On 28/09/2023 14:23, Stephen Packer wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 11:28:12 UTC+1, Ace wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 02:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Stephen Packer
>> <stephen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I go to a gym regularly that's about a five mile trip across town. I've
>>> thought about using something other than the R1100RT
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>> What am I missing?
>>
>> Sacrilege it may be, but have you considered getting one with pedals?
>
> As per other answer; I would if it wasn't for the section of dual carriageway.

You could petition your council to add a cycle track to the side of it.
We are blessed with the A580 from Liverpool to Manchester, with a cycle
track for about 90% of the way. And when it runs out, I hit the back
roads and cycle paths.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

Pete Fisher wrote:

> On 28/09/2023 11:46, ogden wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 10:01:58 UTC+1, Stephen Packer
> > wrote:
> > > I go to a gym regularly that's about a five mile trip across
> > > town. I've thought about using something other than the R1100RT
> > > since it drinks petrol on this journey and it's a big old lump on
> > > the broken urban roads that we suffer.
> > >
> > > So what is there?
> >
> > For a five mile journey? To a gym and back?
> >
> >
https://www.raleigh.co.uk/gb/en/motus-tour-derailleur-gear-electric-bike/crossbar/
>
> Scrote magnet ++ ?

That bike actually looks quite good. Mudguards, lights, fully enclosed
chain, reflective tyres, very practical.
Oh hang on...........it's a re-badged Batavus

https://www.dehaanwielersport.nl/fietsen/batavus-altura-e-go-power-plus-uni-51-stadsfiets-mahonie-roodbruin.html

Front suspension is a bit naff though.

--

Geoff
NTV650

On 28/09/2023 10:01, Stephen Packer wrote:
> Something around 150kg or so with a top speed of a comfortable
> 80 or so seems to be all I want for this regular boring trip. Oh and
> very good MPG with the ability to carry a small top box. I'd also
> like it to be fairly new so less than three years old.

Benelli TNT is nearly there, though top speed wont be much more than 70.
The BMW G310R is also nearly there, but weighs 160kg.
The KTM 390 is pretty good, I had one for 2 years, 100mph is possible,
it's light enough (155kg?), and is sized like a 'proper' bike. I never
worried about leaving it parked, but, I always parked up with a lock
attached, and in sight. If someone is going to pinch a bike, they'll get
it whatever chains are attached, grinders cut through typical chains in
10 seconds.
The Honda CB300R is in the same market as the KTM and BMW, but less
popular, it looks good as a small (engined) bike on its spec.
Given the choice, I think I'd go for the BMW, and the Honda would be
second choice. Depending on how tall you are, the BMW may be too small,
the Honda is larger.

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 09:22:46 UTC+1, Eddie wrote:
> On 28/09/2023 23:16, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> >
> > That and if he rode to the gym he wouldn't need to go to the gym. ;-)
> Depends what he's doing at the gym; a balanced routine should include
> some cardio (the bike) and some strength (presumably, the gym).

Quite. I wouldn't be averse to using the bike for cardio but it really is
not a safe road to cycle on, especially not given it's a slog for about two
miles uphill on the way *back*; being passed by cars doing 70mph isn't
my idea of a good time.

So I tend to ride my bike to the gym and alternate cardio (spin and
occasional treadmill) and weights on different days.

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 10:38:37 UTC+1, GeoffC wrote:

> This one maybe?
>
> https://www.gulas.bike/
>
>
> Although I suspect the 30 grand price tag might possibly put you off.
> OTOh it's so fugly, surely no one is going to nick that?

*MY FUCKING EYES*!

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 10:50:30 UTC+1, YTC#1 wrote:
> > As per other answer; I would if it wasn't for the section of dual carriageway.
> You could petition your council to add a cycle track to the side of it.

Utter waste of time. The A46 runs from Bath to the M4 (and beyond). There are
maybe 40 houses in five miles. Average age of residents is probably over 60.

And even if there was a demand... the road's cut into the side of a steep hill
which is mostly clay over limestone and is subject to fairly regular slippage.
It would cost an utter fortune to build. There isn't even a footpath alongside
the road...

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 12:14:59 UTC+1, Alan Lee wrote:
<snip>
> Benelli TNT is nearly there, though top speed wont be much more than 70.
> The BMW G310R is also nearly there, but weighs 160kg.
> The KTM 390 is pretty good, I had one for 2 years, 100mph is possible,
> it's light enough (155kg?), and is sized like a 'proper' bike. I never
> worried about leaving it parked, but, I always parked up with a lock
> attached, and in sight. If someone is going to pinch a bike, they'll get
> it whatever chains are attached, grinders cut through typical chains in
> 10 seconds.
> The Honda CB300R is in the same market as the KTM and BMW, but less
> popular, it looks good as a small (engined) bike on its spec.
> Given the choice, I think I'd go for the BMW, and the Honda would be
> second choice. Depending on how tall you are, the BMW may be too small,
> the Honda is larger.

Shortish with short legs for my frame.

I'd rather not buy yet another BMW really... too many of those in my garage!

Must go and look at the Honda. Maybe the Kawasaki Versys 300 also?

On 29/09/2023 12:18, Stephen Packer wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 10:50:30 UTC+1, YTC#1 wrote:
>>> As per other answer; I would if it wasn't for the section of dual carriageway.
>> You could petition your council to add a cycle track to the side of it.
>
> Utter waste of time. The A46 runs from Bath to the M4 (and beyond). There are
> maybe 40 houses in five miles. Average age of residents is probably over 60.
>
> And even if there was a demand... the road's cut into the side of a steep hill
> which is mostly clay over limestone and is subject to fairly regular slippage.
> It would cost an utter fortune to build. There isn't even a footpath alongside
> the road...
>
>

Obviously I don't know where you live, but a quick look and there appear
to be other roads :-)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 29/09/2023 00:57, ogden wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>>>> ogden wrote:
>>>>> https://www.raleigh.co.uk/gb/en/motus-tour-derailleur-gear-electric-bike/crossbar/
>>
>> Am I the only one wondering why the URL includes the word 'crossbar'?
>
> Hopefully, yes.
>
> There are two frame types. One with a crossbar, and one without, like a traditional ladies' bike. That link was to the model with a crossbar in the frame, hence the url, what with Steve not being a lady and that.

Ah. The default picture I see is the ladies model.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 12:28:38 UTC+1, YTC#1 wrote:

> Obviously I don't know where you live, but a quick look and there appear
> to be other roads :-)

There really aren't. My drive's straight off the main trunk road and there
aren't any smaller roads that give access to my property without using
the A46.

Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:

> For the sort of bike it is, I don't suppose many people are that
> bothered about how many watts per hour they can personally sustain, so

I know I don't have to explain this to you, but watts per hour is a
rate of power change, rather than the average power sustained over
some arbitrary period of time, which is what I think you wanted to
express. So I think the proper unit here is simply watts, qualified
by what period of time a cyclist can hope to deliver that average
over.

When I expressed a similar sentiment about "kwh per hour" (or some
similar mixed up units) in an El Reg comment it got deleted by
the editor and I got a slightly snippy email about how in future I
should email my corrections to the author. I guess you can't be too
much of a stickler about engineering units, even on a site which is
supposedly technical.

I have no illusions about my average sustainable power output. I have
been trying to do a few miles/day on my 'hybrid' bike which isn't the
most efficient, but is that really what you want if you're primarily
riding for exercise?

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:38:34 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@invalid.nl>
wrote:

>This one maybe?
>
>https://www.gulas.bike/
>
>
>Although I suspect the 30 grand price tag might possibly put you off.
>OTOh it's so fugly, surely no one is going to nick that?

What is it with modern hipster-styled motorbikes that they have NO
FUCKING REAR MUDGUARD.

Yes. I am old and grumpy. Just see my next post.

--

-Pip

Stephen Packer <stephen.packer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 12:14:59 UTC+1, Alan Lee wrote:
> <snip>
>> Benelli TNT is nearly there, though top speed wont be much more than 70.
>> The BMW G310R is also nearly there, but weighs 160kg.
>> The KTM 390 is pretty good, I had one for 2 years, 100mph is possible,
>> it's light enough (155kg?), and is sized like a 'proper' bike. I never
>> worried about leaving it parked, but, I always parked up with a lock
>> attached, and in sight. If someone is going to pinch a bike, they'll get
>> it whatever chains are attached, grinders cut through typical chains in
>> 10 seconds.
>> The Honda CB300R is in the same market as the KTM and BMW, but less
>> popular, it looks good as a small (engined) bike on its spec.
>> Given the choice, I think I'd go for the BMW, and the Honda would be
>> second choice. Depending on how tall you are, the BMW may be too small,
>> the Honda is larger.
>
> Shortish with short legs for my frame.
>
> I'd rather not buy yet another BMW really... too many of those in my garage!
>
> Must go and look at the Honda. Maybe the Kawasaki Versys 300 also?

Just get a scooter and DGAF what anyone thinks, you know it makes sense.

<hat tip to Adny>

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 29/09/2023 12:18, Stephen Packer wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 10:50:30 UTC+1, YTC#1 wrote:
>>> As per other answer; I would if it wasn't for the section of dual carriageway.
>> You could petition your council to add a cycle track to the side of it.
>
> Utter waste of time. The A46 runs from Bath to the M4 (and beyond). There are
> maybe 40 houses in five miles. Average age of residents is probably over 60.
>
> And even if there was a demand... the road's cut into the side of a steep hill
> which is mostly clay over limestone and is subject to fairly regular slippage.
> It would cost an utter fortune to build. There isn't even a footpath alongside
> the road...

So, when building new roads, might a tunnel be incorporated under it?
Trench with tunnel in, covered (especally on dual carriageways) with
glass bricks/panels, or inside, just lights powered by solar panels.
Loadsa dosh, but how much is a life or two worth, ignoring convenience?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 29/09/2023 18:35, Mark Olson wrote:
> Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:
>
>> For the sort of bike it is, I don't suppose many people are that
>> bothered about how many watts per hour they can personally sustain, so
>
> I know I don't have to explain this to you, but watts per hour is a
> rate of power change, rather than the average power sustained over
> some arbitrary period of time, which is what I think you wanted to
> express. So I think the proper unit here is simply watts, qualified
> by what period of time a cyclist can hope to deliver that average
> over.

Yes, I did indeed mean watts. I should know better. I shall go and flog
myself forthwith.

> When I expressed a similar sentiment about "kwh per hour" (or some
> similar mixed up units) in an El Reg comment it got deleted by
> the editor and I got a slightly snippy email about how in future I
> should email my corrections to the author. I guess you can't be too
> much of a stickler about engineering units, even on a site which is
> supposedly technical.

ooooOOOOoooo. That's a bit unexpectedly snippy of them.

> I have no illusions about my average sustainable power output. I have
> been trying to do a few miles/day on my 'hybrid' bike which isn't the
> most efficient, but is that really what you want if you're primarily
> riding for exercise?

It's *far* better than not riding at all though, and presumably enables
you to go further or for longer than you might without the assistance.

--
Eddie eddie@deguello.org

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:38:34 -0000 (UTC), "GeoffC" <me@invalid.nl>
wrote:

>This one maybe?
>
>https://www.gulas.bike/
>
>
>Although I suspect the 30 grand price tag might possibly put you off.
>OTOh it's so fugly, surely no one is going to nick that?

Christ, that fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way
down
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 18:35, Mark Olson wrote:

>> I have no illusions about my average sustainable power output. I have
>> been trying to do a few miles/day on my 'hybrid' bike which isn't the
>> most efficient, but is that really what you want if you're primarily
>> riding for exercise?
>
> It's *far* better than not riding at all though, and presumably enables
> you to go further or for longer than you might without the assistance.

Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
(AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork. No battery
involved here.

https://www.rei.com/product/810563/diamondback-edgewood-hybrid-bike

I do like the idea of a fat tire e-bike that could replace a dirt
(motor)bike.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 01/10/2023 17:55, Mark Olson wrote:
> Eddie <eddie@deguello.org> wrote:
>> On 29/09/2023 18:35, Mark Olson wrote:
>
>>> I have no illusions about my average sustainable power output. I have
>>> been trying to do a few miles/day on my 'hybrid' bike which isn't the
>>> most efficient, but is that really what you want if you're primarily
>>> riding for exercise?
>>
>> It's *far* better than not riding at all though, and presumably enables
>> you to go further or for longer than you might without the assistance.
>
> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork. No battery
> involved here.

Ah, of course. I was thinking of hybrid cars/motorcycles.

Although a hybrid bike might be the most suitable bike, depending on the
terrain.

> https://www.rei.com/product/810563/diamondback-edgewood-hybrid-bike
>
> I do like the idea of a fat tire e-bike that could replace a dirt
> (motor)bike.

I like the idea of a plain old fat bike, but it's not really practical.

--
Eddie eddie@deguello.org

Mark Olson wrote:
> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork.

Not quite. AIUI a hybrid (bicycle) is basically a road bike with flat bars. Suspension optional.

e.g.
https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick
https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick-cx

I've got the former. Road gearing, no suspension. The latter is much the same but with lower gearing and a suspension fork. But both with flat bars and fairly thin tyres.

ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Olson wrote:
>> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
>> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork.
>
> Not quite. AIUI a hybrid (bicycle) is basically a road bike with flat bars. Suspension optional.
>
> e.g.
> https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick
> https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick-cx
>
> I've got the former. Road gearing, no suspension. The latter is
> much the same but with lower gearing and a suspension fork. But both
> with flat bars and fairly thin tyres.

I must defer to your greater knowledge in this area. But I'm fairly
certain that 'hybrid' is how my particular model is referred to in
the USA, on every website I've found it on. No doubt terminology may
be a bit different on your side of the pond.

I don't imagine mine to be any sort of off road hero, but it has more
aggressive tread on the tires, and they're not as skinny as the tires
I remember on the typical '10 speed' bike from my yoof. I have no idea
if my bike has road or offroad gearing. Low gear is plenty low for me.

I'd be happy to ditch the comedy suspension fork, as well as the
sprung seat post, and the pedals are a joke. But for $200, including
shipping, I think it was an absolute banger of a bargain. Once I got
the derailleurs adjusted it seems to shift bang on the money through
all the gears. Brakes are adequate, but if I get another bicycle it's
going to have disks.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Mark Olson wrote:
> ogden wrote:
> > Mark Olson wrote:
> >> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
> >> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork.
> >
> > Not quite. AIUI a hybrid (bicycle) is basically a road bike with flat bars. Suspension optional.
> >
> > e.g.
> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick
> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick-cx
> >
> > I've got the former. Road gearing, no suspension. The latter is
> > much the same but with lower gearing and a suspension fork. But both
> > with flat bars and fairly thin tyres.
>
> I must defer to your greater knowledge in this area. But I'm fairly
> certain that 'hybrid' is how my particular model is referred to in
> the USA, on every website I've found it on.
>
> No doubt terminology may
> be a bit different on your side of the pond.

Maybe, but Cannondale are based on your side of the pond. Which section of the website are those models in if you look from where you are?

It's always a risky gambit, but I could quote Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_bicycle)...

"Hybrids typically borrow the flat, straight handlebars and upright seating posture of a mountain bike, which many bicyclists find comfortable and intuitive. Hybrids also employ the lighter weight, thinner wheels and smooth tires of road bikes"

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT), ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Mark Olson wrote:
>> ogden wrote:
>> > Mark Olson wrote:
>> >> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
>> >> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork.
>> >
>> > Not quite. AIUI a hybrid (bicycle) is basically a road bike with flat bars. Suspension optional.
>> >
>> > e.g.
>> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick
>> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick-cx
>> >
>> > I've got the former. Road gearing, no suspension. The latter is
>> > much the same but with lower gearing and a suspension fork. But both
>> > with flat bars and fairly thin tyres.
>>
>> I must defer to your greater knowledge in this area. But I'm fairly
>> certain that 'hybrid' is how my particular model is referred to in
>> the USA, on every website I've found it on.
>>
>> No doubt terminology may
>> be a bit different on your side of the pond.
>
>Maybe, but Cannondale are based on your side of the pond. Which section of the website are those models in if you look from where you are?
>
>It's always a risky gambit, but I could quote Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_bicycle)...
>
>"Hybrids typically borrow the flat, straight handlebars and upright seating posture of a mountain bike, which many bicyclists find comfortable and intuitive. Hybrids also employ the lighter weight, thinner wheels and smooth tires of road bikes"

One of the key differences in practice is that hybrids tend to use the
700c wheels also found on most road bikes, but usually with relatively
wide (compared with race-type) tyres. So yeah, more like a road bike
but with a more upright position, usually with quite different frame
geometry from a race-type road bike, and quite often more raised bars
than you'd get on miost mountain bikes.

The name is indeed intended to imply that they're suitable for roads
and tracks (gravel or otherwise) and they'll more often than not have
some sort of basic suspension fork, but nothing like you'd find on a
proper mountain bike, and sometimes those mickey-mouse suspension
saddle posts.

So I think you're both right,
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Olson wrote:
>> ogden wrote:
>> > Mark Olson wrote:
>> >> Just to be clear, 'hybrid' is the manufacturer's/industry term
>> >> (AIUI) for a gravel/pavement bike with a suspension fork.
>> >
>> > Not quite. AIUI a hybrid (bicycle) is basically a road bike with flat bars. Suspension optional.
>> >
>> > e.g.
>> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick
>> > https://www.cannondale.com/en-gb/bikes/active/fitness/quick-cx
>> >
>> > I've got the former. Road gearing, no suspension. The latter is
>> > much the same but with lower gearing and a suspension fork. But both
>> > with flat bars and fairly thin tyres.
>>
>> I must defer to your greater knowledge in this area. But I'm fairly
>> certain that 'hybrid' is how my particular model is referred to in
>> the USA, on every website I've found it on.
>>
>> No doubt terminology may
>> be a bit different on your side of the pond.
>
> Maybe, but Cannondale are based on your side of the pond. Which
> section of the website are those models in if you look from where
> you are?

Same as in the UK version of the Cannondale site, 'hybrid'.

> It's always a risky gambit, but I could quote Wikipedia
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_bicycle)...
>
> "Hybrids typically borrow the flat, straight handlebars and upright
> seating posture of a mountain bike, which many bicyclists find
> comfortable and intuitive. Hybrids also employ the lighter weight,
> thinner wheels and smooth tires of road bikes"

I can see my comment might have been unclear, I wasn't debating
whether or not the Cannondale was a hybrid! My bike, is in fact
advertised as a hybrid. My comments had nothing to do with whether
yours should or should not be in the same class as mine. I'm quite
comfortable with the definition of a hybrid being somewhat squishy,
in the same way that the definition of a so-called Adventure Touring
motorcycle can vary somewhat between brands.

Judging from the price, it's clear we're talking about two entirely
different levels of equipment. Still, I'm happy with what I've got
for the moment, it's plenty good for whatever sort of rides I'm likely
to do for a few years.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:

> One of the key differences in practice is that hybrids tend to use the
> 700c wheels also found on most road bikes, but usually with relatively
> wide (compared with race-type) tyres. So yeah, more like a road bike
> but with a more upright position, usually with quite different frame
> geometry from a race-type road bike, and quite often more raised bars
> than you'd get on miost mountain bikes.
>
> The name is indeed intended to imply that they're suitable for roads
> and tracks (gravel or otherwise) and they'll more often than not have
> some sort of basic suspension fork, but nothing like you'd find on a
> proper mountain bike, and sometimes those mickey-mouse suspension
> saddle posts.

Describes my bike to a 'T', including the 700c wheels & slightly
fatter tires.

> So I think you're both right,

OMG!

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Ace wrote:

<SNIP>

>
> One of the key differences in practice is that hybrids tend to use the
> 700c wheels also found on most road bikes, but usually with relatively
> wide (compared with race-type) tyres.

AKA 28" or 622 (ETRTO)
Dontcha just love standardisation.

--

Geoff
NTV650