What is your favorite green product?

That explains it: You have a saddle when you needed a seat.

Tom

 

Back to the other green product... I finally had an accident with a LED bulb. It was inevitable with the variety I've been trying, that my switching from fixture to lamp to socket would eventually result in a slip of the hand.

It crashed to the ground. All but a little chunk of glas had shattered into many small pieces. I pulled it out (held into place with just silicon), covered the opening with clear tape, and put it back into the socket. Not requiring a gas or even glass sure sets LED apart from the rest. I wonder how much G-force one can actually withstand. Hmm?

Anywho, that 450-lumen bulb certainly won't go to waste. Now I have a killer light for my grill outside... without any worries of glass breaking.
.

 

Sorry, but with my first exposure to baby diapers? I'd be willing to poison the planet to near extinction for the relative convience of rapid disposabilty...

Listen I try...but I know my weaknesses.....give me velcro fastners...plastic lined odor sealing cans...and take it far, far away from me...hide it with a Polar Bear in a landfill and let it rot for a 1000 years...but the less I have to smell the better.

 

Has anyone said "Kermit"? Given the title of this thread, it seems like an obvious answer.

Tom

 

"It's not easy being green" seems like an apt theme, doesn't it? Sometimes it is easy, though.

 

You and a lot of other people. About six billion.

 

Whoo Hoo! For once I'm on the winning side!

 

The game's far from over. Natural selection works slowly, but effectively.

 

I'm double bagging the Next Elmo Disposable Diaper in a plastic Zip Lock bag and disposing it in the "regular trash"...it's a tough job but somebody has to do it....

 

And this is exactly why the human race is doomed. Because you, and I, and 99.99999% of the rest of us, DEMAND and will not let go of luxuries that did not exist a century ago and that are transforming the Earth into a place where we will be unable to survive except as a stone-age culture with about a million people on the planet.

Kermit is not a product. He's a person. Or at the very least a personality. But he is a lovable little chap.

Natural selection works by weeding out the unfit. But civilization blocks nature's culling methods and allows the unfit to reproduce. Once civilization collapses and the human race reverts to a stone-age culture, natural selection will be able to resume its work. But for the moment, it's on the side lines.

 

Daniel, I disagree. NS is still at work. Case in point, the stromatolites... they used to dominate the planet (a LOOOOONG time ago). They polluted the atmosphere with large amounts of oxygen, which nearly wiped them out. Of course, that was a handy thing for the life that followed. My point is that creatures modifying their environment is defo a part of the system. Humans and stromatolites may be the only ones to do it on a global scale, however.

 

Horse manure - it fertilizes the garden and helps feed us year round. It is renewable and sustainable at no cost.

 

Wow, quite a discussion on the recumbents...I didn't mean to start any flame wars. (well, maybe I did, but not so anybody'd get hurt).

Actually I'm not sure there's more absolute force on a recumbent than a diamond-frame bicycle. In the 'bent you are pushing against the seat back, but on an upright wedgie you can first stand, then pull on the handlebars for even more power.

Two problems with recumbents: Going up hills and visibility. By visibility I mean being seen - it's much easier to see what's ahead of you on a recumbent than on an upright bicycle where you have to crane your neck upwards. Your natural tendency is to look forward or look down. The really reclined recumbents usually have a neck brace to rest your head on, mine doesn't need that.

I just gear down for the hills, having 3 wheels I can go as slow as I want without falling over, but even so I keep it above 8 mph climbing my 6% grade on the way to work. I've only put 30 miles on it so far (then the end of daylight savings hit, and I don't ride in the dark).

The recumbents were banned by the UCI before they put fairings on them. Yes, the 83 mph record holder and other high-speed events use fairings, but so do the upright bikes that go for the absolute max speed. Recumbents have an aerodynamic advantage that the other racers didn't like, with or without the fairing. My trike layout probably isn't that aerodynamic, but most of the aerodynamic hit is in the position of the body, not in the frame. Compared to my rather upright hybrid bike position (Trek 720) that I used to ride, I think this is more aerodynamic.

Mostly I bought it because it's more comfortable - both on the butt and on the wrists (and the neck to some extent). Even though I put on 400-500 miles a year, I never felt comfortable doing more than 10 miles in one stretch on my standard bike. Also, I might get a full fairing which will keep the rain off and then I'll be comfortable riding in any weather. A full fairing would not be safe with two wheels as it could catch a side wind and push you around.

 

Once you put a full fairing on a trike, I think you've got a velomobile. No? I pondered the idea of getting a velomobile. The idea appeals to me. But Allan talked me out of it. There was some big disadvantage which slips my mind at the moment, but which when he mentioned it, changed my mind. And they're EXPENSIVE! I'd have used it for short runs to the grocery store. But the Xebra is better for shopping anyway. And now my preferred store closed because they could not renew their building lease, and the closest alternative is on a major intersection, where I would not want to ride a bike.

 

It's a two-step process: First you trash your environment, and then natural selection cuts you down. We are still in phase 1, trashing our environment. At some point natural selection will step in and take us down, but for the moment it's biding its time.

I am a strong proponent of Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium: Natural selection leaves species pretty much alone for shorter or longer chunks of time, and then every once in a while it brings down the hammer, and evolution happens in (geologically) short bursts.

Technology (the green revolution, antibiotics, cheap fossil fuel, etc.) has extended the sweet spot for human civilization beyond what would have otherwise been the natural carrying capacity of the planet. But at the same time it has enabled us to dig ourselves into a much deeper hole than we'd have otherwise been able to do. As a result, when the hammer falls, it's going to fall a lot harder. But for the time being, we are in stasis, and not evolving physically. Only culturally and technologically.

 

This seems like a good time to lighten the mood a bit again (and again get away from the recumbents ) And thanks Nerfer for the reality check on power output. It would seem that if recumbent riders could put out more power, then they'd be able to climb faster, right? I have yet to meet a recumbent rider who can even come close to my climbing speed (and I'm climbing on my steel bike while they're riding carbon fiber and Ti wonders). Do I use my upper body to climb? Hell yes. Can recumbent riders do the same? Hell no.

I really blew it with my previous green bike pictures. I've had this saddle ready to go for ages, and realized that it was finally time to put it on! Yes, that's a green ostrich skin saddle, folks. Greener literally and figuratively once again. And if you look REALLY close you can make out the green headset as well - also new since the older pictures above.

 

The problem isn't absolute force, the problem is how the force is delivered to the wheels. With a recumbent you can develop massive amounts of force, assuming your knees don't blow (it's a problem), but you have to continuously exert that force to climb a hill.

With an upright, you exert a short burst to stand up, which gains the rider potential energy due to raising his center of mass. Gravity works on this potential energy, converting it to kinetic energy for climbing the hill. Once the rider has dropped on the pedal arc, a short burst with the other leg lifts him up and reestablishes the potential energy. Hill climbing becomes a series of pushes with rests in between. With a recumbent you don't get the rests; you have to press hard the whole time.

Another hill climbing problem with recumbents is maintaining balance. Most recumbents have longer wheel bases, and at low speed it can become difficult to keep them upright. This is particularly hard with my tandem recumbent.

Tom

 

I'll just keep looking at my pretty pictures.

 

Hey, I'm glad you enjoy your bent trike. I just was pointing out what some of the real advantages are. I have hurt myself on both a hard tail mountain bike and a tri-bike, just not my feelings. I've conditioned myself to spin up most hills, even with the aggressive gearing of my tri-bike, since it conserves my legs.

Definitely a mountain or hybrid is not made for aerodynamics. I had bar ends on my 730, but the relaxed frame makes for a bad tuck. I really don't feel the difference in aerodynamics on my cervelo until I get above 20mph, and I have only used my cf 3 spoke racing wheels on races. I don't own a disk because I want control even if its windy. I think those racing bents probably do give better aerodynamics than a racing upright bike, but I would not feel comfortable on the roads that low down and reclined with other traffic around. I'm not even allowed to ride my tri-bike in some group rides because of its lack of maneuverability in packs.

I say that is the big thing. I think my aerobars are comfortable for a 40km race or 50 mile ride, but I still don't like centuries. You would probably be fine on a recumbent for that distance. I want to do a half iron man, so I do have to get in shape to ride 60 miles and still be able run.

 

Yes you are probably right. Damn my misguided love for man made materials that trap and hold moisture! Surely, I shall be wearing velcro shoes in hell!