Cycling UK Forum

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.

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.

In other areas of life and the forum this is pejoratively called pedantry.

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!

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

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.....

cheers

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

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?".

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.....

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.

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.

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.

Torque vs Power.

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

Am I correct?

Crank arm for crank.

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

The list goes on.......

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!

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 .............

Not maths, just plain simple English.