Guest Big H Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Muxie.... although beer is high in carbohydrate value it is very low in natural fibre.... you really need that as well. Do not listen to Dirt Rider..... beers are NOT good for you and only leads to bad women anf fornication. The gates of hell will wait for you. Rather drink water and brown bread. If you now drink some sugar and yeast you will start to ferment and make your own natural beer that is high in fibre. Siedaar....... twee vliee met een klap!!!!!!!!. Only problem is you will stink sour and no bad women will look at you, thus no fornication!!!!!!!! At least you have steered away from the gates of HELL!!!!!!!
TNT1 Posted January 13, 2007 Posted January 13, 2007 Dude drink beer and train hard. Works great. Deep sections are fine for climbing, look at the guys using new generation light in weight deep sections. Good for climbing and exceptional on the flats and downhills cause of increased aero efficiency. The only problem I have with my deep sections (campag) is in heavy crosswinds, but I reckon that that is mainly due to the fact that in racing season I weigh only 57kgs, so the cross winds mess me around. But I will take the compromise any day.
The Saint Posted January 13, 2007 Author Posted January 13, 2007 If I am correct in my assupmtion the deep carbons are heavier than a lightwieght alu rim. Surprising as I thought carbon was lighter than alu. So why then carbon cranks, seatposts, forks, frames and so on as opposed to alu?
Canaris Posted January 14, 2007 Posted January 14, 2007 Aero dynamics? You going slowly up hill...You are more vulnerable to crosswinds when going slowly (real wind direction verse relative wind direction - ask the sailors (especially the cat boys) about it). In Europe where there are really high climbs with varied wind and weather conditions... You want to gamble being blown down a ravine? I think not....
sias Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 If I am correct in my assupmtion the deep carbons are heavier than a lightwieght alu rim. Surprising as I thought carbon was lighter than alu. So why then carbon cranks' date=' seatposts, forks, frames and so on as opposed to alu?[/quote'] That would be the wrong assumption. Carbon is indeed much lighter than aluminium. The Zipp 404 is a 58mm deep section carbon rim and weighs 1265g per pair. The Mavic Ksyrium SSC SL is a flat section alu rim and weighs 1450g per pair. If you want to compare box section or flat section weights - the Zipp 202 weighs in at 1010g per pair. Compare that to the Ksyriums/Dura-Ace/Eurus alu wheels and you'l see a considerable weight saving - up to 400g!The reason they use carbon for all the other components is because of the stiffness to weight ratio. Carbon is much stiffer and also absorbs more vibrations and gives a more comfortable ride. In short: Carbon is lighter, stronger, stiffer, more absorbing and gives a better ride for most people.
TNT1 Posted January 15, 2007 Posted January 15, 2007 Nice one sias... That's also why carbon frames are better than aluminium ones... Or at least why most manufacturers use the materials on combination...
The Saint Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 Right I have decided to revive this page mainly because I have 3 more stupid questions to ask. 1) Why does a tubby sound different on the road to a clincher? 2) Why does the fat guy always sit in front on a tandem 3) What is the correct terminology for the fat guy in the front and the skinny guy at the back of a tandem.
Mudsimus Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Right I have decided to revive this page mainly because I have 3 more stupid questions to ask.1) Why does a tubby sound different on the road to a clincher?2) Why does the fat guy always sit in front on a tandem3) What is the correct terminology for the fat guy in the front and the skinny guy at the back of a tandem. 1) Its normally the deep section rim the amplifies the sound...nothing to do with the tubby. 2) Try steering a tandem with the fat guy at the back. 3) Pilot/Stoker
The Saint Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 Pilot and Stoker? MMMM sounds a bit dodgey. The skinny guy at the back is stoking the pilot. Thanks for the info, not sure if I would like to be the pilot or the stoker. So does this mean if I have a fat girlfriend she would need to be the pilot cause I am a skinny guy therefore I would not be able to sit upfront and I would then have to "stoker" from behind???? I have deep section clinchers and they definately don't sound anything like a deep section tubby
Mudsimus Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Your clincher deep section rim is filled with some spongy substance. This dampens the sound. If you have a fat GF she still rides at the back....never trust a women with the handlebars.
The Saint Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 Ok that settles everything then....thank you for the feedback. This page can now go back into retirement for a few more months.
Mudsimus Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 This page can now go back into retirement for a few more months. As if. Johan Bornman is gonna rock up any moment now and tell you a whole differant story...
scotty Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 This page can now go back into retirement for a few more months. As if. Johan Bornman is gonna rock up any moment now and tell you a whole differant story...
Turboman Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Pilot and Stoker? MMMM sounds a bit dodgey. The skinny guy at the back is stoking the pilot. Thanks for the info' date=' not sure if I would like to be the pilot or the stoker.So does this mean if I have a fat girlfriend she would need to be the pilot cause I am a skinny guy therefore I would not be able to sit upfront and I would then have to "stoker" from behind????I have deep section clinchers and they definately don't sound anything like a deep section tubby[/quote'] Did you say STROKER her STOKER from behind??? just clearing it up
The Saint Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 I would probably get arrested for public indecency if I were stoking her from behind. Another question quick. The magnet that you put on your wheel to measure your speed or commonly known as a speed sensor. Should this magnet be placed in a strategic position such as opposite the valve in order to "true" the wheel more to compensate for the valve which surely puts the wheel off balance all be it a tiny amount or can the sensor just be placed anywhere?
Tumbleweed Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 I would probably get arrested for public indecency if I were stoking her from behind.Another question quick.The magnet that you put on your wheel to measure your speed or commonly known as a speed sensor. Should this magnet be placed in a strategic position such as opposite the valve in order to "true" the wheel more to compensate for the valve which surely puts the wheel off balance all be it a tiny amount or can the sensor just be placed anywhere? that been keeping you up at night?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now