Topwine

Helloise I found the following site very informative and learned a lot about endurance training. It gives a LOT of information and doesn't try to sell you some product first before you get to read the info. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/methods-of-endurance-training-part-1.html also read the follow up articles here, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/methods-of-endurance-training-putting-it-together.html and here, http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/methods-of-endurance-training-results-part-1.html Best regards From your fellow "sore and cramping legs near the end" MTB cyclist

Yes, that very true. That is why a lot of people don't lose weight by exercising, or at least, don't keep the initial weight loss. The body adapts though if you keep on exercising and overcomes the initial "shock" reaction. Stuff yourself with fat light foods like salads, fruits, vegetables, high fibre, etc. to make you feel like you have eaten more.

To loose 1 kg of fat, you need to have a Calorie deficit of around 7700 kCal or 32340 kJ . Do a Google search, but an average office working male consume about 1800 kCal or 7560 kJ daily. If you have different lifestyle, working environment, body type, etc your needs will be less or more. Count the Calories of what you eat, subtract (what you exercise + normal daily needs) and determine your daily Calorie deficit or perhaps excess. Divide in the 1kg of Fat Calorie value and see how many days its gonna take you to lose 1 kg. Eat less, exercise more, until you have your ideal body weight.

I was at CWC shop the other Saturday when the Boks played the Wallabies. I wanted to buy a bike and kit for my son. I was looking for some advice, prices, discussion etc. All the staff was more interested in watching the game on all the TV's in the shop that in the end I left and bought at Cycle Lab ... Negotiated a good price with them too. Not very good service from CWC if you ask me.

Hannes, Yes you are right. It should make no difference.

Ah, at last you are actually getting to a true analysis! But at least Hannes has now proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the spokes DO carry increased tension from a jump by a rider !

Johan, you are talking absolute rubbish. I am sorry that I have to say this, but it is true. It is clear that you have no engineering background whatsoever. This above quote will prove it to ANY qualified engineer. Please state any verifiable sources of any qualification you have. Just don't tell me you have read a book !

Before we start to debate about the correctness of my or any other analysis, lets just get the first point of argument out of the way. This is the "fact" stated by Johan: "Jumping your bike doesn't put strain on the spokes at all." Do you agree with this or is he plain wrong? Regards

Sigh ! ... Actually, its got nothing to do from where you start the analysis. That's the beauty of force vector analysis in equilibrium. All the forces need to balance out, or else there is breakage ! Regards

Dear Johan You are not doing your reputation any good by continuing to show your ignorance about structural design and force distribution. Having just spoken to another professional mechanical engineer to confirm, I can safely say you don't know what you are talking about. I certainly won't let you build my wheels ! Can I kindly suggest you make an appointment with a professor at a reputable engineering university (not college) to explain or demonstrate to you how forces in a spoked bicycle wheel are distributed. Amen

First, spokes is unable to support any meaningful compression forces, it would buckle to easily. (too thin and long). Therefore, the main load or force support is through tension forces inside the spokes. By pre-tensioning all the spokes, you let the rim support the load from the hub. When you jump the bike (or climb onto it for that matter, only the magnitude of the force differs) the force is downwards onto the hub. The hub then wants to move down, but is restricted from doing so by all the spokes north of the equator pulling it up, with the top most northerly one carrying the most load. These top spokes then transfer the load onto the rim which will tend to want to move the rim down onto the ground, where mother earth makes contact with it at the bottom point and provides the equal, but opposing force. therefore the rim will tend to deform at the bottom as well as the top. Regards

Johan In all respect, I have no interest in humiliating you, but if you continue like this, I might have no choice. You clearly have no understanding of how force vectors work or how forces are distributed in structures. Your "facts" are based on inferior understanding of force vectors and load distribution. Jumping your bike are going to require thicker rims AND thicker spokes, or MORE spokes of the same diameter. The force is distributed THROUGH the spokes ONTO the rim. You can have it no other way, only in your imagination. I can explain all your "points" but before you grasp this basic concept here, I'll be wasting my time. Best

Wow, this was fun. It was of course a loaded question initially by me. Having a Mechanical Engineering degree, I quite enjoyed the debate. So in conclusion then, we have determined that Johan talks a lot of bollocks when he makes this statement, "Jumping your bike doesn't put strain on the spokes at all" , The jumping force is indeed transferred from the hub through the spokes onto the rim where the counter force is provided by the ground at the impact zone. Thanks guys

Please enlighten me how force is transferred to the rims, if not through the spokes ?