tomato coupe

Confirmation that "proselytizing" was the right word.

PeteHski

I doubt anyone even thinks about the kind of cycling you do

genejockey 

Not one of us gives a twopenny **** what kind of cycling you do. OTOH, you seem absolutely obsessed with what kind of cycling WE do.

terrymorse 

Well, if there are aero differences between disc brakes and rim brakes, the difference is small.

Somebody (who happens to work for Cannondale) did some wind tunnel tests on a TT bike (made by Cannondale, of course) and found that for most yaw angles, disc brakes on that frame were very slightly more aero than rim brakes:



Disc and Rim Brake Aero Drag

phughes

Though I won't condone a personal attack, I will say that is not how freedom of speech works. In fact, this is not really a public forum, it is owned by an entity, and as such they have rules. Meaning, you really cannot say anything you want to say. If it truly were a public forum, and the rules of freedom of speech applied, then a personal attack would also have to be permitted.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I think you are bored, and opened the thread because you wanted to start an argument here. It is what you do. Nothing you have written makes any sense in the real world of racing, in any type of racing.

zymphad

With the latest silliness with ban, I think UCI is justified and they should just say, yeah, we don't want our athletes to look like clowns, just wear a helmet that doesn't turn our sport into a meme. I don't remember what the real reasons were, but would be funny if they said, we're tired of the memes.

smd4

What is this “truth” to which you refer?

veganbikes

Jeff Beck's debut album?

big john

Front drive has given us 4 cylinder cars that get more than 40 mpg. Also, 4 cylinder cars with 300 horsepower. Front drive has created fast, reliable, fun to drive cars that have all the comforts and easily meet emission and fuel economy standards.

44 years ago when front drive started taking over I objected to it, too. I worked as a car mechanic and eventually I got used to it.

btw, if you are against 4 cylinder engines you might not like 3 cylinder engines, which are becoming more common.

big john

With all the sniveling you do about this, can you show one example of anyone saying they hate recumbents or recumbent riders? From what I've seen, when people disagree with you, or make "snide remarks", it has nothing to do with the kind of cycling you do. Ever.

rsbob 

You forgot that FWD cars are superior in snow and are safer to drive in hydroplaning conditions as long as you keep your foot in it. I have had both, and when driving in snow, FWD is a hands down winner (must be that weight over the drive wheels ).

veganbikes

rydabent people don't hate recumbents generally their issue is with you and ridiculous stuff like this. Please don't conflate people's dislike of what you say for a dislike of recumbents. It is simply just not fair.

People don't hate road bikes because of a certain long weapon for thrusting who happens to share a last name with a certain astronaut (and please don't y'all start arguing about him) they dislike him and what he said.

Maybe post less of this and you won't feel like people are after recumbents (even though they aren't)

big john

When I lived in the mountains I had a couple cars which were AWD but they were derived from FWD designs. Also had a 4WD Blazer and a Jeep.

unterhausen

I have to say I haven't seen any personal attacks or any posts that violate our rules. I'm afraid this thread is heading that way though, so let's not psychoanalyze each other in too much detail. If a post is about another participant in a thread, it's probably skirting the rules in some way.

Tbh, I really don't want to have to monitor the thread, pay isn't good enough for that. But I stepped in it now.

rydabent

If you know anything about 4 cyl engines, do you know they have a primary vertical shake, and a secondary side ways shake? That means to make them livable in a car, they have to have 2 balance shafts with gears and or chains. So in fact a 3 cylinder engine with it front to rear shake that can be dampened out with weights on the front pulley and fly wheel is a better engine.

Then FWD cars have everything mechanical crammed together, so in most cases any repair takes twice as long. If you are a car mechanic as you say you are, you know good and well FWD cars tear the hell out of their front tires, and disc brakes. That is what happen with your 60 40 weigh distribution. And that mean they are not nearly as much fun to drive as a front engine RWD car. IMO cars reached their zenith in about 1970, and then the government started screwing with them, and now we pretty much have all the little look alike CUV toads we have today.

rydabent

Put a FWD car on ice, on a curve, and you are riding a sled right into the ditch.

tomato coupe

Shocking.

big john

ok

rydabent

Also FWD has ruined engines. Starting in 1950 or so we had modern short stroke, big bore engines that didnt waste power moving the piston so fast. Now they have to cram engines in sideways, and they have gone back to the long stroke engines to make engines shorter. The worst thing about small bore long stroke engines is they dont have the much room for big valves in the head,

Sadly todays young guys will never know how much fun it was to drive a car like my 1969 300 horse 350 Chevelle, with a turbo hydro. It shifted at 56 and 96!!!

rydabent

Also FWD has ruined engines. Starting in 1950 or so we had modern short stroke, big bore engines that didnt waste power moving the piston so fast. Now now the have to cram engines in sideways, and they have gone back to the long stroke engines to make engines shorter. The worst thing about small bore long stroke engines is they dont have the much room for big valves in the head,

tomato coupe

No, it didn't, and no we didn't.

Koyote

Wait, what? Have I accidentally wandered into a car forum?

rydabent

Saying that indicates you know very little about engines.

PeteHski

Not one based on reality though.

Maelochs

Mr. Rydabent ... I have joked about your choice of rides repeatedly, and have also expressed respect for them and for your continuing to ride at age ... 82, is it now?

I have also said that I would love a tadpole trike but there aren't enough dedicated paths where I live and they seem too dangerous in traffic.

I have not seen anyone else seriously put down recumbents.

I have seen a lot fo people mock you for your misguided opinions and for reposting the same threads every several months, and for your habit of demeaning everybody who isn't just like you (and no one is) while at the same time imagingi9ng that you are being persecuted.

I am sorry that you think only what you have experienced is real vis-a-vis cars. if you knew anything about automotive history you would know that four-cylinder engines have been used in cars for about 125 years.

Modern motors are built to such tight tolerances that they are vastly more efficient than your imaginarily excellent V8s. Not all of us are in our twenties here ... lots of us remember they days when an engine with 100 K miles needed a complete rebuild, whereas now most engines (including those 4-cyliners you hate) will last at least twice that long. I guess piston travel isn't that big a deal, eh?

On top of that a lot of us have owned a lot of cars through the years and have experience with both front-, rear-, and AWD ... and know that what you say is bunk. FWD cars don't tear up tires and brakes especially more quickly than any other cars ... in fact, wear is more a function of how one drives the car rather than the car design.

By the way, the first car I owned was a Ford Capri ... the first gen model. Two-liter four cylinder engine, RWD ... a Ton of fun. That was in 1972 .... after years of driving RWD V8-powered cars (often with two or three times the power) driving something light, nimble, and quick, with a four-speed manual, was a huge improvement over the Detroit-built boats I was used to. (Not that they weren't fun ... just sloppy.) However my 2004 Honda Civic with a 1.7-liter I4 is Vastly more powerful and every bit as fun---FWD, please note---because it does Everything better than that old Capri ... tech has come a Long way.

My point here (if I have one) is that THIS is exactly why you get flack. You say a bunch of stuff which is patently Not based on reality, act as though you are the Keeper of the Eternal Truth, and demean everybody who points out that you have few to no facts in your diatribes.

No one minds or even much cares if you like recumbents, trikes, late-60s muscle cars, or whatever ... a lot of the rest of us do, too. What people object to is that you claim that everything everyone else likes is wrong, and then pretend that everyone who feels insulted by your insults is attacking you.

Stick to facts, and you will fare better.

You are old enough to know better.

Anyway .... as for the original point .... in every sport records are set with contemporary equipment and no one cares. "Dead-ball" era homerun counts were low. Cars ... if you know so much about cars, do you think the Indy 500 should be run with two-seaters with a passenger, as the original races were run? Should the NHL ban improved sticks? Should the NFL ban modern helmets and pads, because the original players wore at most leather caps and cloth pads? In track and filed, should shoes be banned? Should pole-vault poles be turned from trees? Should swimmers have to wear cotton suits?

Further, there are different rules in different eras. Should all sports be required to play by the original rules? Should football be played on the original gridiron, with stripes going laterally as well, to define where the passer could throw?

WHY?

Anyway ... just as with most Flat-Earthers, whom I suspect only spew their stuff to wind up people who get sucked into debate, I assume you post all this atavistic stuff just to get a rise from whoever takes the bait ... so ... Well Done, Sir.