Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

capt_slog

I forgot why I came on this thread...

"Broad daylight"

My mum will use this when she means something happening under everyone's noses or occurring with added cheek, such as robbing the local shop at 4pm the other Sunday.

It seems a strange expression.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

It boils down the the cost and/or scarcity of parts.
Sometimes, complete, usable chassis (chassees?) are hard to find. Particularly monocoque.

Just Google replica cars like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBnSmzTRsqE

...for the next step in the fakery stakes.

All that time and it still doesn't look quite right. On the other hand, probably better made than the real thing!

It intrigued me a few years ago, when Porsche 356 Coupes were relatively cheap, that people would actually pay more for a replica of a Speedster than a real 356! How can pretending to own a Speedster be better than actually owning a real 356?!

A trivial thing that cheered me up a few weeks back was seeing a shambolic shed of a 356 with a bizarre intake on the roof. I can only assume it to be a replica but there's always the hope that one 356 has been allowed to age disgracefully!

Lagrange

Capt Slog wrote:

I forgot why I came on this thread...

"Broad daylight"

My mum will use this when she means something happening under everyone's noses or occurring with added cheek, such as robbing the local shop at 4pm the other Sunday.

It seems a strange expression.

'Broad Beans'

My mum used to use this when we ate broad beans. Thing is they were not broad and were not orange and from a tin like proper beans. And they made me kack my pants,

It seems a strange expression.

Lagrange

bompington wrote:

Every now and then when I have enough time and energy, I'm lucky enough to be able to commute home with a detour up the UK's highest public road, the Cairnwell Pass at Glenshee.

Whenever I recall riding up there, the bike I see in my mind's eye, propped against the snow gate at the top while I take a wee break, is an old, heavy, 70s (or possibly 60s) vintage road bike, hand painted in British Racing Green: my first proper road bike, bought second hand for £40 over 40 years :shock: ago.

Why is it this bike that I picture? (I've done it once on my black crosser, several times each on the old Rusty Raleigh and my current red PX Pro Carbon)

I can only assume that there is something about the ride that reminds me of those far-off days, but I can't consciously think what that connection might be - I lived a long way from the Highlands then and never rode anywhere more mountainous than the Forest of Dean and the Welsh border. I scarcely ever recall that bike at any other time.

So why?

Maybe you are mad?

haydenm

If people didn't wear socks and shoes all day, would their toenails be less shiny?

rjsterry

How do you know their toe nails are shiny if they are wearing shoes and socks?

step83

HaydenM wrote:

If people didn't wear socks and shoes all day, would their toenails be less shiny?

couple years back I managed to jab a chunk out my finer and nail while using a modelling knife, part of the fix involved super gluing my nail back together and i then fine sanded the area to flat it down. I ended up with one very smooth very polished patch fingernail.
So while in theory yes socks should buff up the area, I think they lack the abrasiveness to do so.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

How do you know their toe nails are shiny if they are wearing shoes and socks?

The question was about relative shininess. You don't necessarily need to know the absolute shininess of someone's toenails to determine whether under changed circumstances they would be less shiny.

I think it might almost be time to go home.

mfin

HaydenM wrote:

If people didn't wear socks and shoes all day, would their toenails be less shiny?

Are your toenails shinier than your fingernails?

Wayne Plunger

Dancing..What is it for?

mrfpb

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Dancing..What is it for?

"A vertical expression of horizontal intention"
(Can't remember who I'm quoting)

crispybug2

Waiting for a work appointment today, a group of quite elderly cyclists (60/70’s) were gathering at the same time, one of them had a vintage looking Raleigh bike similar to the one I had when I was a teenager. Anyway it had those two part brake levers so you could pull the brakes from the top of your handlebars
So my question is when did these stop being used and were these ever used on pro bikes?

shirley_basso

Suicide levers?

Clue is in the name.

Wayne Plunger

Shirley Basso wrote:

Suicide levers?

Clue is in the name.

I always thought that suicide levers were the name given to gear levers on the down tube, not the second pull brake lever.

Pross

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Suicide levers?

Clue is in the name.

I always thought that suicide levers were the name given to gear levers on the down tube, not the second pull brake lever.

Nope, the brakes levers on the tops as far as I'm aware. Still get them on cross bikes, especially child specific bikes although I think they tend to be separate levers.

pblakeney

crispybug2 wrote:

So my question is when did these stop being used and were these ever used on pro bikes?

Fairly sure that I saw them recently.
Paris Roubaix?

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

Wayne Plunger wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Suicide levers?

Clue is in the name.

I always thought that suicide levers were the name given to gear levers on the down tube, not the second pull brake lever.

Nope, the brakes levers on the tops as far as I'm aware. Still get them on cross bikes, especially child specific bikes although I think they tend to be separate levers.

Same idea but different execution - the cross bike levers pull the cable same as the main lever. The suicide lever pushes the main lever. Generally they are fairly floppy things so a lot of hand movement is taking up slack in the system. I assume it would be possible to design a modern version that was a bit nicer to use but the aforementioned cross levers probably do that already.

It must be said that the combination of suicide levers, Weinmann cheese centre pulls and a steep downhill gradient is an interesting experience....... More about reducing your rate of acceleration than actually slowing down or stopping!

Downtube shifters should definitely not be called suicide levers - they are ultimately the best gear shift mechanism we have.

chris_bass

Are the top 3 tennis players really still that good or are all younger players just not as good as previously?

orraloon

While on top deck of a bus in Oxford High St, which is a street amok with big buses, taxis, cyclists, pedestrians, tourist gaggles etc, watching a kid on a motorised skateboard zipping in and out of the buses. Brave or foolhardy, that is the question? No idea how controllable those things are, how quickly they can stop.

FocusZing

Chris Bass wrote:

Are the top 3 tennis players really still that good or are all younger players just not as good as previously?

I will guess at they have more experience/confidence playing the pressure points and finishing off slams (they've done it multiple times). They also keep developing their games.

I don't think it's through lack of young talent as the prize money is excellent and it's a relatively popular game.

Here's a left field reason, their eyes aren't as quick to respond because they keep looking at their phones.

keef66

Rolf F wrote:

It must be said that the combination of suicide levers, Weinmann cheese centre pulls and a steep downhill gradient is an interesting experience....... More about reducing your rate of acceleration than actually slowing down or stopping!

Downtube shifters should definitely not be called suicide levers - they are ultimately the best gear shift mechanism we have.

Scariest moments of my early cycling involved the aforementioned cheese Weinmanns and wet, steel rims. Once descending into Wharfedale and nearly being right hooked by a horse, and a second time being flagged down by a copper as I came down off the N Yorks Moors. I eventually stopped about half a mile after the layby he was parked in, and dutifully retraced my steps to find out what he wanted.*

Only people who've grown up with modern STIs would describe DT shifters as suicide levers. I love their simplicity / flexibility. There's a certain satisfaction to be had from getting each gear change spot on, or going from one end of the cassette to the other in a single movement as you roll up to a red light, ready for a quick getaway.

*to ask where I lived and why I wasn't in school. I was off for A-level revision as it happens. Bet you'd not get that kind of personal service these days...

edward.s

Modern cross-top levers are a world away from those Weinmann levers... Like the poster above, I had some terrifying experiences thanks to those Weinmann levers, some steel rims and my old Raleigh Sprint 10 in the rain. Put a v-shaped notch in the bumper of a Fiat Panda by failing to stop once (yes I did offer to put the damage right).

Shimano now do a hydraulic cross-top lever for all you fans of disc brakes out there :-)

chris_bass

FocusZing wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Are the top 3 tennis players really still that good or are all younger players just not as good as previously?

I will guess at they have more experience/confidence playing the pressure points and finishing off slams (they've done it multiple times). They also keep developing their games.

I don't think it's through lack of young talent as the prize money is excellent and it's a relatively popular game.

Here's a left field reason, their eyes aren't as quick to respond because they keep looking at their phones.

but that has always been the case - there are no grand slam winners under the age of 30, someone young should have been able to beat them.

Nadal was 19 when he won his first, federer was 21, Djokovic 20 even Murray was only 25 and he lost a load of finals before winning.

Is it just a case of it being unlikely that all 3 of them will have a bad tournament (by their standards) so one of them usually wins?

FocusZing

Chris Bass wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Are the top 3 tennis players really still that good or are all younger players just not as good as previously?

I will guess at they have more experience/confidence playing the pressure points and finishing off slams (they've done it multiple times). They also keep developing their games.

I don't think it's through lack of young talent as the prize money is excellent and it's a relatively popular game.

Here's a left field reason, their eyes aren't as quick to respond because they keep looking at their phones.

but that has always been the case - there are no grand slam winners under the age of 30, someone young should have been able to beat them.

Nadal was 19 when he won his first, federer was 21, Djokovic 20 even Murray was only 25 and he lost a load of finals before winning.

Is it just a case of it being unlikely that all 3 of them will have a bad tournament (by their standards) so one of them usually wins?

True, they are mainly shared between the three of them, but I think their experience has helped them remain at the top when it come to crunch time.

Nadal winning 12 French opens is just incredible.

Do you think it's worse for it, or do you like to see the favourites in the final? Personally I like seeing the best fight it out and names I know, but I would also like other players to experience their dream.

chris_bass

I think it is worse for the fact that no young players have come though that can challenge them. How could it not be? if someone was able to beat them they would, almost by definition, be better and so the game would be better. no?

the thing that intrigued me is whether the top three are still that good or if the younger players aren't as good as younger players in the past (pre the current top three). Should Federer, at 37, still be considered a favourite for grand slams? maybe it is better sports science that is helping their careers last longer? maybe players peak later now? maybe the next grand slam winners will start later but also carry on longer?

but this isn't happening in the women's game so maybe not?

intriguing don't you think?

webboo

It might be also that none of the new young players have links to dodgy Spanish doctors.

FocusZing

Chris Bass wrote:

I think it is worse for the fact that no young players have come though that can challenge them. How could it not be? if someone was able to beat them they would, almost by definition, be better and so the game would be better. no?

the thing that intrigued me is whether the top three are still that good or if the younger players aren't as good as younger players in the past (pre the current top three). Should Federer, at 37, still be considered a favourite for grand slams? maybe it is better sports science that is helping their careers last longer? maybe players peak later now? maybe the next grand slam winners will start later but also carry on longer?

but this isn't happening in the women's game so maybe not?

intriguing don't you think?

Yep.

FocusZing

Webboo wrote:

It might be also that none of the new young players have links to dodgy Spanish doctors.

I'm pretty sure it would be a level playing field by now. It's just they have the experience at winning and are great players that keep improving their game.

They might be able to improve endurance, but not the skill they have developed making a top spin pass, serve, drop shot...It's not as though young players can't keep up with shots.

FocusZing

FocusZing wrote:

Webboo wrote:

It might be also that none of the new young players have links to dodgy Spanish doctors.

I'm pretty sure it would be a level playing field by now. It's just they have the experience at winning and are great players that keep improving their game.

They might be able to improve endurance, but not the skill they have developed making a top spin pass, serve, drop shot...It's not as though young players can't keep up with shots.

The way the scoring works too enables consistent (keep the intensity level) players who are mentally strong win.

Pross

Chris Bass wrote:

Are the top 3 tennis players really still that good or are all younger players just not as good as previously?

Djokovic certainly still looked that good earlier but is the youngest of the 3. Compare and contrast with the women's game where the number one seems to change every month and this Gauff kid looks ready to beat anyone.