Misunderstood terminology

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
ANTONISH
Posts: 1390
Joined: 26 Mar 2009, 9:49am

Misunderstood terminology

Postby ANTONISH » 18 Mar 2018, 10:59am

According to an article on cycling in the Times on Saturday " cadence is the number of times the wheels spin in a minute" - well one can often find such errors in lifestyle articles - but is this a more widespread error?

I've also heard a clubmate tell a novice that the gear in inches is the distance travelled in one pedal revolution - I've heard this repeated by a commentator on Eurosport ( an ex professional ) - there seems to be a confusion with the continental method of measuring gearing by development.

Just wondering how people acquire knowledge about cycling. :?

thirdcrank
Posts: 25723
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby thirdcrank » 18 Mar 2018, 11:24am

During the Barcelona Olympics, the Times carried an article about Chris Boardman's gold ride in the pursuit, mentioning that he had a gear around 90 inches (the point being that he had thought long and hard about his exact gearing) Some bright fool included a helpful but absurd note saying that 90 inches was the distance travelled for each turn of the pedals. I wrote a letter to the Ed., explaining what it really meant, concluding with an apology for the detailed explanation but pointing out that they were the ones who had raised the issue. I received a reply with the usual thanks saying that they would discuss it with their cycling correspondent when he returned from Barcelona and they would reply further. I can only assume that he liked Barcelona so much he stayed out there. :lol:

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 8037
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby horizon » 18 Mar 2018, 11:37am

In other areas of life and the forum this is pejoratively called pedantry. :wink:
Bikes belong on trains: two spaces per carriage would meet most needs.

nirakaro
Posts: 803
Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 2:01am

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby nirakaro » 18 Mar 2018, 11:41am

It's the nature of the journalist's job that they're constantly writing about subjects they don't know much about. If I read an article about anything I have some expertise in, I'll find errors in it. And if there are any numbers or sums – they're invariably wrong!

Brucey
Posts: 28866
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Brucey » 18 Mar 2018, 11:43am

horizon wrote:In other areas of life and the forum this is pejoratively called pedantry. :wink:


I think that if you ordered a pint of beer and it came over 2/3rds of a pint short, you would resent being called a pedant for pointing it out..... :wink:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 8281
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby NATURAL ANKLING » 18 Mar 2018, 12:03pm

Hi,
This normally comes ,about from the lack of basic training / knowledge of the subject.
Really the media have a good platform for giving the masses the correct terminology.
Journalism is a distorted version of what it should be, not always but why would they get it so wrong.

My pet hate today is celebs jumping on the bandwagon with so called extreme challenges / steam engines :roll:
Priority Is Still 500K In 24......Just Dreaming..............Stay Focused Guys And Keep Sharp.....
You'll Find Me At The Top Of a Hill...............Somewhere

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14699
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Si » 18 Mar 2018, 12:35pm

My pet cringe is people who claim that a single speed or fixed bike doesn't have gear! At one time I even had one of Chipps' "1FG" (One Flipping Gear...or something like that) stickers on my top tube so I could just point at it and roll my eyes.

The other term that I scratch my head at is when people refer to them as "front forks". I know that there are a few bikes with a rear fork, and that in the past the manufacturing process for a fair few bikes meant building a rear 'fork' section for the seat stays.....but I think that using the word "front" is pretty much obsolete now. And people look at you funny when they tell you "I've got a new front fork" and you ask them: "oh yes, and what rear fork are you using?".

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 41101
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Mick F » 18 Mar 2018, 12:43pm

Brucey wrote:I think that if you ordered a pint of beer and it came over 2/3rds of a pint short, you would resent being called a pedant for pointing it out..... :wink:
We were in a pub yesterday late afternoon and there's a chap in there we know, who is a staunch Brit and anti EU and anti metrication etc.

I wound him up a bit showing him the CE mark on the pint glasses and how they are now smaller pints than when we had the crown on them.
I told him that as the inch is now smaller at 25.4mm (when in the past it was slightly more) it must mean that the pint is smaller too.

:lol: :lol:
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 7164
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Cunobelin » 18 Mar 2018, 12:51pm

ANTONISH wrote:According to an article on cycling in the Times on Saturday " cadence is the number of times the wheels spin in a minute" - well one can often find such errors in lifestyle articles - but is this a more widespread error?

I've also heard a clubmate tell a novice that the gear in inches is the distance travelled in one pedal revolution - I've heard this repeated by a commentator on Eurosport ( an ex professional ) - there seems to be a confusion with the continental method of measuring gearing by development.

Just wondering how people acquire knowledge about cycling. :?



Essentially this is the case with gears........

In a bike with a 1:1 ratio, a complete rotation of the cranks will move the rear wheel one revolution, i.e the distance of the wheel rim

Carrying on with a typical calculation, you continue to state:

If I rotate the crank, one rotation..

That will convert to X rotations of the rear wheel,

Which converts through the wheel size to the distance that will be travelled by that original full rotation of the crank.

Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 70
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Marcus Aurelius » 18 Mar 2018, 12:59pm

Power, is the one that most people I encounter misunderstand. Not just how it’s calculated, but it’s significance ( or lack thereof) on riding a bike efficiently / effectively.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 41101
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Mick F » 18 Mar 2018, 1:04pm

Torque vs Power.

From my rudimentary knowledge, torque is turning force, and power is torque multiplied by time.

Am I correct?
Mick F. Cornwall

Mike Sales
Posts: 1859
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Location: Fenland

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Mike Sales » 18 Mar 2018, 1:05pm

Crank arm for crank.

User avatar
foxyrider
Posts: 3366
Joined: 29 Aug 2011, 10:25am
Location: Sheffield, South Yorkshire

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby foxyrider » 18 Mar 2018, 1:08pm

Wheels when they mean tyres
Pedals when they mean cranks/chainset

The list goes on.......
Convention? what's that then?

Airnimal Chameleon touring, Orbit Pro hack, Orbit Photon audax, Focus Mares AX tour, Peugeot Carbon sportive, Owen Blower vintage race - all running Tulio's finest!

sjs
Posts: 594
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby sjs » 18 Mar 2018, 1:10pm

Mick F wrote:Torque vs Power.

From my rudimentary knowledge, torque is turning force, and power is torque multiplied by time.

Am I correct?


No!

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 41101
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Misunderstood terminology

Postby Mick F » 18 Mar 2018, 1:26pm

sjs wrote:
Mick F wrote:Torque vs Power.

From my rudimentary knowledge, torque is turning force, and power is torque multiplied by time.

Am I correct?


No!
Well, come on then ............. :wink:

Not maths, just plain simple English.
Mick F. Cornwall