I don't ride on gravel or snow, but I was matching those speeds on my
> daily bike trail rides on my three wheeled Catrike. Granted that was a
> few years ago when I was only 70 years old and I was only doing 40/50
> mile rides. Two months before my 70th birthday I made 41 mile ride at
> an average speed of 18 MPH. I hit 28 MPH on that run. I admit to
> taking a half-way ten minute stop for a quick pee and an apple.

As I showed with my Garmin report - my average speed on a ride that had something like 3 hours of climbing of grades up to 12% could not be made up for with descending speeds of 87 mph. So an average speed of 9 mph was pretty good on a climb that steep and long. As for the descending speed - I had always thought that car traffic had been polite when I pulled away from them on that descent - they wouldn't pass me until the 4% descent section. But most people that live up there would never think of driving a car around those blind turns that fast while on the bike I have a clear view around all but one of them and that is at the very top. My flat ground averages are around 12 mph so your 18 mph is a fast average. I seldom ride very fast but around my 70th birthday I did sprint across a yellow light up to 36 mph. Maybe I could hit 28 now in my increasing age but I would have to be motivated..

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:46:01 AM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 11.09.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think any halfway typical rider, even a sport rider, would need a full fairing to do 40 mph
> >>> on level ground. Or a motor, meaning it wouldn't count as a bicycle.
> >>>
> >>> Or they'd have to hire a farmer to bolt a big plywood air shield across the back of a truck, plus
> >>> tow the bicyclist up to speed using a rope tied to the truck.
> >>>
> >>> But of course, that latter trick would be both unbelievable and stupid.
> >>>
> >> The effort required rises exponentially in relation to speed,
> >> aerodynamics being the primary rexistance. Reducing wind resistance is
> >> the key to speed. I know riders do get up over 80 MPH on bikes with a
> >> full aerodynamic shell, and low rider recumbents are pretty
> >> aerodynamic.
> >
> > Yes, they are. For a while I owned a low recumbent trike (which is not a claim that I rode it much).
> > And I've had quite a few friends who owned more conventional recumbents.
> >
> > But averaging 40 mph, as Tom claimed, isn't going to be possible for anyone without a
> > very special fairing system. Really, I think it would require a total IHPVA-style streamlined enclosure.
> >
> > BTW, one of my riding buddies rode a more normal, unfaired short wheelbase recumbent until
> > two or three years ago. It was interesting to me that I slightly exceeded his downhill coasting
> > speeds by tucking down on my aero bars. Unfaired recumbents probably have lower frontal
> > area, but tend to be pretty dirty aerodynamically.
> Unfaired SWB recumbents with handle bars ahead the body can be pretty
> slick. On my gravel bike, I averaged 25 km/h on a good day and 22 km/h
> on typical day for the way to work. With the recumbent, I'm doing 25
> km/h average on a typical day and 28 km/h on a good day.

OK. Sounds very very reasonable. 28 km/h is 17.5 mph. Miles per hour. Reasonable speed for many fit riders.

BUT, this is what Tommy wrote:
"A friend of mine was pretty fast on an upright. He bought a recumbent and told me that he was averaging 40 mph on the LA bike path. He did this route every day to and from work."

Going from your reasonable, logical, sensible, 17.5 mph to Tommy's friend's claimed 40 mph is about as reasonable as jumping over the Grand Canyon. Or jumping out of the Grand Canyon. Whichever is more unreasonable.

>
> Both have similar setup: slick road tires, mudguards, pannier with
> laptop and change of clothes.
>
> Below-seat steering increases frontal area significantly.
>
> Unfaired Recumbent trikes are a completely differnt kettle of fish:
> frontal area is significantly larger, three tire tracks slow you down a
> lot on gravel or snow.
>
> Rolf

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 5:32:10 PM UTC-4, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:46:01 AM UTC-5, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> > Am 11.09.2022 um 19:18 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> > > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:56:51 AM UTC-4, Catrike Rider wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 10 Sep 2022 20:31:56 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I think any halfway typical rider, even a sport rider, would need a full fairing to do 40 mph
> > >>> on level ground. Or a motor, meaning it wouldn't count as a bicycle.
> > >>>
> > >>> Or they'd have to hire a farmer to bolt a big plywood air shield across the back of a truck, plus
> > >>> tow the bicyclist up to speed using a rope tied to the truck.
> > >>>
> > >>> But of course, that latter trick would be both unbelievable and stupid.
> > >>>
> > >> The effort required rises exponentially in relation to speed,
> > >> aerodynamics being the primary rexistance. Reducing wind resistance is
> > >> the key to speed. I know riders do get up over 80 MPH on bikes with a
> > >> full aerodynamic shell, and low rider recumbents are pretty
> > >> aerodynamic.
> > >
> > > Yes, they are. For a while I owned a low recumbent trike (which is not a claim that I rode it much).
> > > And I've had quite a few friends who owned more conventional recumbents.
> > >
> > > But averaging 40 mph, as Tom claimed, isn't going to be possible for anyone without a
> > > very special fairing system. Really, I think it would require a total IHPVA-style streamlined enclosure.
> > >
> > > BTW, one of my riding buddies rode a more normal, unfaired short wheelbase recumbent until
> > > two or three years ago. It was interesting to me that I slightly exceeded his downhill coasting
> > > speeds by tucking down on my aero bars. Unfaired recumbents probably have lower frontal
> > > area, but tend to be pretty dirty aerodynamically.
> > Unfaired SWB recumbents with handle bars ahead the body can be pretty
> > slick. On my gravel bike, I averaged 25 km/h on a good day and 22 km/h
> > on typical day for the way to work. With the recumbent, I'm doing 25
> > km/h average on a typical day and 28 km/h on a good day.
> OK. Sounds very very reasonable. 28 km/h is 17.5 mph. Miles per hour. Reasonable speed for many fit riders.
> BUT, this is what Tommy wrote:
> "A friend of mine was pretty fast on an upright. He bought a recumbent and told me that he was averaging 40 mph on the LA bike path. He did this route every day to and from work."
> Going from your reasonable, logical, sensible, 17.5 mph to Tommy's friend's claimed 40 mph is about as reasonable as jumping over the Grand Canyon. Or jumping out of the Grand Canyon. Whichever is more unreasonable.

Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
>more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.
>- Frank Krygowski

The maximum velocity would like be equal to the terminal velocity in
free fall. According to this article:
"Fat v Skinny: Who goes downhill faster? One has more mass, the other
less air resistance. So who descends faster: fat or skinny?"
<https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2873/fat-v-skinny-who-goes-downhill-faster>
"He cites the example of a tandem bicycle. ‘It would have double the
mass and about the same air resistance. Its terminal speed would be
close to 70mph versus a single bike in the low 40mph range.’"

In other words, if you dropped a cyclist seated on his bicycle from an
airplane (i.e. zero rolling resistance), his maximum velocity before
he and his bicycle self-disassemble, will be "in the low 40mph range".

There's some nice (no math) detail on how this all works near the
bottom of the article.

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

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:25:35 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
> >more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.
> >- Frank Krygowski
> The maximum velocity would like be equal to the terminal velocity in
> free fall. According to this article:
> "Fat v Skinny: Who goes downhill faster? One has more mass, the other
> less air resistance. So who descends faster: fat or skinny?"
> <https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2873/fat-v-skinny-who-goes-downhill-faster>
> "He cites the example of a tandem bicycle. ‘It would have double the
> mass and about the same air resistance. Its terminal speed would be
> close to 70mph versus a single bike in the low 40mph range.’"
>
> In other words, if you dropped a cyclist seated on his bicycle from an
> airplane (i.e. zero rolling resistance), his maximum velocity before
> he and his bicycle self-disassemble, will be "in the low 40mph range".
>
> There's some nice (no math) detail on how this all

There are several bike power-vs-speed calculators online. Sadly, Damon Rinard's seems to
be gone. But as an example, to reach Tom's claimed speed on a 20% downgrade , at least
on such calculator says he'd have to also be pedaling, putting out 5 kW of power.

Not implying that Tom couldn't do that, of course! :-)

- Frank Krygowski

Am 13.09.2022 um 01:25 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
>> more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> The maximum velocity would like be equal to the terminal velocity in
> free fall. According to this article:
> "Fat v Skinny: Who goes downhill faster? One has more mass, the other
> less air resistance. So who descends faster: fat or skinny?"
> <https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2873/fat-v-skinny-who-goes-downhill-faster>
> "He cites the example of a tandem bicycle. ‘It would have double the
> mass and about the same air resistance. Its terminal speed would be
> close to 70mph versus a single bike in the low 40mph range.’"
>
> In other words, if you dropped a cyclist seated on his bicycle from an
> airplane (i.e. zero rolling resistance), his maximum velocity before
> he and his bicycle self-disassemble, will be "in the low 40mph range".

Some people pick random data out of thin air, and the terminal velicity
in the low 40 mph range seems to be one of those.
I personally have rolled down a 1:6 hill reaching 52 mph on an MTB on a
road, some MTB gurus are reported to have exceeded 60 mph downhill on a
ski slope, so terminal velocity 'in the 40's is not a realistic data point.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 13.09.2022 um 01:25 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
>>> more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> The maximum velocity would like be equal to the terminal velocity in
>> free fall. According to this article:
>> "Fat v Skinny: Who goes downhill faster? One has more mass, the other
>> less air resistance. So who descends faster: fat or skinny?"
>> <https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2873/fat-v-skinny-who-goes-downhill-faster>
>> "He cites the example of a tandem bicycle. ‘It would have double the
>> mass and about the same air resistance. Its terminal speed would be
>> close to 70mph versus a single bike in the low 40mph range.’"
>>
>> In other words, if you dropped a cyclist seated on his bicycle from an
>> airplane (i.e. zero rolling resistance), his maximum velocity before
>> he and his bicycle self-disassemble, will be "in the low 40mph range".

>Some people pick random data out of thin air, and the terminal velicity
>in the low 40 mph range seems to be one of those.
>I personally have rolled down a 1:6 hill reaching 52 mph on an MTB on a
>road, some MTB gurus are reported to have exceeded 60 mph downhill on a
>ski slope, so terminal velocity 'in the 40's is not a realistic data point.

Any witnesses, videos, GPS logs or radar speed gun measurements?
That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. You could very well be
correct, but I'm not inclined to trust such numbers without at least
some corroboration. A video would be cool as I could measure speed
using movement vs frames per second. (Please don't risk your life to
prove your point. It's not worth it).

Out of idle curiosity, if you achieved 52 mph, what happened when you
applied the brakes? Some calcs:

52 mph = 23.2 meters/sec.
I would guess(tm) that mass of a MTB to be 11 kg (24.2 lbs) and the
rider to be 68 Kg (150 lbs).
Please adjust the numbers as needed.

Kinetic_energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2
Q = 0.5 * 11 * 68^2 = 50,864 Joules

Most of the heat of braking is absorbed (and radiated) by the two
wheel rims. The mass of a single aluminum MTB rim is about 500 grams.
Two 26" rims would total about 920g.
The specific heat for aluminum is 890 J/(kg·K)
How hot are the rims?

"Specific Heat Calculator"
<https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/specific-heat>
Plugging in:
Energy = 50,864 Joules
Temperature = (unknown)
Mass = 920 grams
Substance = Aluminum
Specific Heat Capacity = 890 J/(kg·K)

Temp rise = 61.6C
Rim temp = 25C + 61.6C = 86.6C (188F)

That's hot, but still quite reasonable. Your tubes and tires won't
melt or catch fire. You'll likely survive stopping.

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

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 1:02:45 PM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:13:57 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
> >Am 13.09.2022 um 01:25 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> >> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 15:11:31 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Power requirements are roughly proportional to speed cubed. I'll let Tom do the math on how much
> >>> more power is required for 40 mph vs. 17.5 mph.
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>
> >> The maximum velocity would like be equal to the terminal velocity in
> >> free fall. According to this article:
> >> "Fat v Skinny: Who goes downhill faster? One has more mass, the other
> >> less air resistance. So who descends faster: fat or skinny?"
> >> <https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/2873/fat-v-skinny-who-goes-downhill-faster>
> >> "He cites the example of a tandem bicycle. ‘It would have double the
> >> mass and about the same air resistance. Its terminal speed would be
> >> close to 70mph versus a single bike in the low 40mph range.’"
> >>
> >> In other words, if you dropped a cyclist seated on his bicycle from an
> >> airplane (i.e. zero rolling resistance), his maximum velocity before
> >> he and his bicycle self-disassemble, will be "in the low 40mph range".
>
> >Some people pick random data out of thin air, and the terminal velicity
> >in the low 40 mph range seems to be one of those.
> >I personally have rolled down a 1:6 hill reaching 52 mph on an MTB on a
> >road, some MTB gurus are reported to have exceeded 60 mph downhill on a
> >ski slope, so terminal velocity 'in the 40's is not a realistic data point.
> Any witnesses, videos, GPS logs or radar speed gun measurements?
> That's the problem with anecdotal evidence. You could very well be
> correct, but I'm not inclined to trust such numbers without at least
> some corroboration. A video would be cool as I could measure speed
> using movement vs frames per second. (Please don't risk your life to
> prove your point. It's not worth it).

As I've mentioned several times, my personal top speed is 54 mph. I'd have gone faster if
a car was not in my way. I had really hoped to beat 55 mph.

Now, regarding documentation: Unless such a thing was planned in advance, I think nobody is
likely to have video evidence. I'd never have a GPS log because I don't use GPS on the bike
(and anyway, Tom's GPS data is obviously faulty). But I think we can use judgment of
a person's history here to at least partially assess the likelihood of such claims' validity.
I'd believe Rolf far, far sooner than I'd believe Tom.

Regarding braking: In my case, I did have to hit the brakes to stay behind the offending car. The
particular hill I was on soon lost much of its steepness. As I recall, I ended up coasting for more
than a mile at speeds of something like 30 mph.

Calcutta-Smith Ferry Road, southeast Ohio.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:00:51 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 20:53:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 03:37:36 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On 2022-09-08, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:44:36 PM UTC-4, pH wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Frank.
> >>>> Is your coast-to-coast ride chronicled on Crazy Guy on a Bike or elsewhere?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not at the moment. It was on www.bicyclinglife.com but the site has been down for a while.
> >>> Hosting problems, etc. Hopefully it will be back up soon.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> >>Okay...I would sure like to read that.
> >>pH
> >
> >Try the way back machine:
> ><https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/www.bicyclinglife.com>
> >Most of bicyclinglife.com is safely archived. However, I can't seem
> >to make search work. The site map shows evidence of Frank's presence,
> >but without knowing a title or keyword for the ride, I'm stuck.
> ><https://web.archive.org/web/20211209021933/http://bicyclinglife.com/Sitemap.htm>
> Foundit:
>
> "A Little Summer Ride"
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20211205012808/http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/ALittleSummerRide.htm>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Frank, I just read your ride story. Particularly interested in the part across Iowa. Although I have to criticize you about the order of your writing.
You wrote about towns in western Iowa and then back to towns in eastern Iowa. And then the middle of Iowa. I was a bit confused what your route was.. I was jumping all over the state.

I've been to Muscatine. I know exactly where Kalona is. Been through it many times. I see you stopped at Living History Farms in Urbandale/Clive Iowa. Des Moines suburbs. You should have called me!!!!!! I'd have driven/ridden down to get you. I lived about 5 miles north of there in 2003. I know where Carroll and Coon Rapids are. Probably ridden through them on RAGBRAI a few times. And Mapleton, that is the town Soggy Monday on July 27, 1981, RAGBRAI started. Hardest day of riding in the history of the world. Rode over to Lake City on the coldest, rainiest day on earth. In July anyway. My Dad was born and raised about 10 miles SW of Mapleton. I know about the George Floyd monument in Sioux City. Have not seen it though. Or at least I don't recall seeing it on the times RAGBRAI has started from Sioux City. I've been to the Corn Palace in Mitchell South Dakota too. And I agree about the hills over in western Iowa near the Loess Hills. That ain't flat farmland like you see 50 miles further north. I think I've been in Bismarck North Dakota too. Drove through there on the way to a week long North Dakota ride.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 6:52:52 PM UTC-4, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 11:00:51 PM UTC-5, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2022 20:53:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > wrote:
> > >On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 03:37:36 -0000 (UTC), pH <wNOS...@gmail.org>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On 2022-09-08, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 5:44:36 PM UTC-4, pH wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Frank.
> > >>>> Is your coast-to-coast ride chronicled on Crazy Guy on a Bike or elsewhere?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Not at the moment. It was on www.bicyclinglife.com but the site has been down for a while.
> > >>> Hosting problems, etc. Hopefully it will be back up soon.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > >>Okay...I would sure like to read that.
> > >>pH
> > >
> > >Try the way back machine:
> > ><https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/www.bicyclinglife.com>
> > >Most of bicyclinglife.com is safely archived. However, I can't seem
> > >to make search work. The site map shows evidence of Frank's presence,
> > >but without knowing a title or keyword for the ride, I'm stuck.
> > ><https://web.archive.org/web/20211209021933/http://bicyclinglife.com/Sitemap.htm>
> > Foundit:
> >
> > "A Little Summer Ride"
> > <https://web.archive.org/web/20211205012808/http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/ALittleSummerRide.htm>
> > --
> > Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> > PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> > Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> > Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
> Frank, I just read your ride story. Particularly interested in the part across Iowa. Although I have to criticize you about the order of your writing.
> You wrote about towns in western Iowa and then back to towns in eastern Iowa. And then the middle of Iowa. I was a bit confused what your route was. I was jumping all over the state.
>
> I've been to Muscatine. I know exactly where Kalona is. Been through it many times. I see you stopped at Living History Farms in Urbandale/Clive Iowa. Des Moines suburbs. You should have called me!!!!!! I'd have driven/ridden down to get you. I lived about 5 miles north of there in 2003. I know where Carroll and Coon Rapids are. Probably ridden through them on RAGBRAI a few times. And Mapleton, that is the town Soggy Monday on July 27, 1981, RAGBRAI started. Hardest day of riding in the history of the world. Rode over to Lake City on the coldest, rainiest day on earth. In July anyway. My Dad was born and raised about 10 miles SW of Mapleton. I know about the George Floyd monument in Sioux City. Have not seen it though. Or at least I don't recall seeing it on the times RAGBRAI has started from Sioux City. I've been to the Corn Palace in Mitchell South Dakota too. And I agree about the hills over in western Iowa near the Loess Hills. That ain't flat farmland like you see 50 miles further north. I think I've been in Bismarck North Dakota too. Drove through there on the way to a week long North Dakota ride.

I hope you enjoyed the narrative. As I said at the beginning, those are taken almost directly from emails
I sent from libraries while we were traveling. The emails were very quick and informal, and I did very
little revising when I collected them into the article.

Had I known about you then, I'd have been happy to visit on the way. On that trip, we did stay with
another guy who used to post here, and he and his wife also visited us here at home. Another previous
poster became a friend of mine, and was instrumental in getting me on the board of a certain cycling
organization. Yet another (who used to argue with me about helmets) stayed with us when he and
his sons passed through here on tour. All those were very friendly visits. I find almost all bike people
to be pleasant.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:11:35 PM UTC-7, bob prohaska wrote:
> Just pondering, but has anybody tried to fix a bike
> tire with a carcass failure using filament tape?
>
> A rather small rip in the casing will let the tube
> extrude through and blow out. In my case it was by
> letting the tire wear through the cords (inattention)
> but sharp objects can do much the same sort of damage.
>
> My thought is to put the tape either directly around the
> tube near the hole, or over the hole (sticky side out)
> with the tape lapping over the tire bead wires.
>
> Obviously it'll be good only for limping home, but a
> roll of tape is easier to carry than a spare tire.

With my spare tube, I keep 1 or 2 "boots" made of old tires. I like the sidewall section best, as long it is tall enough. I've ridden over a razor blade and the opening was very substantial. Got home with a boot.

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:11:35 PM UTC-7, bob prohaska wrote:
> > Just pondering, but has anybody tried to fix a bike
> > tire with a carcass failure using filament tape?
> >
> > A rather small rip in the casing will let the tube
> > extrude through and blow out. In my case it was by
> > letting the tire wear through the cords (inattention)
> > but sharp objects can do much the same sort of damage.
> >
> > My thought is to put the tape either directly around the
> > tube near the hole, or over the hole (sticky side out)
> > with the tape lapping over the tire bead wires.
> >
> > Obviously it'll be good only for limping home, but a
> > roll of tape is easier to carry than a spare tire.
>
> With my spare tube, I keep 1 or 2 "boots" made of old tires. I like the sidewall section best, as long it is tall enough. I've ridden over a razor blade and the opening was very substantial. Got home with a boot.
I rode over a wood screw once and ran out of CO2. I would carry a minipump but it is so rare when you use good tires that it is hardly worth the bother. That flat was 4,000 miles ago.

On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 9:16:08 AM UTC-7, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:01:55 PM UTC-7, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2022 at 7:11:35 PM UTC-7, bob prohaska wrote:
> > > Just pondering, but has anybody tried to fix a bike
> > > tire with a carcass failure using filament tape?
> > >
> > > A rather small rip in the casing will let the tube
> > > extrude through and blow out. In my case it was by
> > > letting the tire wear through the cords (inattention)
> > > but sharp objects can do much the same sort of damage.
> > >
> > > My thought is to put the tape either directly around the
> > > tube near the hole, or over the hole (sticky side out)
> > > with the tape lapping over the tire bead wires.
> > >
> > > Obviously it'll be good only for limping home, but a
> > > roll of tape is easier to carry than a spare tire.
> >
> > With my spare tube, I keep 1 or 2 "boots" made of old tires. I like the sidewall section best, as long it is tall enough. I've ridden over a razor blade and the opening was very substantial. Got home with a boot.
> I rode over a wood screw once and ran out of CO2. I would carry a minipump but it is so rare when you use good tires that it is hardly worth the bother. That flat was 4,000 miles ago.

Old habits die hard. I always have tube-patch-boot. lol