What is it about the mileage?

Larry Dickman

"Pat" <infox@tmail.com> wrote in
news:651l3cF2djtedU1@mid.individual.net:

> I am seeing posts on this and other places where the topic is about
> the trip but all anyone wants to do is brag on the mileage and I don't
> get it. I rode around County Clare and the Dingle peninsula for 12
> days and I was doing it for the experience, not to come back and brag
> about how many miles per day I covered.
>
> Now, I am planning to ride the Katy Trail and there are many posts
> saying things like "I did the entire 225 miles in 4 days" or "it
> didn't take me but 6 days" and I want to ask "why?" Doesn't anyone
> ride to experience the trip or is it all about bragging when you get
> home? What is the point of going to a new place if all you do is
> maintain a 100 km per day distance level?

If you're doing a tour, you can't approach it like that clueless idiot on
the Fat Tire Beer commercials. You have to plan how many miles to ride,
where you are going to stay, where to get food and water, what and how much
to carry, and so on. If you don't, you could be find yourself in a bad way.

--
Larry Dickman <LDickman@comcast.net>

Pat

> If you're doing a tour, you can't approach it like that clueless idiot on
> the Fat Tire Beer commercials. You have to plan how many miles to ride,
> where you are going to stay, where to get food and water, what and how
> much
> to carry, and so on. If you don't, you could be find yourself in a bad
> way.
>
> --
> Larry Dickman

What I do is sketch out general guidelines. I figure out things like...if
I'm in this area at nightfall, then here are my options for spending the
night...,etc. I get a general idea but from then on out, I like to be
spontaneous. For example, I carried camping supplies into Ireland, but it
rained 1/3 of the time, so I opted to stay in hostels instead. I rode to the
coast to see the Cliffs of Moher, but there was a storm at sea and all I
could see was rain and fog. So, I turned southward and used a second option
of things I wanted to see if I had the time.

If I limited myself to a set itinerary, it would not "fit" my idea of a good
time. I like being able to react and go in a totally different direction if
need be.

Papa Tom

I generally plan far fewer miles per day than I know I can cover. That way,
I can be relaxed every inch of the way, knowing that a flat tire or a sudden
downpour isn't going to thrust me into panic mode. It also gives me more
time to stop and visit interesting sites along the way.

Of course, the down-side is that I will often talk myself out of a trip
because I have a limited amount of time and cannot squeeze the trip in with
the amount of "extra" time I like to have.


"Pat" <intex@tmail.com> wrote in message
news:669iskF2f508iU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> If you're doing a tour, you can't approach it like that clueless idiot on
>> the Fat Tire Beer commercials. You have to plan how many miles to ride,
>> where you are going to stay, where to get food and water, what and how
>> much
>> to carry, and so on. If you don't, you could be find yourself in a bad
>> way.
>>
>> --
>> Larry Dickman
>
> What I do is sketch out general guidelines. I figure out things like...if
> I'm in this area at nightfall, then here are my options for spending the
> night...,etc. I get a general idea but from then on out, I like to be
> spontaneous. For example, I carried camping supplies into Ireland, but it
> rained 1/3 of the time, so I opted to stay in hostels instead. I rode to
> the coast to see the Cliffs of Moher, but there was a storm at sea and all
> I could see was rain and fog. So, I turned southward and used a second
> option of things I wanted to see if I had the time.
>
> If I limited myself to a set itinerary, it would not "fit" my idea of a
> good time. I like being able to react and go in a totally different
> direction if need be.
>

ZBicyclist

Ron Wallenfang wrote:

> From Nevada desert to Utah salt flats to Illinois cornfields to the
> north woods in which I grew up, there's a lot of territory you can
> take in quickly, from an aesthetic standpoint.

Very kindly put, Ron.

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch

Papa Tom <TomMontalbano@optonline.net> wrote:

> Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If all we
> wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, we
> would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead of a car likely
> prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!

There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail you
see is inversely proportional to the sophistication (and hence, speed) of
your means of transportation. You'll see more driving than you would
flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more interested in
rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best option is to walk.
Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of the
best compromises between covering ground and still seeing something.
Charles Kuralt commented, when the last segment of I-80 was finished, that
"It is now possible to travel from coast to coast without seeing
ANYTHING." I've driven much of that highway, and I'm sure Ron has seen
many more interesting things along it than I have.


Bill

__o |Weaning our nation from fossil fuels should be understood as
_`\(,_ |the most patriotic policy to which we can commit ourselves.
(_)/ (_) | -Robert Redford

Tom Sherman

D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch wrote:
> Papa Tom <TomMontalbano@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If all we
>> wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible, we
>> would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead of a car likely
>> prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!
>
> There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
> named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail you
> see is inversely proportional to the sophistication (and hence, speed) of
> your means of transportation. You'll see more driving than you would
> flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more interested in
> rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best option is to walk.
> Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of the
> best compromises between covering ground and still seeing something.[...]

I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable tires.

[1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

DougC

Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> I would choose a recumbent trike if I really want to see things. The
> riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
> hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
> balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
> durable tires.
>
> [1] Reference to the vehicle, not narrow "technical" off-road trails.
>

I've been casting long glances at the upcoming Sun delta trikes, in
particular the $1700 X-3 AX:

http://www.bentrideronline.com/inde...Id=388&blogId=1

However I'll have to see it in person first, or at least see one of the
others that uses the same frame.

....Also I am curious about the width, or lack of it. I noticed with the
current models that the rear wheels are considerably narrower than the
front wheels of tadpole trikes. Of course tadpoles need room for their
front wheels to turn, and on a higher-seat delta you are free to lean
your upper body a bit in turns--but I'm wondering now--why all deltas
seem to be built with relatively high seating and all tadpoles are built
with relatively low seating.
.....
So it seems that delta trikes have the advantage of being narrower, but
the disadvantage of not turning under power equally well both ways--as
on most delta trikes, only one rear wheel is driven, and when turning
hard the inside rear wheel tends to lift....

--------

The only "high" tadpole I can recall is the Cycle Genius Phoenix:

http://www.cyclegenius.com/trx.html

Which has been discounted 20% lately, and is a model that I don't see
much talk about so it may not be selling very well. It doesn't look very
agile, it'd probably get you more questions about being disabled than
any other trike around I think.

Does anyone make a lower-seat delta at all?.... Certainly running a
chain under a low-set seat cannot be an impossible task; most of the
tadpole trikes do it....
~