Search results for:

When your nose is itchy and you brush your teeth with an electric toothbrush.

Likewise. Though this had me doubting it. Would love to try it for giggles.

Both are sweet.

What is it with cyclists and naked cycling photoshoots.

Really quite ideal as it is now. I wouldn't try anything skinnier on it.
Would love to see it with 80mms, cough @tijs.

38mm carbon rims with my carbon suzue pro max

Lel, is this really a question.

^^ looks fucking sick though.

^ well if it is then truly, chapeau.

That is sweet. Thought the golden standard imo for this type of bike is this. Suprised it hasn't been posted.

Your dog is amazing.

I was going up a hill (the col d'azet) and I was overtaken by a 'freewheeling' granny.

Hmm, good call though I hardly know any UK shops let alone scandi ones of the same ilk.

Tbh, can't say very precisely the style, but probably not the double breasted military style unfortunately.

Looking goode.

Somehow indeed.

Ah thanks. This is where the shortcomings of being 6 ft 5 come into play.

If one wanted a big fuckoff calf legnth winter overcoat where would one search?

I'd assume loading both would make the curvature go to 0 as you'd be making the positive curve of the saddle flatten but only accentuating the negative curve. Can't imagine the negative curve bending to positive under loading (I know it can't but if that's our argument for saddles being stiffer...).

Alas, I'm sure it'll be covered in due course.

Intuitively (ie guessing) a loading a domestic won't try to change the sign of the curvature, whereas loading a saddle will...?

I'll take your word for it. I always find it tricky to think of saddles.

Looking nice, would like to see the whole thing.
Done away with the drops?

Best thing I've seen in a while.

Yeah, I took shell to exclude tension structures, rather thinking along the lines of concrete shells.

Yeah, classic numberphile video; where does it address whether saddles are better than domes, all I thought it said was that the Gaussian curvature of anticlastics are negative and synclastics are positive?

For some reason had it in my head that saddles where intrinsically more efficient a (concrete shell) structure than domes. Must be mistaken.

Am I right in thinking that in general anticlastic shell structures are stronger and stiffer than synclastic shells?
I remember reading something along those lines, but can't find much to back it up?

Oh, yeh you're right; haven't seen Lord of the rings hence my mistake.

Star Wars reference?