> thirty-six wrote: > > On 7 Nov, 12:38, Marc <initial.surn...@btintenret.com> wrote: > >> thirty-six wrote: > >>> On 7 Nov, 07:31, James <james.an...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 7, 10:40 am, James <james.an...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 7, 8:25 am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. > >>>>> Procida) wrote: > >>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> The proof of the pudding is in the eating. My wheels work better than > >>>>>>>> normal construction. I explain to the best of my abilities why. I do > >>>>>>>> not need to prove my explanation. I, unlike you, spent much time > >>>>>>>> questioning mechanics and researching historical documents to give > >>>>>>>> clues as to why there are different experiences for apparently similar > >>>>>>>> wheels. > >>>>>>> Who says your wheels work better? You? Are you the most impartial > >>>>>>> judge? To the extent that it exempts you from having to prove your > >>>>>>> case other than by assertion? > >>>>>> You seem to think that he owes you a proof. > >>>>>> If I said I'd discovered some way of tying my shoelaces that was > >>>>>> counter-intuitive, ran contrary to the accepted wisdom of > >>>>>> shoelace-tying, and produced better results traditional methods, then > >>>>>> I'd expect anyone else who's interested in shoelace tying to be curious > >>>>>> and skeptical. > >>>>> I am curious and sceptical, but also have a decent bullshit detector. > >>>>> When people attempt to overturn established wisdom, they had better > >>>>> have a decent story. Thirty-six doesn't (or to be pedantic, if he > >>>>> does, he hasn't written it here). > >>>> And I should have added that the topic of bicycle wheel-building has > >>>> long been a flypaper for cranks with "theories". > >>>> James > >>> Upon some further searching, it appears that Rudge-Whitworth of > >>> Coventry appears to have investigated the best ways to construct wire > >>> wheels for bicycles, motor-cycles and horse carriages and motor -cars > >>> including racing cars. > >>> According to Rudge's advert taken in the Times newspaper on Friday > >>> November 8,1912 page 14 column A the Daimler Company reported a > >>> mileage of 172,731 for 50 tyres on Rudge's wire wheels and 102,524 > >>> miles on wood wheels. It refers to 'Autocar' and letters from the > >>> Daimler Company of July 8 and December 2 1911 > >> Yes, yes, and coal was tuppence a ton in 1870. Now that we have finished > >> with the wavy sepia toned nostalgia bit can we get back to the point ( > >> of this part of the drifted thread) ? Why are your wheels "better" and > >> how can you show that they are? > > Read this: > > Society Of Arts.; Wheels And Their Manufacture. > > (News) > > The Times Apr 19, 1911; pg. 23; Issue 39563; Start column: E 1586 > > words. > > Elec. Coll.: CS387120275. > > It explains that the efficient Rudge tension wheels, by far the > > largest manufacturer, and record holders, are constructed for ease of > > running etc. as I have described in my own wheels. Rudge linearage > > is from Covenrtry machinist company with the Starley Aeriel wheel to > > Raleigh bicycles (originally with dunlop then weinmann and their own > > (sun)rims) and now Sun (ringko?) rims in USA. Rudge probably made the > > greatest investigation into the use of pnuematic tyres running on wire > > spoked metal rims. It is likely a little research into Coventry > > archives on the Rudge-Whitworth research laboratories will provide > > extensive documentation upon the testing of the wheels they built for > > bicycle and motor vehicle for efficiency of draw, shock absorption and > > tire life. It as likely, probably wont satisfy your demands. I'm > > afraid I cant hold the spoon for you. > I read the article, a newspaper report of paper presented by Mr Henry L > Heathcote. It was intersting in mentioning hubs of different sizes > internally and externally , different Nos of spokes inside and outside > and moving the holes in the rim to the edge rather than to the middle.I > also found intersting the idea of drilling the holes in the hub at an > angle to reduce the stress on the spoke , rather than bending it through > 90 degrees. Nowhere in the article does it mention you or how > wonderful your wheels are going to be. If you thought that you could try > and pretend that you had some sort of authority by posting a reference > to a 98 yr old newspaper article (which just happened to share a page > with an advert that promoted Rudge-Whitworth wheels) that that you > hoped no-one would have access to, it might be a good idea if you > reconsidered your tactics, don't try to kid a kidder!
Awkward cuss.
paragraph 2 "The introduction of the suspension wheel for bicycles marked a great advance in the shock-absorbing powers of wheels."
para 3: "In it [tangent spoke suspension wheel] the necessary torque rigidity could be attained without imparting excessive radial rigidity, and thus it could be made capable of absorbing shock, as
a comparison of a suspension wheel with a section of tire would bring out clearly."
para 4: "the greater the tension the less the rim flattened, and the less the tension the "softer" was the wheel." "the artproduced its bestwhen sufficient tension to produce torque rigidity was
combined with conditions that developed the wheel a MAXIMUM cushioning effect, these conditions being moderate spoke tension combined with with a flexible and resilient rim and
thin spokes."
The paragraph continues extolling the virtues of Rudge wheels as does paragraphs 5 onwards to the end of the document, paragraph 9. Also the Institute of Automobile engineers report on the same page. Try reading the Society of arts report as I advised.
On 8 Nov, 01:19, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Rudge's research laboriatories finds "soft" wheels best. The article > is referenced below.
> The following was a message not accepted through moderation of > uk.rec.cycling.moderated > I've re-submitted it there, rbt and now here.
and as if by magic it appears six hours after first posting in urcm with half dozen(not checked) of my posts appearing before it which were posted after.
> Rudge's research laboriatories finds "soft" wheels best. The article > is referenced below.
> The following was a message not accepted through moderation of > uk.rec.cycling.moderated > I've re-submitted it there, rbt and now here.
<snipped. --- no <slashed>
If you have a problem with urcm then I sugest that you take it up with urcm and not try to continue your tedious, boring, diatribe on esoteric wheel desgn on urc.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:19:04 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote: >The following was a message not accepted through moderation of >uk.rec.cycling.moderated >I've re-submitted it there, rbt and now here.
Thank you for maximising the chances for people to point and laugh at your fatuous ideas. Mission accomplished, now please fuck off.
On 8 Nov, 11:46, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:19:04 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
> <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote: > >The following was a message not accepted through moderation of > >uk.rec.cycling.moderated > >I've re-submitted it there, rbt and now here.
> Thank you for maximising the chances for people to point and laugh at > your fatuous ideas. Mission accomplished, now please fuck off.
I am actually not at all amazed by your response to this post -- oh not that you express a sentiment similar to mine to the poster -- but your way of doing it.
I have watched your posts on urcm and and other areas and I hardly recognise your style there . Purer than pure!
Ah but here on urc you revert to form. A stirrer , a wrestler and a deliberate baiter and creator of long irrelevant posts.
I have carefully watched your posts on several groups and see again, and again your profession of total innocence
In this case I see absolutely no need for you to say "f*ck off" -- it is intended to create a situation. I suggest that you use the same terminology on "urcm" and not on here!
You are a inveterate "stirrer" and I am totally in agreement with the assessment that Ian Smith made of you a couple of weeks ago.
You Post,
You shower the area with effluent,
and then you profess dismay when the same area is covered with that effluent and try to appear innocent and hurt by the endless responses which cover the whole group with the same dirt!
Oh I do believe that Judith, Nuxx and Matt B were/are a PIA but the main reason they were such a distressing presence was your unending, incessant feed ing of their responses.
I have seen your claims elsewhere that you were defending yourself against attacks by these people.
That is very far from the truth.
If anyone holds responsibility for the degradation of "urc" it is you --- and it is you ---- and it is you! And now you have the temerity to continue with your efforts on urc while you post on urcm posing an innocent
Right!
So it is very very rare that I express myself in basic language. I think it is the refuge of posters who are unable to form a proper and legible response to an argument or a discussion.
So here I go
hey "Just this Guy" why don't you just -- "go way" --oops --- sorry I meant "f*ck off". and if I ever meant anything I have said on here let me reinforce it why don't you "Go Away". You are a hugely disturbing influence which negates the little good sense that you make wrt cycling.
You are and have been for months a destructive element to urc and I suspect that many people have had enough of your endless vitriolic rhetoric on urc
I certainly have.
I resurrected several borderline case from my "sin bin" during this last couple of weeks and I thought long and hard about you!
hey --- congratulations you will be back there in just 48 hours!
A final comment.
I have written and rewritten this post several times.
It is vey clearly a personal "attack" on another unique individual of whom I have no knowledge other than that which I read on these very unimportant "newsgroups! Most of the time, when I get to this point, I just go away for a while and think it might get better when I return. but people like "Just this Guy" will only add to the process of destruction
So at then end of the day I can just go away and ignore all this fairly irrelevant "chatter" that goes on here and urcm ( I look there but will not post there for a while at least -- while the Cabal/Junta attacks a declining "Usenet" -- probably hastenting its imminent demise).
in the end i supose it is all more than a little unimportant
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:36:02 -0000, "Trevor A Panther"
<ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >hey Guy --- "f*ck off".
*shrug* fair enough. I'm just expressing frustration at the forum shopping of thirty-six, aka Nick L Plate, aka Trevor. This is not the first time he's come along and played the wronged innocent.
On Nov 8, 3:48 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> played the wronged innocent.
Tackling problems head-on seems to be a lost cause on the internet, in general. In dealing with your problems, have you used all fifteen stages of the Glupy-Chelobek Problem Resolution Method? http://www.mepis.org/node/6888 If it seems stuck, a wire coat-hanger, straightened and carefully inserted to fairly scratch the uterine lining, the end result being a severe infection leading to miscarriage, can bring about fabulous results, if applied early enough.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:36:02 -0000, "Trevor A Panther" > <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>hey Guy --- "f*ck off".
> *shrug* fair enough. I'm just expressing frustration at the forum > shopping of thirty-six, aka Nick L Plate, aka Trevor. This is not the > first time he's come along and played the wronged innocent.
I believe my riposte to 36 was deep enough and yet politely pointed to him!
I keep a watching brief on urcm and indeed watched while several moderators responded to an obvious endless and pointless dissertation on wheel building.
And absolutely no one had the nous to say ----
"you are boring and repetitive and boring and even more repetitive".
There were more than 50 posts ( more now) by this troll and it was all allowed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And YOU have the temerity to on here and tell him to "F*ck off"
Tell him to do that on urcm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what policy are the moderators operating.
I see elsewhere that once the group is formed then no one can have any effect of what the moderators do or decide. and have no input at all to decision making.
It is indeed a "junta" and part of that "junta" has now formed an attacking "Cabal" which is trying to extend its control on a declining Usenet! They are a potential destructive influence protesting to be a benevolent dictatorship!
And you wonder why I keep fighting this regard action.
To be honest it is just not worth it
I actually have better things to do even as a 72 year old f*rt. But I do worry about fairly unimportant things which ought to be better!
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:05:40 -0000, "Trevor A Panther"
<ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >Spell checked but not reread!
No matter, it was well said.
The urcm moderators are doing a very good job of alienating themselves.
I shall continue to post good thread starters in urcm in the hope of turning it to meaningful discussion.
The ride to Brighton had a stormy beginning, but was an eventual success. That too had 11 riders at the beginning (the same as the number of urcm moderators), seven of them dropped out a third of the way through, four of us continued and made it a success.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:05:40 -0000, "Trevor A Panther" > <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>Spell checked but not reread!
> No matter, it was well said.
> The urcm moderators are doing a very good job of alienating > themselves.
> I shall continue to post good thread starters in urcm in the hope of > turning it to meaningful discussion.
> The ride to Brighton had a stormy beginning, but was an eventual > success. That too had 11 riders at the beginning (the same as the > number of urcm moderators), seven of them dropped out a third of the > way through, four of us continued and made it a success.
Another "non Sequitor" just like yours!
Tom I was within 36 hours of deciding to come down to you by car (with my velo on its back) on that friday to do that run to Brighton. It would have been a very new experience for me and I love new experiences! I even had an email drafted to send to you to start arrangementsi after your tentative offer But it was the forecast that put me off a bit -- and I don't like "putting on" aquaintances who I don't really know. As it happened the weather wasn't as bad as forecast. If I am still alive next year I might be persuaded -- especially if I get towed up hills by a car that is older than me!!!!!!!
BTW i am already planning my next year European tour! Got to be a tad potty -- but it keeps me going. my 102 yr old dad said to me today " Isn't it about time you gave up the bike" -- and he was driving until he was 94!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and naturally he still goes out 5 days a week!)
Anyway it will all be the same in a years time even if I am no longer around!
Not very keen on dying but would rather it happened while I was on my bike than making scratch marks on my sitting room wall!!!!!!!!
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message >news:08hef51fk4m2fnehv590j3ej08vicc855g@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 22:05:40 -0000, "Trevor A Panther" >> <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Spell checked but not reread!
>> No matter, it was well said.
>> The urcm moderators are doing a very good job of alienating >> themselves.
>> I shall continue to post good thread starters in urcm in the hope of >> turning it to meaningful discussion.
>> The ride to Brighton had a stormy beginning, but was an eventual >> success. That too had 11 riders at the beginning (the same as the >> number of urcm moderators), seven of them dropped out a third of the >> way through, four of us continued and made it a success.
>Another "non Sequitor" just like yours!
>Tom >I was within 36 hours of deciding to come down to you by car (with my velo >on its back) on that friday to do that run to Brighton. It would have been >a very new experience for me and I love new experiences! I even had an email >drafted to send to you to start arrangementsi after your tentative offer >But it was the forecast that put me off a bit -- and I don't like "putting >on" aquaintances who I don't really know. As it happened the weather wasn't >as bad as forecast. If I am still alive next year I might be persuaded -- >especially if I get towed up hills by a car that is older than me!!!!!!!
Even better than the Veteran Cars were the two 1885 penny farthings we met, solid rubber tyres and all. When we passed them they were the South Downs short of Brighton, the riders were fuelling up with cereal bars before the final hill. I cannot imagine how exposed the riders must have felt crossing the North Downs in the blustery weather we had.
Anyway - do please make it next year. Riding with such old and much loved cars is a genuine pleasure. My offer was genuine, not tentative.
>BTW i am already planning my next year European tour! Got to be a tad >potty -- but it keeps me going. my 102 yr old dad said to me today " Isn't >it about time you gave up the bike" -- and he was driving until he was >94!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and naturally he still goes out 5 days a >week!)
>Anyway it will all be the same in a years time even if I am no longer >around!
>Not very keen on dying but would rather it happened while I was on my bike >than making scratch marks on my sitting room wall!!!!!!!!
My grandfather died from a heart attack while pruning the roses in his garden. That's the way to go, while still active.
Trevor A Panther wrote: > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:bjbef59bmpnmlsrhmcflthcrikp28fgk2u@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:36:02 -0000, "Trevor A Panther" >> <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> hey Guy --- "f*ck off". >> *shrug* fair enough. I'm just expressing frustration at the forum >> shopping of thirty-six, aka Nick L Plate, aka Trevor. This is not the >> first time he's come along and played the wronged innocent.
Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > Even better than the Veteran Cars were the two 1885 penny farthings we > met, solid rubber tyres and all. When we passed them they were the > South Downs short of Brighton, the riders were fuelling up with cereal > bars before the final hill. I cannot imagine how exposed the riders > must have felt crossing the North Downs in the blustery weather we > had.
> Anyway - do please make it next year. Riding with such old and much > loved cars is a genuine pleasure. My offer was genuine, not > tentative.
I've never ridden a bike from London to Brighton but I've done it about 8 times on an old car. The traffic is a *major* problem to old cars, they are not capable of dealing with queues of stop-start traffic, and need a good run at a hill to get up it. Rather like a 100 year-old cyclist really.
By all means take a contemporary bike, but /please/ don't drive along the course in anythng pre-1905, or hold anyone up in any way if on a bike.
BTW, the veteran bike riders are probably going to be a lot warmer than the people on the cars. No windscreen means exposure to the wind & rain, and they're not putting in any significant muscular effort, so have no extra internal heating. I've only once been colder than on the Brighton Run, and that was on a yacht race in the North Sea in March.
<m.r.cau...@goglemail.com> wrote: >I've never ridden a bike from London to Brighton but I've done it about >8 times on an old car. The traffic is a *major* problem to old cars, >they are not capable of dealing with queues of stop-start traffic, and >need a good run at a hill to get up it. Rather like a 100 year-old >cyclist really.
>By all means take a contemporary bike, but /please/ don't drive along >the course in anythng pre-1905, or hold anyone up in any way if on a >bike.
No Veteran Car was delayed in any way by any cyclists on my ride. If being passed, even on a hill, we stopped and waved at the motorists.
Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: > No Veteran Car was delayed in any way by any cyclists on my ride. If > being passed, even on a hill, we stopped and waved at the motorists.
That's good. If ever we do it again we'll wave back. But it's unlikely because being so exposed and cold at 70 (the car owner) and 60 (me, the riding mechanic) is just too much. Now if only my friend would buy a big Mercedes racing car, or a Mors, or an Itala that can cruise at 70 mph [1] instead of the 25 his single-cylinder car could manage ....
[1] but remember they have NO brakes. You may think steel rims on a bicycle are bad, but pre 1905 cars have even less, even in the dry!
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:16:24 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
<thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote: >Yeah, but, mines bigger than yours, and my brother's in this gang and >there's six of them, so THERE. You're a fool, Guy.
Probably I am a fool, but you are an idiot and I know which is worse.
|
