Cycling UK Forum

Cyril Haearn wrote:One needs them so rarely, in some winters not at all
The rubber would probably perish before the tread is worn out

Again, that’s a good point.

Audax67 wrote:A common effect of eating only sweet stuff on a long ride is that after a while you lose your appetite, and when you need more fuel taking it on board makes you feel sick.

This is very true. I tend to limit the amount of sweet stuff I ingest on a long ride, I prefer to eat something like an oat cake or two, with not much sugar, you don’t get the quick release boost that you get from something sugary, but you do feel like eating afterwards, which is better in the long term.

What you need to eat is entirely dictated by your effort levels. The key metric to use is how many Joules you’ve used. This is essentially your effort expenditure, measured in Watt.seconds, and will dictate how much fuel you need. So for example, if you spend an hour, making relatively little effort, you won’t need to eat as much as you would on a ride ( for example ) of half the duration, where you put down four times the power. It’s very individual, and if you want to be scientific about it, most commonly available ‘energy gels / bars / whatever floats your boat’ have the nutritional information on the packets. This is where Home made stuff falls down, unless you’re very ‘retentive’ you won’t know with any great accuracy the energy content of your food. However, a simple rule of thumb, is that if you start feeling hungry, you’ve under done your food intake, and if you feel thirsty, on the ride, you haven’t drunk enough, and if you feel bloated, you’ve over eaten, and if you have to stop for a wee, you’ve drunk too much. Either use the scientific approach, or do it by finding a level, between feeling hungry, and bloating, and feeling thirsty, and needing a wee. At 35 miles, most normal, healthy, reasonably fit, adults, won’t find themselves getting into ‘the bonk zone’ unless they really are putting some serious effort in. Make sure to replenish the glycogen levels in your muscles and liver, after you finish each ride, by eating sensibly, you’ll be fine. Good luck with your target.

Founding a resilient team is very much a rich man’s folly. Even the big ‘household names’ barely scrape by ( on the grand scheme of things) they don’t generate big numbers, and therefore, they generally never make business sense, unless your business is money laundering, or you need something to use as ‘leverage’. Like big premiership football teams, in some senses, the cycling teams that score successes, are ego massages, for the great white chiefs, not brilliant businesses.

It’s rare that I ever get a tyre to wear out ( as in loss of rubber / tread ) before the bead fails, or the carcass gives out, resulting in a bulge that ends in a tube failure. I’ve had particular issues with a particular German brand of tyres.

I was out riding yesterday, and again today. I don’t know which I prefer more, the old potholes full of snow, or the new potholes, that have been exposed by the thaw today. Some of the ‘borderline’ sections of tarmac I ride regularly, are now jiggered. It was fun dodging new potholes, old potholes, sludgy melting snow, and the idiots that have chanced coming back out in their **€# panzers today.

horizon wrote:

MikeF wrote:

horizon wrote:It baffles me that people don't use studded tyres.

The reason maybe because lying snow of any kind is rare in central London.

That's true (and and you can add expensive to that and the need for spare wheels) but there have been several "offs" reported on the forum recently due to ice. And that can be a bit of ice around a corner on a frosty morning - that's several days per winter, not just in severe spells like the current one.

Studded tyres aren't culturally normal in the UK (and more obviously in London) but I wonder if more people would get and use them if they knew more about them.

The problem is, that they do cost a lot, and it doesn’t take long for them to get badly damaged if you ride on unaffected tarmac, which will probably be a vast majority of most rides in the U.K. Cost vs benefit, doesn’t stack up for most people.

What snow?

https://www.relive.cc/view/1432618507

It took me 3hrs to drive 6 miles yesterday. I risked the bike today, it was far quicker. It kept me awake that’s for sure

pete75 wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:
From an interview, "Climbing Mount Everest is work for Supermen", The New York Times (18 March 1923);

Bit of a misnomer - Superman would have just flown to the top.

“Supermen” Air traffic control wasn’t invented then, more than one flying man, would have been too risky.

horizon wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote: I think it was George Mallory, who when asked why he had bothered climbing Mount Everest, answered “because it was there”.

He might have said it but never climbed Everest - he died in the attempt (though some people do believe he may have succeeded and died on the descent).

BTW your 230 is great - that's what I mean.

He did climb it, on three occasions, whether he made it to the top, was never proven.

From an interview, "Climbing Mount Everest is work for Supermen", The New York Times (18 March 1923); on being asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest:
"Why did you want to climb Mount Everest?" This question was asked of George Leigh Mallory, who was with both expeditions toward the summit of the world’s highest mountain, in 1921 and 1922, and who is now in New York. He plans to go again in 1924, and he gave as the reason for persisting in these repeated attempts to reach the top, "Because it's there."

pete75 wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote: I think it was George Mallory, who when asked why he had bothered climbing Mount Everest, answered “because it was there”.

Axiomatic - he could hardly have climbed it if it wasn't there.

From an interview, "Climbing Mount Everest is work for Supermen", The New York Times (18 March 1923); on being asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest:
"Why did you want to climb Mount Everest?" This question was asked of George Leigh Mallory, who was with both expeditions toward the summit of the world’s highest mountain, in 1921 and 1922, and who is now in New York. He plans to go again in 1924, and he gave as the reason for persisting in these repeated attempts to reach the top, "Because it's there."

As you can see, he did try to get all the way up on 3 occasions. 2 ended in failure, but he lived to tell the tale. And he never made it back alive on the third attempt, so in actual fact, he did climb it, and he was there.

ianrobo wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

ianrobo wrote:this makes Whitedown look easy but I have been up some brutes in the UK (not Lake District ones) and this was as hard as any of them and I had low gearing on !

That is White down Lane, now you know what I mean.

not many I look up and think that looks a stopper !!

and then does not help as a local club (clearly some very good riders) breeze past chatting and there is me at max !

I had some local clubbies trying heroics on the bit before the hairpin, funnily enough, they went quiet on the following bit

It’s all about your own perspective. There’s no way I would do what Steve Abraham is attempting, it’s taking the whole distance riding thing to a whole different level, not one I’ve got the time or inclination for personally. The question of could anyone do it, is a much more difficult one to answer. For me personally, I know I can ride 230 miles in a day, I have done in the past, but I know I would never want to do that for a whole year, I’d probably have had enough after 1 week. Fair play to anyone who wants to go to that extreme level though. I think it was George Mallory, who when asked why he had bothered climbing Mount Everest, answered “because it was there”. That sums up the differences quite nicely.

ianrobo wrote:It was a gorgeous day eh !!

Yep, it certainly was.