Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How Irish cyclists can cut risk of ‘vibration’ injuries on bad roads

Options

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Just convert to Tubeless and run 30c tyres at say around 75psi to reduce vibration, unless of course you're racing..



  • Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭Hi Ho


    Better still, go to 32mm and down to 50-60 psi - will make no difference to speed and a big difference to comfort.

    If still an issue, they say the Redshift stem is a gamechanger - it's expensive and I haven't tried it yet, but all the Redshift stuff seems very well through out and innovative



  • Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭ofthelord


    I've used the redshift stem and seatpost on my gravel bike for the last 6 months or so, and love them. My arms & shoulders used to sometimes feel the worse for the many bumpier sections after a 3 hour offroad cycle around the Wicklow trails, now on the bike most of the bumps are brilliantly absorbed by the redshift kit and no more feeling it still later in the day!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2 Miles_Turner


    Thanks to the OP for drawing attention to this. The article emphasises the health issues more than I would have done, but then it was written by the health editor. What my article provides is simple formulae for calculating the power loss and the vibration dosage caused by road roughness. These formulae depend on the idea that in a sense all roads are rough in the same way, so that the roughness is quantified by a single number called the roughness index. This surprising idea is not mine, of course, it is a well established notion of road engineers. The power loss and the vibration occur in the body of the rider, so one would think that the physiological characteristics of the rider's body would be important and might be very individual. But, in the case of power loss, these factors cancel out of the result, which only depends on the roughness index and the vertical compliance of the bicycle. (From a physics point of view, this is an astonishing outcome.) The general idea here is well known. But the result that only the roughness index and the vertical compliance matter, and can be combined in a simple formula to give the power loss, is new.

    So cyclists can now compare the roughness resistance with the usual rolling resistance and with aerodynamic drag, and reach their own conclusions about the best solution for their style of cycling.

    A substantially similar preprint version of the article can be found on ResearchGate for free. I am sorry that the final version on the publisher's website is indeed paywalled.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭Ryath




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Tenzor07




  • Registered Users Posts: 2 Miles_Turner


    "Get a gravel bike" is excellent advice for many, but not all. For some (e.g., time trialists, triathletes), the extra aerodynamic drag caused by bigger tyres is an important drawback. Building more vertical compliance into the frame does not have this disadvantage. That includes more flexible seatposts, which are often an easy retrofit, and also likely a useful improvement for those with perfectly good bikes that just can't accommodate larger tyres.



  • Registered Users Posts: 30 Quango Unchained


    Wider tyres and a shock absorbing seatpost are now on the upgrade list. Thanks Miles for the interesting research and for drawing attention to this.



Advertisement