Hummer vs. Prius

The other factor no body has even bothered to mention is that how these two acts as symbols for things.
One symbolizes war and the other some future. Well the former is a future too.
So you can pick what you want.
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> The other factor no body has even bothered to mention is that
> how these two acts as symbols for things.
> One symbolizes war and the other some future. Well the former
> is a future too.
> So you can pick what you want.

I guess symbology is in the eye of the beholder.
To me, the original Hummer is a beautiful, incredible machine,
that represents the best work of man. The H2 on the other
hand is a decent Chevy truck with a bunch of ungainly,
superfluous metal strapped to it along with a $30K surcharge.
And to me, represents how easily people are fooled. Calling
it a Hummer is something like sacrilege. Yet few people
bother to say which one they are talking about.
The H3 is so-so. But I understand Hummer is to stop making
the H2 and H3. That's what my dad said, anyway, and I see
that Silicon Valley Hummer is closing its doors (thank god).

The Prius on the other hand represents a sell-out and
sell-short of what can and should be. It's a bad engineering
decision to build a car with two of everything. And for
the person who likes some intimacy with their machine, I
resent not knowing what I'm going to get when I step on
the gas. It also happens to be one of the ugliest vehicles
ever made (IMO). The first Prius was much prettier (my
wife has one).

-Carl

As far as i know Jeeps are Machines of war, pure and simple, and they market it this way.
perhaps you are misunderstanding your own culture Carl?
Sounds like that Mertonian confusion i mentioned.

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> The other factor no body has even bothered to mention is that
>> how these two acts as symbols for things.
>> One symbolizes war and the other some future. Well the former
>> is a future too.
>> So you can pick what you want.
>> >
> I guess symbology is in the eye of the beholder.
> To me, the original Hummer is a beautiful, incredible machine,
> that represents the best work of man. The H2 on the other
> hand is a decent Chevy truck with a bunch of ungainly,
> superfluous metal strapped to it along with a $30K surcharge.
> And to me, represents how easily people are fooled. Calling
> it a Hummer is something like sacrilege. Yet few people
> bother to say which one they are talking about.
> The H3 is so-so. But I understand Hummer is to stop making
> the H2 and H3. That's what my dad said, anyway, and I see
> that Silicon Valley Hummer is closing its doors (thank god).
>
> The Prius on the other hand represents a sell-out and
> sell-short of what can and should be. It's a bad engineering
> decision to build a car with two of everything. And for
> the person who likes some intimacy with their machine, I
> resent not knowing what I'm going to get when I step on
> the gas. It also happens to be one of the ugliest vehicles
> ever made (IMO). The first Prius was much prettier (my
> wife has one).
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> To me

Aw, Carl, you're all fucked up. And yet all that is is another
opinion, so don't take it harshly, I just happen to think pretty much
the opposite of those views.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> As far as i know Jeeps are Machines of war, pure and simple, and
they
> market it this way...

> Carl Lumma wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@>
wrote:
> >
> >> The other factor no body has even bothered to mention is that
> >> how these two acts as symbols for things.
> >> One symbolizes war and the other some future. Well the former
> >> is a future too.
> >> So you can pick what you want.
> >>
> >
> > I guess symbology is in the eye of the beholder.
> > To me, the original Hummer is a beautiful, incredible machine,
> > that represents the best work of man. The H2 on the other
> > hand is a decent Chevy truck with a bunch of ungainly,
> > superfluous metal strapped to it along with a $30K surcharge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeepney

Hi Carl, Kraig, et al,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> To me, the original Hummer is a beautiful, incredible machine,
> that represents the best work of man.

Replace "original Hummer" with "bicycle", and you'll know
where i stand.

I've been convinced for all of my life that the bicycle is
the ultimate achievement of humanity so far ... and except
for really minor improvements, it's been in its current
form since 1888.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:

> I've been convinced for all of my life that the bicycle is
> the ultimate achievement of humanity so far ... and except
> for really minor improvements, it's been in its current
> form since 1888.

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/v/vienna.htm#rover

-monz

Monz,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
> I've been convinced for all of my life that the bicycle is
> the ultimate achievement of humanity so far ... and except
> for really minor improvements, it's been in its current
> form since 1888.

Try transporting elderly parents to medical appointments on a bicycle.
Now you know where I stand. :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> As far as i know Jeeps are Machines of war, pure and simple,
> and they market it this way.

Jeeps have nothing to do with Hummers.

> perhaps you are misunderstanding your own culture Carl?
> Sounds like that Mertonian confusion i mentioned.

You're projecting.

-Carl

> Aw, Carl, you're all fucked up. And yet all that is is another
> opinion,

Nice opinion. You really are a nice fellow, Jon.

-Carl

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> Nice opinion.

Oh, come on, live light! That was just a flamboyant way of saying "Say
what???"

Cheers,
Jon

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> Jeeps have nothing to do with Hummers.

Two relevant sections from Wikipedia:

"Hummer is a brand of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) sold by General
Motors, also known as GM. They are based on the military *High
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, or Humvee."

*"The M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV or
Humvee) is a military motor vehicle created by AM General. It has
largely supplanted the roles formerly served by the the M151 1/4 ton
Jeep..."

It isn't a stretch to say that there is definitely a lineage to be
noted, which Kraig did.

Cheers,
Jon

since when
they are military cars
people think about the military when they see them
everybody projects so maybe you are projecting my projection
anyway i didn't think you were a Jungian.
It is a Jungian term

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> As far as i know Jeeps are Machines of war, pure and simple,
>> and they market it this way.
>> >
> Jeeps have nothing to do with Hummers.
>
> >> perhaps you are misunderstanding your own culture Carl?
>> Sounds like that Mertonian confusion i mentioned.
>> >
> You're projecting.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Jon,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Monz,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> > I've been convinced for all of my life that the bicycle is
> > the ultimate achievement of humanity so far ... and except
> > for really minor improvements, it's been in its current
> > form since 1888.
>
> Try transporting elderly parents to medical appointments
> on a bicycle. Now you know where I stand. :)

Well, you choose the right tool for the job.

No need to use your Hummer to go down the street to get
a bag of groceries or your morning latte.

Still, all else being equal, the bicycle stands out as
one of the most elegant, simple, green, and useful machines
that has ever been invented.

And one thing that's often overlooked is the contributions
that the bicycle indirectly made to other aspects of
modern life: perhaps the two most important are the
paving of roads and the women's rights movement ... um,
in the reverse order of importance. ;-)

-monz

Monz,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
> Well, you choose the right tool for the job.

Yeah, or the job chooses the tool for you - I'd love to pedal them to
the appointments, but it just wouldn't work!

> Still, all else being equal, the bicycle stands out as
> one of the most elegant, simple, green, and useful machines
> that has ever been invented.

I'm totally with you on this, have loved and ridden bikes all my life,
though not nearly enough now. But since we're on meta, and everything
is an ok topic...

Can anyone explain how the pennyfarthings developed such big front
wheels? At first glance it doesn't seem to make much sense: obviously
not a safety feature, I can't imagine the torque involved is much fun,
so I'm just curious about that evolution. Some of them were 5 feet in
diameter.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Can anyone explain how the pennyfarthings developed such big front
> wheels? At first glance it doesn't seem to make much sense: obviously
> not a safety feature, I can't imagine the torque involved is much fun,
> so I'm just curious about that evolution. Some of them were 5 feet in
> diameter.

Because the bigger the wheel is, the faster you go for a given rate of rotation of your feet. These days we use chain drives for the same result. You'll see a big sprocket by the pedal thing and a small one on the wheel so the wheel turns faster than the pedals.

Graham (where all kinds of jobs choose bicycles)

Graham,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> Because the bigger the wheel is, the faster you go for a
> given rate of rotation of your feet. These days we use
> chain drives for the same result. You'll see a big sprocket
> by the pedal thing and a small one on the wheel so the
> wheel turns faster than the pedals.

Well, that is what I figured, but it certainly seems like it would be
difficult to get the thing going, not to mention the torque involved
in stopping! I can't believe these cats used p-farthings for total
speed, not to mention the task of going up a hill, or the safety (or
lack of) issue of sitting so high off the ground.

But they were popular. I might try to find one some day to give it a
go and feel how it was/is to ride.

Cheers,
Jon

all you need is a three ( or four) wheeled model with a shield from the weather.
But i can't still use a bike with my back (yet and hoping) how about one with an optional motor something between a prius and a bicycle.

monz wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> >> Monz,
>>
>> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
>> >>> I've been convinced for all of my life that the bicycle is
>>> the ultimate achievement of humanity so far ... and except
>>> for really minor improvements, it's been in its current
>>> form since 1888.
>>> >> Try transporting elderly parents to medical appointments
>> on a bicycle. Now you know where I stand. :)
>> >
>
> Well, you choose the right tool for the job.
>
> No need to use your Hummer to go down the street to get
> a bag of groceries or your morning latte.
>
> Still, all else being equal, the bicycle stands out as
> one of the most elegant, simple, green, and useful machines
> that has ever been invented.
>
> And one thing that's often overlooked is the contributions
> that the bicycle indirectly made to other aspects of
> modern life: perhaps the two most important are the
> paving of roads and the women's rights movement ... um,
> in the reverse order of importance. ;-)
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> But i can't still use a bike with my back (yet and hoping)

Tried a recumbent?

> how about
> one with an optional motor something between a prius and a bicycle.

Electric-assist bikes are getting pretty good these days.

But personally, I think Segways are the ultimate form
of transportation.

-Carl

On 3/30/07, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> all you need is a three ( or four) wheeled model with a shield from the
> weather.
> But i can't still use a bike with my back (yet and hoping) how about
> one with an optional motor something between a prius and a bicycle.

How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike

--Tristan
http://dolor-sit-amet.deviantart.com

like scales and much musical concepts even, others have often been there before. i am glad, less for one to door leave undone.

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> all you need is a three ( or four) wheeled model with a shield from the
>> weather.
>> But i can't still use a bike with my back (yet and hoping) how about
>> one with an optional motor something between a prius and a bicycle.
>> >
> How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike
>
> --Tristan
> http://dolor-sit-amet.deviantart.com
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike

Anything that can't turn on its own footprint is pretty
cave-age, if you ask me.

-Carl

> since when
> they are military cars
> people think about the military when they see them

People's associations and thoughts aren't absolute.
Who are you to know them?

> anyway i didn't think you were a Jungian.
> It is a Jungian term

It's also a pop-psych term that's entered general use.

-Carl

On 3/30/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:
> > How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike
>
> Anything that can't turn on its own footprint is pretty
> cave-age, if you ask me.
>
> -Carl

It's all about priorities. Where I live, there aren't any really
narrow streets where you need good cornering ability, so it's not
something that even registers as a need. You can't beat legs for
maneuverability, and that's the most cave-age of them all.

Heck, I take the bus most places. If I want to turn 90 degrees right
at an intersection, I have to wait 5-10 minutes on a good day. Still,
somehow I manage to get by with my neolithic technology. I don't even
find myself longing for anything more sophisticated (Except a train.
Stupid City of Seattle)

--Tristan
http://dolor-sit-amet.deviantart.com

no absolutes or universals, just an educated guess.
I don't know a single person who isn't disgusted by their presence except you and those that own them.
That they have been discontinued might be aclue though
pop-psych got it from Jung ( well maybe Freud on further thinking) and like such concepts as karma might be misunderstood.

Carl Lumma wrote:
>> since when
>> they are military cars
>> people think about the military when they see them
>> >
> People's associations and thoughts aren't absolute.
> Who are you to know them?
>
> >> anyway i didn't think you were a Jungian.
>> It is a Jungian term
>> >
> It's also a pop-psych term that's entered general use.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/index.html>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main/index.asp> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> On 3/30/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:
> > > How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike
> >
> > Anything that can't turn on its own footprint is pretty
> > cave-age, if you ask me.
>
> It's all about priorities. Where I live, there aren't any really
> narrow streets where you need good cornering ability, so it's not
> something that even registers as a need.

Parallel parking and U-turns aren't an issue where you live?

Segways are moderately useless in cites as we know them.
And cities as we know them are moderately useless (to me).

-Carl

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:
> >>>How about a covered, street-legal Pedal/electric hybrid?
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twike

246kg??? And you need a full driving license. So it's a small car, really.

>>Anything that can't turn on its own footprint is pretty
>>cave-age, if you ask me.
> > It's all about priorities. Where I live, there aren't any really
> narrow streets where you need good cornering ability, so it's not
> something that even registers as a need. You can't beat legs for
> maneuverability, and that's the most cave-age of them all.

Sure. I'd personally prefer that electric bikes couldn't make sudden 45 degree turns. Especially as you don't need to pass any test to ride them. But perhaps that's envy on my part ;)

As for the covered part -- why not wear a cape? It takes up less space when it's not raining. The big problem with electric bikes in the wet is that people insist on riding them at the same speed as in the dry, even if it's dark, foggy, or whatever. And they do fall over. I've seen it happen.

> Heck, I take the bus most places. If I want to turn 90 degrees right
> at an intersection, I have to wait 5-10 minutes on a good day. Still,
> somehow I manage to get by with my neolithic technology. I don't even
> find myself longing for anything more sophisticated (Except a train.
> Stupid City of Seattle)

Sorry, you've lost me. Aren't right turns easy?

Graham

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> no absolutes or universals, just an educated guess.
> I don't know a single person who isn't disgusted by their presence
> except you and those that own them.
> That they have been discontinued

The vehicles that have been discontinued aren't the ones
I like.

-Carl

Jon Szanto wrote:
> Graham,
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >>Because the bigger the wheel is, the faster you go for a >>given rate of rotation of your feet. These days we use >>chain drives for the same result. You'll see a big sprocket >> by the pedal thing and a small one on the wheel so the >>wheel turns faster than the pedals.
> > Well, that is what I figured, but it certainly seems like it would be
> difficult to get the thing going, not to mention the torque involved
> in stopping! I can't believe these cats used p-farthings for total
> speed, not to mention the task of going up a hill, or the safety (or
> lack of) issue of sitting so high off the ground.

I've never ridden one, and don't know anybody who has. But I saw them on television once :P They didn't look difficult to "get going". They are difficult to "get on" but like a lot of things there's a knack. You hold the thing at an angle, put one foot on the ground, the other on the pedal, and kick off. For the really big ones maybe you climbed a ladder to get on. But I don't think those were the most popular.

I think the standard models did have brakes. But still, they were dangerous, no question.

What do you mean by "torque"? I've never heard of this being a problem. They had spokes, didn't they? Shouldn't have been too heavy. Remember the wheel doesn't rotate as fast as the smaller wheel on a modern bike.

I don't know about "total speed" either. A small wheel with direct drive would be really slow -- like below walking pace? That wouldn't be enjoyable to ride if you're over they age of, say, 3. Do the lowest gears on mountain bikes even go that low? Certainly the highest gears are way higher than a penny farthing.

Going up a hill -- well, same as with a modern bike without gears. You can always get off and walk.

Sitting so high off the ground -- same as a horse. And you get a good view up there.

> But they were popular. I might try to find one some day to give it a
> go and feel how it was/is to ride.

I think they were popular as toys for the rich, rather than practical transport. But for whatever purpose they were the best technology at the time. If you find one be sure to report back!

Graham

On 3/30/07, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> > Heck, I take the bus most places. If I want to turn 90 degrees right
> > at an intersection, I have to wait 5-10 minutes on a good day. Still,
> > somehow I manage to get by with my neolithic technology. I don't even
> > find myself longing for anything more sophisticated (Except a train.
> > Stupid City of Seattle)
>
> Sorry, you've lost me. Aren't right turns easy?

Not when you have to get off of the south-bound bus and wait for the
west-bound bus.

--Tristan
http://dolor-sit-amet.deviantart.com

Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
> >>Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
>>
>>>Heck, I take the bus most places. If I want to turn 90 degrees right
>>>at an intersection, I have to wait 5-10 minutes on a good day. Still,
>>>somehow I manage to get by with my neolithic technology. I don't even
>>>find myself longing for anything more sophisticated (Except a train.
>>>Stupid City of Seattle)
>>
>>Sorry, you've lost me. Aren't right turns easy?
> > Not when you have to get off of the south-bound bus and wait for the
> west-bound bus.

You've still lost me.

Graham

Hi Jon and Graham,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> Jon Szanto wrote:
> > Graham,
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> >
> >> Because the bigger the wheel is, the faster you go for a
> >> given rate of rotation of your feet. These days we use
> >> chain drives for the same result. You'll see a big sprocket
> >> by the pedal thing and a small one on the wheel so the
> >> wheel turns faster than the pedals.
> >
> > Well, that is what I figured, but it certainly seems like
> > it would be difficult to get the thing going, not to
> > mention the torque involved in stopping! I can't believe
> > these cats used p-farthings for total speed, not to mention
> > the task of going up a hill, or the safety (or lack of)
> > issue of sitting so high off the ground.
>
> I've never ridden one, and don't know anybody who has. <snip>

I've ordered a replica from someone who is building them
... but he makes them by hand one at a time and i'm like
478th something like that on his list, so it will be a
long wait. It's already been so long since i ordered it
that i don't remember who he is or where to find his website.
But if/when i eventually get it, i'll be sure to let you
guys know! And Jon, you live close by, so i can bring it
by for to you see and ride.

With penny-farthings, which are actually known as
"high wheelers" among bicycle folks, one turn of the
pedals equals one turn of the front wheel. So measuring
the circumference of the wheel tells you how far the
bike goes for each pedal revolution, and this was done
in inches. For the 5-foot (= 60 inch) diameter wheel,
which was actually quite common (some racers used even
larger wheels), that would be 60 * pi = ~188.5 inches
of travel.

And even today in America, the gear ratios of bicycles
are measured this way. So you'll typically find an
18-speed bike described as having gear ratios from,
say, "31 to 108". Assuming a 27-inch drive wheel
(the rear wheel on today's chain-driven bikes) these
gear-inches arise thus: for the low gear, a front
chainwheel of 32 teeth and a rear sprocket of 28 teeth,
and for the high gear, a front chainwheel of 52 teeth
and a rear sprocket of 13 teeth. Divide the chainwheel
by the sprocket, and multiply the product by the wheel
size, and there's your gear-inches.

Of course with a geared drive, the wheel size matters
much less, and it's common for bike techies to simply
use the gear ratios to describe various chainwheel/sprocket
configurations. But inertia usually carries the day,
so we still have the gear-inches method ... and that
is still useful, because it does tell you how far the
bike travels with each pedal revolution.

You can find a concise history of the bicycle on my
"A Century of New Music in Vienna" webpage under these
years: 1818-19, 1863, 1865-70, 1878-9, 1885, 1888.

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/v/vienna.htm

... I know it has absolutely nothing to do with the
subject of that webpage (except for the fact that Mahler
was a bicycling aficionado), but hey, i love bikes and
thought that it was worth putting in there.

PS --

It's interesting that my little statement yesterday
initiated a whole discussion about bicycles, because
i just went on my first Critical Mass bike ride. This
was by far the longest ride (21 miles) i've been on since
i broke my ankle in the motorcycle accident 6 months ago.

We met in Balboa Park and rode to Presidio Park and
then out to the end of the Ocean Beach pier, and of course
i had to ride back home from there ... but i ended up having
to walk up the biggest hills on the way home ... like i said,
i'm way out of shape for bicycling a ride like that.

But it was truly awesome to be with about 100 other cyclists
and just take over some of San Diego's busiest streets:
5th Avenue from Bankers Hill to Hillcrest, Washington Ave,
Pt Loma Blvd, Rosecrans St, and probably the biggest hoot
of all: Nimitz Blvd, which is almost a freeway.

It was also nice to see that not all of the people in cars
who got stuck waiting behind us sitting at green lights that
we blocked off as we rode across their path were pissed off.
Several of them honked their horns while shouting approval!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Mass

-monz

Hi Jon and Graham,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon and Graham,
>
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> >
> > Jon Szanto wrote:
> > > Graham,
> > >
> > > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Because the bigger the wheel is, the faster you go for a
> > >> given rate of rotation of your feet. These days we use
> > >> chain drives for the same result. You'll see a big sprocket
> > >> by the pedal thing and a small one on the wheel so the
> > >> wheel turns faster than the pedals.
> > >
> > > Well, that is what I figured, but it certainly seems like
> > > it would be difficult to get the thing going, not to
> > > mention the torque involved in stopping! I can't believe
> > > these cats used p-farthings for total speed, not to mention
> > > the task of going up a hill, or the safety (or lack of)
> > > issue of sitting so high off the ground.

The high-wheeler / penny-farthing bicycle certain was and is
a dangerous vehicle.

Certainly, it would take some very strong leg muscles to
drive it up a steep hill ...just like using your modern
18-speed in its highest gear while going uphill.

However, note that today driving a "fixed-gear" bike is
becoming more and more popular -- from the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bike

>> "Recently the popularity of fixed gear bicycles in the
>> USA has been on the rise, particularly in metropolitan
>> centers such as New York, Minneapolis, Seattle, Charlotte,
>> Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, where they have
>> attained something of a cult status, and even discernible
>> regional aesthetic preferences in terms of finish and
>> presentation of such bicycles."

A bike like this performs exactly the same way as the
high-wheeler, the only real difference being the smaller
wheel and associated changes in frame and riding geometry,
resulting in a lower and safer riding position.

The invention of the freewheel hub which allows coasting,
and various different forms of variable gearing -- such as
derailleurs (by far the most popular) and internal hub
(the old "English racer" 3-speed popular until the 1970s)
-- were orignally considered by almost everyone to be
"improvements".

But purists who are proponents of fixed-gear bikes
feel that the fixed-gear is more of a "real bike",
that one who drives it is more "at one with the machine"
than on a variable-gear freewheeling bike, and that driving
one is closer to the essence of what bicycling is all about.

Also, it must be said that riding a fixed-gear bike will
always feel smoother and more precise than a variable-gear,
because there is no chance for the drive mechanism to slip
or mis-switch.

When the pedals are always directly connected to
the motion of the wheels, the driver can stop the bike
by locking his legs and forcing the pedals and wheels
to stop rotating -- this is true of both the modern
fixed-gear chain-driven bike and the high-wheeler.
So the real crazos drive fixed-gear bikes without brakes.
But if you ask me, they're nuts.

Even if i were a rider of a fixed-gear (which i'm not),
i'd practice using this technique whenever practical,
but i would *not ever* ride on a road which would have
to be shared with automobile or pedestrian traffic
without having brakes available for an emergency stop.

But yes, it's absolutely true that the single reason
for the growth in the size of the front wheel during
the 1870s and '80s was the desire for greater speed.

And yes, sitting so high up off the ground posed a
serious danger. The most common type of accident was
the "header", where trying to stop the bike caused
it to toss the frame and rider forward as the front
wheel came to a sudden stop. I think you can imagine
that scene: the rider goes over the handlebars head-first
and lands in the street, hopefully stopping his head
from hitting first. Here's a drawing of a typical one:

http://www.pedalinghistory.com/Images/Header.gif

To get a high-wheeler going, there is a standard technique
where you grasp the bike on the handlebars and seat while
standing on the left side of it, then start running with it,
and hop on when it reaches a speed where you can start
pedaling. Needless to say, to ride one of these things
you need to be considerably athletic ...

-monz

> Hi Jon and Graham,

Hi Monz!

> Certainly, it would take some very strong leg muscles to
> drive it up a steep hill ...just like using your modern
> 18-speed in its highest gear while going uphill.
> > However, note that today driving a "fixed-gear" bike is
> becoming more and more popular -- from the Wikipedia page:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-gear_bike
> >>>"Recently the popularity of fixed gear bicycles in the
>>>USA has been on the rise, particularly in metropolitan
>>>centers such as New York, Minneapolis, Seattle, Charlotte,
>>>Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia, where they have
>>>attained something of a cult status, and even discernible
>>>regional aesthetic preferences in terms of finish and
>>>presentation of such bicycles."

The link says that means no freewheel as well as no derailleurs. Well, maybe they're getting more and more popular, but only because they were completely unpopular to start with.

> A bike like this performs exactly the same way as the
> high-wheeler, the only real difference being the smaller
> wheel and associated changes in frame and riding geometry,
> resulting in a lower and safer riding position.
> > The invention of the freewheel hub which allows coasting,
> and various different forms of variable gearing -- such as
> derailleurs (by far the most popular) and internal hub
> (the old "English racer" 3-speed popular until the 1970s)
> -- were orignally considered by almost everyone to be > "improvements".

I think they're still considered by almost everyone to be improvements :P Gears are great if there are lots of hills around, or if you're in a hurry. Freewheels are generally wonderful.

> But purists who are proponents of fixed-gear bikes
> feel that the fixed-gear is more of a "real bike",
> that one who drives it is more "at one with the machine"
> than on a variable-gear freewheeling bike, and that driving
> one is closer to the essence of what bicycling is all about.
> > Also, it must be said that riding a fixed-gear bike will
> always feel smoother and more precise than a variable-gear,
> because there is no chance for the drive mechanism to slip
> or mis-switch.

That's true of any single-gear bike, isn't it?

> When the pedals are always directly connected to
> the motion of the wheels, the driver can stop the bike
> by locking his legs and forcing the pedals and wheels
> to stop rotating -- this is true of both the modern
> fixed-gear chain-driven bike and the high-wheeler. > So the real crazos drive fixed-gear bikes without brakes.
> But if you ask me, they're nuts.

Okay, yes, there's that. Some people ride old bikes with useless brakes, so they're the real nuts.

> Even if i were a rider of a fixed-gear (which i'm not),
> i'd practice using this technique whenever practical,
> but i would *not ever* ride on a road which would have
> to be shared with automobile or pedestrian traffic
> without having brakes available for an emergency stop.
> > But yes, it's absolutely true that the single reason
> for the growth in the size of the front wheel during
> the 1870s and '80s was the desire for greater speed.
> > And yes, sitting so high up off the ground posed a
> serious danger. The most common type of accident was
> the "header", where trying to stop the bike caused
> it to toss the frame and rider forward as the front
> wheel came to a sudden stop. I think you can imagine
> that scene: the rider goes over the handlebars head-first
> and lands in the street, hopefully stopping his head
> from hitting first. Here's a drawing of a typical one:
> > http://www.pedalinghistory.com/Images/Header.gif

I don't dare look at that!

> To get a high-wheeler going, there is a standard technique
> where you grasp the bike on the handlebars and seat while
> standing on the left side of it, then start running with it,
> and hop on when it reaches a speed where you can start
> pedaling. Needless to say, to ride one of these things
> you need to be considerably athletic ...

Super fun! Well, enjoy it...

I'm currently bikeless. My friend said he had a spare one because he suckered out and got an electric. Otherwise I'll get a single gear bike -- cheap and less likely to get stolen -- but ideally with good brakes.

Graham

Hi Graham,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> > To get a high-wheeler going, there is a standard technique
> > where you grasp the bike on the handlebars and seat while
> > standing on the left side of it, then start running with it,
> > and hop on when it reaches a speed where you can start
> > pedaling. Needless to say, to ride one of these things
> > you need to be considerably athletic ...
>
> Super fun! Well, enjoy it...

Oh, i have a feeling that it's going to be several years
before the guy from whom i ordered my high-wheeler gets
around to making it for me. We'll see if it ever happens
at all. If not, and i have a spare $2000 or so to splurge
on it, i'll just order one from a known company that makes
replicas. BTW, the originals are worth far more than that,
even if they're in terrible condition.

> I'm currently bikeless. My friend said he had a spare one
> because he suckered out and got an electric. Otherwise I'll
> get a single gear bike -- cheap and less likely to get
> stolen -- but ideally with good brakes.

Being the bike nut that i am, i have a couple of really
good and expensive bikes. But i have quite a collection,
and most of them are clunker mountain bikes that i got
on Craigslist for between $15 and $40 ... and one i even
got for free from someone who just wanted it out of their
yard.

These are great bikes for just running errands and
getting around town -- they look real beat up, so no-one
wants to steal them, and they have sturdy fat tires that
can cope with anything San Diego's potholed streets can
dish out. And since they have 18 or 21 gears, they can
handle any hill i need to go up ... after i get my legs
back in shape, that is. ;-p (my ankle still hurts a lot
from the motorcycle accident i was in 6 months ago!)

-monz

monz wrote:
> Hi Graham,

Hiya Monz! Sorry I'm late with this. I just discovered Mozilla's been misfiling a load of messages as spam.

>>I'm currently bikeless. My friend said he had a spare one >>because he suckered out and got an electric. Otherwise I'll >>get a single gear bike -- cheap and less likely to get >>stolen -- but ideally with good brakes.
> > > Being the bike nut that i am, i have a couple of really
> good and expensive bikes. But i have quite a collection,
> and most of them are clunker mountain bikes that i got
> on Craigslist for between $15 and $40 ... and one i even
> got for free from someone who just wanted it out of their
> yard. That sounds good. It cost me 40 pounds to change the tire on my old bike (that my parents hadn't got round to taking to the dump) and making it roadworthy last summer. That's the trouble with high income countries.

I got a new G&P yesterday. 380 yuan (that's $45) including the basket and lock from warehouse type place with loads of different bikes. Probably a bit pricy but they weren't offering me anything cheaper except for a 200 yuan one that was obviously inferior and had terrible brakes.

> These are great bikes for just running errands and
> getting around town -- they look real beat up, so no-one
> wants to steal them, and they have sturdy fat tires that
> can cope with anything San Diego's potholed streets can
> dish out. And since they have 18 or 21 gears, they can
> handle any hill i need to go up ... after i get my legs
> back in shape, that is. ;-p (my ankle still hurts a lot
> from the motorcycle accident i was in 6 months ago!)

You mean bikes with gears don't get stolen round your way? I'd like to get second hand bikes, because new ones are always targets for thieves and I'm always changing schools. But I don't know where to get them.

Sturdy fat tires slow you down on flat roads. They are safer though -- I think one of the reasons I had my accident a few years back is that I changed to road tires that weren't suitable for wet weather. But really smooth in the dry. I don't think it makes a difference with potholes. Wet mud, yes, you need thick tires.

The nice thing about these parts is the cities are completely flat. And the traffic goes so slowly there's no need for fast gears either. But when I go to the mountains, I still don't see mountain bikes. People switch straight to motorbikes.

Graham