Messages

16

General Discussion / Re: lone female traveling through Utah to California - silly?

« on: February 19, 2011, 12:57:02 pm »

"Is google an appropriate source for route planning if there is no ACA map to get me west through southern NV and CA?"

Yes. Google is good for those tiny roads not appearing on state maps. Google street view is also a good way to see what the road is like. there actually aren't too many roads in southern nevada heading into california anyway.

"I'm planning on camping as often as possible, and I like the advice of camping at church, but what if I find myself in the middle of the desert as the sun is setting.  How will I know if it's ok to just pitch my tent?  Should I worry about making amends in the morning if it becomes a concern?"

Church's are good. Of course, you should always try to ask for permission first. The thing is, if you ask for permission, almost no one will turn you down from my experience as long as you are polite and they understand your situation. As for crashing somewhere off the road, I just stay out of sight as best as possible and avoid private property or anything with a no trespassing sign.

"So far, I'll be bringing a two-person tent in order to appear part of a pair, and a tarp to drape over my bike to conceal the fact that it's, well, only one bike.  I like the idea of hanging men's underwear nearby, and I've definitely noted the U-Dap Bear Spray.  I'm trying to pack lightly and efficiently, and would prefer not to baggy-up myself with loose, dull clothing while riding, but would anyone definitely recommend it for camp at night?"

Not exactly sure what you are asking, but I typically carry one set of comfy "off the bike" clothes and two riding outfits (plus a layer or two specifically for colder weather or rain). The mens underwear, tarp, etc. seem like more trouble than its worth and I have not met a solo female touring cyclist who has bothered with these types of precautions, but this is your decision.

17

General Discussion / Re: lone female traveling through Utah to California - silly?

« on: February 19, 2011, 11:48:39 am »

As far as routes go:

The roads through utah connecting zion, bryce, escalante, glen canyon, and canyon lands are BEAUTIFUL, though a little desolate. Plan carefully with your packed provisions. West of zion starts to get "bad" (interstates, lack of towns, etc).

I also enjoyed the ACA grand canyon route was great too (I recommend including the down and back section to the north rim). If you take this, consider taking 89A though flagstaff, sedona, jerome, prescott,. Great towns and great scenery in between them. West of prescott wasn't super great (basically riding through small towns in the desert). Heading through the sand dunes was fun though in southern CA.

If you're concerned about safety bring along a set of ninja throwing stars. They pack very well and don't require a permit.   On a slightly more serious note, I doubt you will find anyone in this forum saying its silly or unsafe to bike tour alone, since most of us have a passion for exactly that.

18

General Discussion / Re: A bicycle touring survey - for fun and stats class

« on: February 19, 2011, 11:36:28 am »

Fun survey!

As far as staying places, campgrounds (15 nights) and hotels (2 nights) comprised the minority out of my 90 day trip this past spring. The balance was via couchsurfing/warmshowers, someone we would meet in town, stealth camping in the woods, and the occasional public park gazebo (often with permission).

Collapsing just off the side of the road came in at around 5 nights

19

Gear Talk / Re: Why internal hubs?

« on: February 16, 2011, 11:33:34 am »

You will have to lay a better case for why this is more durable.

Can I get back to you in 10 years? 

My impression is that a rohloff hub requires less cleaning, maintenance, and adjustment than a typical system. Obviously I have no hard data to back this up, but I believe this a general consensus among users. I define durability in this sense.

20

Gear Talk / Re: Squeaky brakes

« on: February 13, 2011, 03:37:25 pm »

Cantilevers, I presume?

Best of luck. Try adjusting the brake pad angle or using different brake pads. If there is excess gunk on the rims giving them a quick wash may help as well.

Using properly adjusted koolstop pads, my cantilevers now only squeal in the rain.

21

General Discussion / Re: Luxuries

« on: February 13, 2011, 03:34:21 pm »

A non inflatable backpackers pillow.

22

Gear Talk / Re: Why internal hubs?

« on: February 12, 2011, 01:21:22 pm »

I just got a rohloff for a new build. Its advantages are mainly durability and lack of maintenance, just as you said. If you are a mountain biker who often muddies up the rear derrailleur system or travel way off the beaten path (Africa, Patagonia, Mongolia, etc. would be extreme examples), these advantages become more important than if you simply travel on roads throughout the US.

A rohloff's gear ratio is equivalent to a 27 speed mountain bike so no problem there. Is it worth the money? Probably not, but I wanted one and could afford $1300 so I bought one (well, actually I bought it with student loans hahahaha). Personally, I think superlightweight carbon frames are a waste of money unless you are a cat 2 racer, but half the people I see on the bike path apparently disagree. When it comes to 'worth it' for the money that is a pretty subjective issue.

23

General Discussion / Re: New to downhill grades

« on: February 11, 2011, 12:21:12 pm »

pdlamb,

My calc only addressed the overall mean temperature rise of both rims, not the concentrated temperature rise on the surface which appears to be most relevant to your points (touching the rim, and delta_T with the air for cooling purposes). I've edited my post to make this more clear.

24

General Discussion / Re: New to downhill grades

« on: February 11, 2011, 02:28:19 am »

I am too tired to think about this but I am not too tired to do the calcs (with a little help from google).

Equations:

-Translational Kenetic energy: KE = 1/2*m*v^2
-Heat Equation: Q = m*Cp*delta_T

Assumptions:

-100% of kinetic energy loss of the bike is converted to heat generation in the rims. In other words, delta_KE = Q (no additional factors or losses considered).
-Rotational Kenetic Energy loss is considered negligible.
-That 5 seconds of braking slows a rider from 25-20 kph.
-This basic calc only applies to overall heat gain of the rim, and does not take into account that the heat will be concentrated on the rim's surface.

Data:

-Mass of rims = 620 g * 2 = 1240 g (alex adventurer)
-Mass of bike/rider/pack = 100 kg
-Specific heat of alumnium = 0.902 J/g-°C

Calcs:

25 kph = 6.95 m/s
20 kph = 5.56 m/s

KE[25] = 0.5*100 kg * (6.95 m/s)^2 = 2415 J
KE[20] = 0.5*100 kg * (5.56 m/s)^2 = 1545 J

Q = 2415 J - 1545 J = 870 J

870 J = 0.902 J/g-°C * 1240 g * delta_T
delta_C = (870 J) / (1118 J/°C) = 0.778 °C

Overall temperature rise of both rims = 0.778 °C = 1.401 °F

EDIT: This is the OVERALL temperature rise of the entire set of rims, which potentially gives some insight as to what kind of braking it will take to potentially heat the rim enough to pop a tube. Of course, the temperature rise will be initially concentrated on the surface of the rims and not immediately distributed evenly throughout the metal as my calculations suggest. Hence, pdlamb's comments regarding temperature spikes, cooling, rims feeling hotter, etc. are totally valid since they specifically address the rims surface where the temperature rise is concentrated.

25

General Discussion / Re: Compact carbs? Do they exist?

« on: February 10, 2011, 02:37:09 pm »

Matt at www.spokecount.com made a graph charting cal/oz, cal/$, and protein/$ for several foods.

http://www.spokecount.com/p/graphs.html

It doesn't answer your question but I think its cool.

26

General Discussion / Re: New to downhill grades

« on: February 10, 2011, 02:22:01 am »

Fred,

I found your post very interesting. I also tend to agree with your overall assessment that pumping the breaks vs constant pressure will not significantly impact heat generation on the rims surface over time (assuming average velocity in both cases remains). Perhaps using one method over another causes riders to inadvertantly adjust their overall speed?

However, your analysis makes the assumption that the ratio of energy loss when the brake is applied (ratio between kenetic energy loss and energy lost as heat dissipation into the rims) is constant regardless of brake pressure applied. It is possible that braking at higher or low pressure may result in a greater or less "efficient" energy transfer when it comes to heat production vs wheel slowing.

This would not violate the energy balance that you set up in your post. Given your example of constant velocity over time, a difference in heat generation between the two methods would result in a difference energy required to brake (i.e. less energy drained from your muscles to achieve a given speed) and conservation of energy is maintained.

Hopefully that made sense.

Also just to nitpick:

"Physics 101: To get your weight from up here to down there, you need to get rid of a certain amount of energy, fixed and determined by the weight and the vertical descent. Wind resistance dissipates some of it, heating the air you pass through (and your body a little bit that wind chill overcomes). Rolling resistance converts a bit more into heating your tires. The rest goes into the brakes, heating the rims and the brake blocks."

I do not believe wind resistance affects air temperature. When biking through wind you are displacing air molecules and affecting their momentum (which in turn slows you down), but you are not changing the internal energy of the air molecules (aka temperature). The heat transfer between air and rider is the result of convective heat transfer. Wind chill just the name we use to describe the increase in convective heat transfer coefficient (due to increase in current flow). It is not its own form of energy transfer, assuming I understood you correctly.

27

General Discussion / Re: Which bike tyre should I go for please?

« on: February 08, 2011, 10:48:15 pm »

I have used shwalbe marathon, shwalbe marathon plus, and shwalbe marathon tour. Overall, I prefer the regular shwalbe marathons for road.

In my very personal and subjective opinion, the shwalbe marathon plus is a bit overkill on the puncture resistance side at the cost of weight (less of an issue for me) and difficulty in changing the tire (more of an issue). With the regular shwalbe marathon, I almost never get flats - maybe 1 every thousand miles and thats living in philly where the shoulders and bike lanes are covered in glass and litter (especially in my area).

28

Gear Talk / Re: 1986 Miyata 610

« on: February 07, 2011, 12:55:13 pm »

Short answer is yes, you can tour on it. You can tour on a tricycle pulling a radio flyer wagon if you really wanted to.

A friend of mine rode an 80s miyata (with upgraded shimano tiagra components) with me across the country this year and it was totally fine. I think compared to the 80s miyata touring bikes, newer touring bikes typically have the following advantages (at least to my knowledge):

-Lighter (though weight of the frame is totally irrelevant when carrying all your gear)
-Longer wheelbase. This provides a slightly more stable ride, but as long as your heels aren't kicking your panniers when you ride this is  
not a big deal.
-Better shifting components. Shifting will be smoother and more reliable on 21st century bikes with modern shifters, derraileurs, and gears.
-Lower granny gear (typically). The older touring bikes I am familiar with don't have a super low granny gear similar to what the surly long haul trucker comes with (for example). We rode with something like a 36 tooth front - 24 tooth rear as our smallest gear ratio, and some of the hills were a a struggle considering we were riding with a lot of stuff (musical instruments, cold weather gear, computer, etc).

I think you'll be just fine with what you have in my opinion. If you're not sure, take your bike out fully loaded for a spin and see if you're happy with it. You can also test ride some of the newer bikes at your local bike shop and see if the difference is worth it the price.

29

Gear Talk / Re: Rohloff- two questions

« on: February 03, 2011, 12:20:20 pm »

I'm also getting a rohloff for a new build (currently in the mail). I've done my research, but haven't ridden it so I'll be brief.

If you are familiar with a standard 27 seed mtb, a good comparison can be found here between the gear ratios:

http://www.rohloff.de/en/products/speedhub/gear_range_comparison/

Also, check out the owners manual (page 13 of the pdf). Same info, slightly more detail. This also lists the smallest allowable gear ratios between chainring and crank.

http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/tour_de_hub/files/05_info/01_handbuch/benutzerinfo.en.pdf

As for the noise, I can let you know in a couple weeks.

30

General Discussion / Re: Surly LHT: Need help setting my bike up

« on: January 20, 2011, 10:18:01 am »

FENDERS - I like them. Any kind works, though I recommend something on the sturdier side. Mud flaps are necessary IMO to keep your feet and any riders directly behind you dry in soggy conditions.

GPS - Helpful for navigating city and suburban streets with a lot of turns. Also helpful for finding establishments like diners and hotels. Cons are that they are expensive and eat batteries. I prefer simply using maps, its easier for people to give you directions and more fun to look at. However, I miss the gps when I have to resort to a lot of turn by turn directions in urban/suburban areas.

PANNIERS - I recommend ortlieb. Sturdy, waterproof (putting rain covers on non waterproof when it starts to rain is a little annoying), available and relatively cheap (compared to arkels). Axiom makes similar products, but I haven't used them. My only beef with ortliebs are the lack of separate compartments. Thus I recommend using a handlebar bag to store things like wallet, snacks, and sunglasses.


Regarding style - Colored handlebar tape, saddle, and panniers will make things a lot more colorful. Maybe paint or powdercoat the racks or the cranks?