The Lemon Fool

I think people who use indoor cycle trainers for exercise are really missing out, went for a ride yesterday the traffic level was reminiscent of Christmas day, no pollution and amazing air clarity with no distant haze on the horrizon. From the hills I could see for much further than I remember being previously possible in the UK outside the Scottish Highlands. If it weren't the end of the world I could get quite used to this, shows what used to be and what one day may be again if we can find reliable clean energy.

Every other day I am currently doing 11 to 15 miles in the deserted country lanes that surround this Devon town. I have always done this for pleasure and because its good for my type 2 diabetes. I can choose very hilly routes or somewhat flatter routes. But...folk who live in cities in apartments etc dont have my free choice and in order to get any real exercise need to use a turbo trainer at home or something like that.
Out in the hinterland which I cycle through I rarely see any other cyclists, even the 'Roadies' avoid the hilly areas here which are peppered with 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 hills, some of them very long. So would I if I didnt have a Pedelec type electric bike. That enables me to choose from no assistance at all or one of 4 modes. I use that assistance as sparingly as possible. However, Devon is acknowleged by LEJOG end to enders as one of the hilliest places in the UK and there are plenty of other flatter areas eminently suitable for cycling. I feel genuinely sorry for folks who live in cities in the current situation. Getting exercise and observing the guidelines must be really difficult for them.

I find the roads nice and quiet (and relatively safe) to cycle on, so we can leave the "shared" paths and canal towpaths and the like to the walkers for better social distancing.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:I find the roads nice and quiet (and relatively safe) to cycle on, so we can leave the "shared" paths and canal towpaths and the like to the walkers for better social distancing.

Scott.

I wish everyone thought like that. I have not changed the routes of my 4/5 mile daily walk since the lockdown but an awful lot of thoughtless cyclists now seem to think it is also a great route and that there is no one else on the route but them!

Dod

We haven't had the real bikes out. There are hills in every direction where we live, so we used to put the bikes on the car and drive somewhere easier. Maybe the exercise bike will get me fit enough to not bother about the hills here.

Agreed! Great times for outdoor cycling. Hope govt allow exercise to continue during lockdown as important to health and mental wellbeing.

Snorvey wrote:Cycling the local market towns bypass/relief road is something that I had never done before this outbreak. Too dangerous.

These days though......wow. a great surface, high speed roundabouts...its bloody brilliant.

I seem to remember seeing bike races on motorways being shown on tv during the three day week. And we thought that this generation would never see economic activity so constrained by government as those times!

Clariman wrote:We haven't had the real bikes out. There are hills in every direction where we live, so we used to put the bikes on the car and drive somewhere easier. Maybe the exercise bike will get me fit enough to not bother about the hills here.

If you have not already done so it can be well worth knowing the lowest gearing on your bikes in gear inches, we have two touring bikes with low gears of 19 and 17 inches , with the 17 inch one I have riden extensively in Snowdonia and Yorkshire Dales without ever encountering a hill I could not ride up. Problem is you can't buy bikes like these in mainstream bike shops but most bikes can be adapted.

colin wrote:

Clariman wrote:We haven't had the real bikes out. There are hills in every direction where we live, so we used to put the bikes on the car and drive somewhere easier. Maybe the exercise bike will get me fit enough to not bother about the hills here.

If you have not already done so it can be well worth knowing the lowest gearing on your bikes in gear inches, we have two touring bikes with low gears of 19 and 17 inches , with the 17 inch one I have riden extensively in Snowdonia and Yorkshire Dales without ever encountering a hill I could not ride up. Problem is you can't buy bikes like these in mainstream bike shops but most bikes can be adapted.

Wow you are not kidding about those being low gears. I just had to double check on the gearing of my Felt road bike on which I did a 35km hilly ride yesterday and it comes out at 120 down to 28 gear inches. I suppose with a 24 chainring and 34 cog that 17 gear inches is not out of the question. Your legs must be a bit of a blur though.

John

22 chain ring 34 rear cog on a 26 inch wheel touring bike, such touring/general use frames as far as I know are only available from specialist suppliers, mine is a Thorn from St John Street cycles, due to the larger wheel size our 700c touring bike can 'only' achieve a low gear of 19 inches using a 32T rear sprocket but it could just as well take a 34T cassette on the next change giving a low of 18 gear inches on the larger wheel including tyre.The rear dropout widths and necessary frame dimensions on most tourers/hybrid commuter bikes are the same as mountain bikes so as long as one uses mutually compatible components mountain bike gearing can be used, for reasons which just bemuse me mainstream bike 'assemblers' ( they can't be called manufacturers) will not bring such bikes to market, which means that the average UK rider cannot actually ride up the average UK hill without motorised assistance, bizare if you ask me.
No my legs do not spin round like Roadrunner cartoon character as I only use such low gears on the steepest of hills when the bike will be moving uphill at close to walking pace . Our bikes use old 9 speed groupsets but newer 10 speed is designed to fit the same frame dimensions so all the gears a non competition racer would require are available.

you used to see "mega-range" cassettes quite regularly back when 7sp was common at the back
- in essence the largest sprocket was a lot bigger that you would normally have expected, jumping around 10 teeth rather than 2 from the one before

it was surprisingly practical giving you a gear for "any hill you can't handle normally"; I haven't seen one in a while though

- sd

servodude wrote:you used to see "mega-range" cassettes quite regularly back when 7sp was common at the back
- in essence the largest sprocket was a lot bigger that you would normally have expected, jumping around 10 teeth rather than 2 from the one before

it was surprisingly practical giving you a gear for "any hill you can't handle normally"; I haven't seen one in a while though

- sd

I doubt it was any larger than 34t as the limit is defined by the capability and length of the derailleur , these days mountain bike gearing runs to 10 , 11 and even 12 speed systems which uses just one chainring on the front and a massive casette on the rear wheel with 11-50 teeth, wheels have got bigger on mountain bikes but even so that gives a lowest gear just under 17 inches which is probably too low to actually be usefull as when cycling at a normal cadence I think the bike would be moving so slowly that remaining upright would be a problem, but you could probably turn it upside down and use it to winch a car out of a ditch if the need arose.

colin wrote:

servodude wrote:you used to see "mega-range" cassettes quite regularly back when 7sp was common at the back
- in essence the largest sprocket was a lot bigger that you would normally have expected, jumping around 10 teeth rather than 2 from the one before

it was surprisingly practical giving you a gear for "any hill you can't handle normally"; I haven't seen one in a while though

- sd

I doubt it was any larger than 34t as the limit is defined by the capability and length of the derailleur , these days mountain bike gearing runs to 10 , 11 and even 12 speed systems which uses just one chainring on the front and a massive casette on the rear wheel with 11-50 teeth, wheels have got bigger on mountain bikes but even so that gives a lowest gear just under 17 inches which is probably too low to actually be usefull as when cycling at a normal cadence I think the bike would be moving so slowly that remaining upright would be a problem, but you could probably turn it upside down and use it to winch a car out of a ditch if the need arose.

Indeed, just checked and the MF-TZ500 by Shimano runs 14-16-18-20-22-24-34
- coupled with a granny at 24 or 28 that would get you out of danger on most hills

- sd

MarshalMcEachern wrote:Btw, interesting fact is that in the countries where wearing bicycle helmets is obligatory, the amount of people who cycle is way fewer.

I wonder which way around the cause and effect is.

Mandatory wearing of bike hats puts people off biking, or so many people killed leads to reluctance to cycle and bike hats being made mandatory,.

Mike4 wrote:

MarshalMcEachern wrote:Btw, interesting fact is that in the countries where wearing bicycle helmets is obligatory, the amount of people who cycle is way fewer.

I wonder which way around the cause and effect is.

Mandatory wearing of bike hats puts people off biking, or so many people killed leads to reluctance to cycle and bike hats being made mandatory,.

First instance was in Victoria (Oz).

They declared the helmet law a big success, with fatalities more than halved. Less publicity went to peer-reviewed analysis of the stats from non-partisan academics, such as Dorothy Robinson, who found:

(a) The number of pedestrian fatalities (the nearest available thing to a control group) had fallen by a similar amount, despite no pedestrian helmet law (suspected reason: introduction of big speed camera and drink-driving campaigns at the same time).
(b) Although the number of fatalities was down hugely, the fatality rate wasn't: the number of deaths per cyclist was only marginally changed.

In conclusion, the cycle helmet law had done more to save pedestrians than cyclists. No, wait ...

UncleEbenezer wrote:They declared the helmet law a big success, with fatalities more than halved.

I find it helpful if ever engaging in this debate to refer to them as polystyrene hats
- seems to reframe some of the more sensationalist reporting

- sd

I think you can cherry pic stats and you can interpret them to fit your argument on both sides.

I don't want compulsory helmets but wear mine all the time and highly recommend others do too. I'm under no illusion it will only provide limited protection and in certain circumstances. A slow speed fall onto a kerb, I'd want it on. Being hit from behind by a HGV doing 55 MPH, we'll I'd still be wearing mine but won't hold out that it will provide much protection.

Interestingly wearing a pink hi viz jacket and a long blond ponytail give you better odds and more space allowed on the road. Drivers often give less room to helmet wearing riders. Maybe changing the mind set of a few drivers who think that cyclists pay no road tax so therefore shouldn't be on my road might make thing less lethal. Physics lessons about 1 ton cars hitting 10 kg bike etc.

Of course there are bad cyclists too, wearing dark clothing and no lights... What's the term Darwinism.

As for the Op point I agree it's great to get out and about but indoor trainers be it running, rowing or cycling have there merits. Time constraints or weather, even convenience. I can spend a couple of hours on my spin bike whilst attending a zoom meeting but can do that on the road!

I was just saying to someone recently that in my youth (a long time ago) I must have cycled many thousands of miles with no helmet and have survived to tell the tale. Obviously traffic would have been much less then but the roads were a lot more modest as well, and whilst trucks and cars move very much faster today, I doubt that the average touring cyclist's speed has changed much. Are there touring cyclists today?

Dod

Dod101 wrote:I was just saying to someone recently that in my youth (a long time ago) I must have cycled many thousands of miles with no helmet and have survived to tell the tale.

But would you have survived if you'd worn an encumbrance on your head? Of course that's counterfactual, but we can consider additional risk factors:

- Adding a lever to the head makes a bigger target to hit, and a much greater risk of rotational injury up to and including serious damage to the spinal cord. Which is, I understand, a higher risk than a straight blow-to-the-head.

- Adding encumbrance and overheating may impair your alertness and reaction times. Accidents are rare, near misses are common: the latter happen routinely when alertness from A takes quick action to mitigate B's mistake. Almost all accidents happen not (just) because B makes a mistake, but because that mistake coincides with at least a lapse in alertness from A. I want my maximum faculties to stay on the right side of that line!

UncleEbenezer wrote:

Dod101 wrote:I was just saying to someone recently that in my youth (a long time ago) I must have cycled many thousands of miles with no helmet and have survived to tell the tale.

But would you have survived if you'd worn an encumbrance on your head? Of course that's counterfactual, but we can consider additional risk factors:

- Adding a lever to the head makes a bigger target to hit, and a much greater risk of rotational injury up to and including serious damage to the spinal cord. Which is, I understand, a higher risk than a straight blow-to-the-head.

- Adding encumbrance and overheating may impair your alertness and reaction times. Accidents are rare, near misses are common: the latter happen routinely when alertness from A takes quick action to mitigate B's mistake. Almost all accidents happen not (just) because B makes a mistake, but because that mistake coincides with at least a lapse in alertness from A. I want my maximum faculties to stay on the right side of that line!

I think I am agreeing with you. In my cycling days, I can recall a couple of accidents. One was when my brake cable snapped and I went straight into the back of a bus going downhill. It caused me no injury fortunately. The other was more serious and I live with the consequences to this day. I came off my bike I think cornering on ice, went down head first and smashed a couple of my top front teeth. I was fairly young, maybe early teens and in these far off days, dentists were not as efficient as they are now or maybe my parents were not. The upshot was that I had the two teeth removed and got a plate. Otherwise there was no damage to me as far as I recall. Certainly no protective headgear would have made the slightest difference. I am therefore rather sceptical of the helmets now worn by most cyclists nowadays and in fact they may give a false sense of security.

Dod