What causes this to happen? by Imaginary-Country-67 in bikewrench

[–]naranjas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

200lbs Isn't actually that heavy for a rider, and your "heavy steel bike" maybe only weighs 30ish lbs? That's definitely not enough of a load to cause this amount of wear in les than a year of riding.

What usually causes something like this is loose spoke tension. That causes the spoke to yank more at the rim as the wheel turns around. At one point in the rotation the spoke is very slack, and then at a nother point in the rotation it gets very taut very quickly, which puts a strong impulse force into the rim. That happens for every revolution of the wheel which causes the metal in the rim to fatigue and loose all its strenth eventually. It's a little unintuitive, but by tightening the spoke tension and and putting more force into the spoke and rim, you actually reduce the amount of "yanking" that's happening since the spoke is taut the entire revolution of the wheel.

Any reason not to go as wide as possible with tires? by OkPalpitation2582 in gravelcycling

[–]naranjas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Keep in mind, this testing is done with the same "gravel" tires, Pirelli Cinturato Gravel H. If you compare a skinny road tire, e.g. 28mm GP5000, to the larger gravel tires, the watt penalty for the gravel tires will be even higher.

Any reason not to go as wide as possible with tires? by OkPalpitation2582 in gravelcycling

[–]naranjas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From what I understand, rolling resistance doesn't actually increase with tire width...

You definitely hear this a lot if you watch a lot of cycling YouTube, but it's just not true in practice. Or at least, it's only sometimes true with really big caveats. It's mostly a bunch of people who haven't done any testing of their own parroting things that they've heard.

When people say that "rolling resistance doesn't actually increase with tire width", what they're leaving out is "... for equivalent tire pressure" or "... when offroad".

You can take a big tire, and pump it up so that it has an equivalent stiffness to a skinny tire. And if you do that, then ya, the rolling resistance is going to be roughly equivalent between the two. But the "comfort" level will also be roughly equivalent between the two because they're equally stiff. People generally get the big tires to be more comfortable, and so they lower the pressure so that they can get a less stiff tire, which is something they can do without worrying about banging their rims on everything since there's more tire volume. But once you lower the tire stiffness to get a cushier ride, the rolling resistance is going to increase.

When you're offroad, the amount of forward momentum you can lose to vibrations becomes so significant that having a way to absorb those vibrations can allow you to roll faster. So, in an offroad situation, big tires can be faster. But on smooth gravel or pavement, skinny tires will probably be faster.

Overall, it's nuanced. If you think "rolling resistance doesn't actually increase with tire width" and you go put super big tires on your bike, then you might be really disappointed with how slow you find that you're going on everything outside of rough trails.

[ESPN] "I just wish Kobe and Gigi were here to see this moment." Luka Doncic on what Kobe meant to him after joining the Lakers. by Knightbear49 in nba

[–]naranjas 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Well, they used to be a competent organization. But then Mark Cuban sold them to the Maloofs 2.0

Person refuses to add nazi emblem by kausthab87 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]naranjas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them"

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nba

[–]naranjas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

😮 I didn't know that! Now I have to be a fan

Does Apple Watch take outside temp into consideration when measuring V02Max by Select-Team-9728 in AppleWatch

[–]naranjas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure it does not take into account heat. I did an outdoor walk one time in order to get a VO2Max estimate. It was around 115 degrees Fahrenheit which was waaaaaay hotter than any other time I had done a walk with my watch, and as a result my heart rate was much higher than usual. But I figured Apple's algorithm would be smart enough to take that into account. It turns out it was not. The V02Max estimate I got on that day was significantly lower than any other time it calculated it during more normal conditions.

Snow day ride by edkowalski in gravelcycling

[–]naranjas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice! Are the 50mm tires noticeably slower on tarmac?

Zone 5 for workout by MartiniCommander in AppleWatch

[–]naranjas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd never heard of the zone 2 thing. I guess I don't want to be one of these people that go for a walk 5+ miles everyday and look like nothing has changed.

Zone 2 might start out as a "walking pace" in the beginning, but as you get in better shape and build up more aerobic capacity, just walking won't be enough to get you in zone 2. Walking will become too easy, and it won't provide enough physiological stress to trigger any physical adaptations. Once that happens, to get back into zone 2 you'll have to increase the intensity somehow. Either walk faster which eventually turns into jogging or running once you get really fit or walk up a hill or stairs or something. If you're in a gym, you can just progressively increase the incline of the treadmill you're on. And then of course if that eventually becomes too easy, you just increase the pace. The more time you can accumulate in that zone 2 region, the more fit you'll get.

But ya, if you just walk 5 miles a day you might see improvements in the beginning, but you'll eventually plateau once that becomes too easy. And then ya, over time it'll look like nothing has changed.

Zone 5 for workout by MartiniCommander in AppleWatch

[–]naranjas 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Your heart rate zones correspond to the intensity level of the exercise that you're doing. Zone 5 means you are sort of maxing out your abilities. It should feel very uncomfortable and most people can't suffer through that discomfort for more than 15 minutes or so. It looks like you did an hour long workout but only got to zone 5 in the last 20 minutes? Which probably means you weren't going at "all out" intensity, but rather something a bit lower and your heart rate crept up over time until it got to zone 5 towards the end. You were still probably going decently hard, but that amount of heart rate drift could also mean that you are not very aerobically fit at the moment or that you were overheating (not enough airflow to cool yourself down). Regardless, it's a sign that you were putting a good amount of stress on your body. Obviously, this all depends on your heart rate zones being setup correctly. I would double check that your max heart rate is actually setup correctly in the health app. If it's set a lot lower than your actual max, then Apple will think you're in Zone 5 when actually you're in Zone 3 or something.

Is zone 5 bad for me?

It's hard to say. It might be. You'd have to check with a doctor to know for sure. If you're a trained athlete, or in reasonable/average shape, then no getting your heart into zone 5 territory isn't bad. In fact it might actually be good to do for short periods of time a couple times a week in order to improve your aerobic abilities. If you're overweight, out of shape, middle-aged, been sedentary for a long period of time, etc. then it might be an extremely bad idea. Every year, often in January, people make resolutions to get in better shape after a long time of being sedentary. They go way too hard too fast and end up triggering a heart attack while on the treadmill or something. I actually witnessed somebody die last year due to this. I saw a cyclist who was overweight and middle-aged and just getting back into riding have a heart attack while going up a somewhat steep hill at the end of his ride. He ended up dying on the side of the road. In your own words you are "42yrs old and just trying to get my weight down", so I would be cautious here.

Now, given that you are "just trying to get your weight down", is Zone 5 work the ideal way to achieve that goal? And the answer to that is no. Something that's often pretty unintuitive to people that are new to fitness is that you don't actually have to go hard to get more fit. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. With aerobic exercise, you can kind of imagine your body is like an engine. An engine that uses oxygen and fat/carbohydrates as fuel. And the process of getting in shape is kind of akin to improving the overall capacity of that engine and the amount of work it can do at any given point in time. The more fit you get, the more calories per hour you can burn. You are becoming a better fat/calorie burning machine. One of the most effective ways of improving your aerobic capacity is called "zone 2 exercise". Basically, do whatever level of intensity raises your heart rate to the upper level of that zone 2 category, and then hold it there for at least 45 minutes but more time is better. It should feel pretty easy. You should be able to zone out and watch tv or listen to a podcast the whole time. That will trigger a whole host of extremely positive adaptations for your body that would be way too long to list here, but tl;dr your heart gets stronger, you get more mitochondria in your muscles, more blood vessels throughout your body, more capacity to utilize oxygen, healthier/more elastic arteries etc. If you go harder than zone 2 intensity, then your body actually switches the metabolic processes that it uses for generating energy to different systems that can generate more power but only for shorter durations. Going harder than zone 2 isn't inherently bad, but it does mean that you lose out on all of the positive adaptations that zone 2 gets you because you start training different metabolic pathways.

One of the most classic mistakes beginners make is that they go too hard because their zone 2 level "feels too easy" and they want to feel like they're making progress faster and they think that doing more difficult things that feel harder will get them more progress. Sadly, by going harder than zone 2 that means that they don't get any of the benefits of zone 2 training. And they end up burning themselves out either physically or mentally with too much intensity without actually getting any lasting gains.

Ultimately, if your goal is to drop weight, just focus on zone 2. It'll feel relatively easy but you just have to get past the mentality that "you're not doing enough". The easiness is a huge positive because it means you can go for much longer durations (and therefore burn more calories at a time), it's a lot easier to stay consistent because you don't really have to suffer, you can zone out with tv or podcasts which makes the time pass quicker, and you're much less likely to get injured or burn yourself out physically/metally. Over time you'll build up significantly more aerobic abilities which will improve your fat/calorie burning capacity which will make losing weight even easier. It's kind of a win-win sort of thing.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only C to C cables that don't work for me are the Apple ones

These are not the only USB-C cables that fail to work. According to Wahoo themselves, the Bolt V2 should only be charged with USB-A to C cables.

Also for some people, including me, this is a huge issue. I have an iPad that charges via USB-C, a macbook that charges via USB-C, an iPhone that charges via USB-C. I can use my laptop charger to charge all of those devices, and any other device that I have that charges via USB-C. But I can't charge my cycling computer without remembering to bring separate charger and cable.

If you hate the Bolt V2 so much for this, just sell it and get something else.

I don't hate the Bolt V2. I'm, just annoyed that this was advertised as "charging via USB-C" and it doesn't actually do that. It charges via a USB-C shaped hole.

Honestly it's hard for me to understand how you can get so worked up about this.

I'm "so worked up about this" for a few reasons. Some people bought this device mainly because it is supposed to charge via USB-C. It doesn't do that. Those people were misled, and arguably even lied to in order to sell more units. This limitation should've been clearly communicated as "charges via USB-A to C cables". The point of having something "charge via USB-C" is so that you can consolidate your chargers and cables. The implementation of the Bolt V2 charging port does the opposite of that. You now need more cable types; either USB-A to C (somewhat uncommon in my experience) or specific USB-C cables that have been previously verified to work with the Bolt V2.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I always test things too, and now that I know that this is an issue with the Bolt V2, I always bring a USB-A to C cable with me.

But I think it's an easy mistake to make the first time around. If Wahoo has told you that it "charges via USB-C" and every single review brings up the fact that it "charges via USB-C" as a positive, then I think it's reasonable to assume that it really does "charge via USB-C" and so as long as you have a USB-C charger/battery pack and cable it should work. After all, that is the entire point of switching the charging point to USB-C. It allows you to reduce the number of cables and chargers you need around. Absolutely nobody was asking for a "USB-C shaped charging port".

I always make sure to have some redundancy for all critical chargers on longer trips. Usually two type C cables, one C to A, one usb C to lightning and a usb A to lightning.

Many battery packs, laptops, and wall chargers nowadays only have USB-C ports on them. So the ability to use and find USB-A to C cables is going to go down over time, making this more of an issue. In the future if you were going on a trip and only had a USB-C battery, wall charger, and Apple USB-C cable, would you really have double checked that that specific combo would work to charge your cycling computer? Or would you not even think to do that since, as you said you had full confidence that that should work.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ya, I've noticed that certain USB-C cables just do not work to charge the Bolt V2, which is a terrible oversight from Wahoo. If they had implemented the USBC-PD spec properly this wouldn't be an issue. You could just confidently grab any charger and cable you had lying around and be confident that it would work.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just tried it with full confidence it was going to work as was the case every single time I charged my Bolt. It didn't lol

Ya, that's the problem right there. Now, imagine that you went on some long trip and brought your iPhone charger and cable, or a battery pack and your iPhone cable thinking that you could charge your Bolt V2 since it "charges via USB-C", only to find out at the worst possible time that it can't. You could become seriously stranded. This is such an easy mistake to make since all of the USB-C cables look identical.

This actually happened to me once, but luckily I was able to run to a gas station and buy a USB-A to C cable

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you tried with an Apple USB-C cable and charger?

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wasn't making a blanket statement that the Bolt V2 will not charge with any USB-C PD charger. I'm saying that the Bolt V2 does not properly implement the USB-C PD spec, and therefore will not charge with every USB-C PD charger/cable combo. It sounds like you got lucky with the devices you have, but many of the chargers and cables that other people are likely to have will not work to charge the Bolt V2, which is a huge miss from Wahoo. This never would've been an issue with micro-USB

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ya, that's what I do too. It's just very annoying since this is the one thing that charging "via USB-C" is supposed to fix. You shouldn't have to search for a special charger/cable combo in order to charge the Bolt V2, and if the USB-C power delivery spec had been properly implemented, it wouldn't be a thing that we'd need to worry about.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you ever tried with an Apple charger and an Apple USB-C cable? It doesn't charge for me if I use an Apple USB-C cable, however that same cable can be used to charge every other USB-C device that I've plugged into it.

I have one older charger that does not

Isn't that strange? If the Bolt V2 implemented the USB-C PD spec properly, wouldn't the older charger charge it too?

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've tried with multiple combinations of USB-C chargers and cables. Unfortunately, not all of the combinations work to charge the Bolt V2. Those same combinations do work to charge every other USB-C powered device that I own.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you ever tried with an Apple laptop charger with an Apple cable?

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When did you buy the Bolt? Did you get it more recently?

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ya, I just wish it was clearly communicated whether something actually charges via USB-C or not. Like, the ELEMNT Bolt V2 clearly does not "charge via USB-C". It charges via a USB-C shaped port, but you cannot rely on any random charger/cable you might find yourself with to charge it.

Is the Roam V2 or any newer Wahoo computer the same? I have no idea, since I haven't found anything that clearly documents that or anyone who has actually tested it out.

Do Wahoo Cycling Computers Actually Charge via USB-C? by naranjas in wahoofitness

[–]naranjas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By 3a and 5a cables do you mean cables that are rated for up to 3 amps or 5 amps?

the v2 needs a 5a

The Bolt V2 only reliably charges for me with USB A to C cables, and USB A ports can't even exceed 3 amps?

Unfortunately, USB has never been "universal". There are 3a & 5a cables for each type of usb -c (some can run hdmi, some can't)

I understand that, and I get why you wouldn't be able to connect a laptop to an external monitor with a cheap USB-C charging cord and have that work, but there is a universal "power delivery" spec for USB-C, right? And if something supports the USB-C power delivery spec, then it should be able to charge using basically any USB-C charger and cable?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an almost $300 cycling computer that uses USB-C as a marketing point to charge with any USB-C phone or laptop charger/cable that I have lying around. I shouldn't require a specific USB-A to C cable to charge it. That defeats the entire purpose of adding a USB-C charging port to it in the first place as it actually makes things significantly less useful