4 ms·

I've felt neck fatigue around ~250 miles in a day. My solution is to regularly look down when it's safe to do so (not drafting). One idea I have is a Hololens-

I've felt neck fatigue around ~250 miles in a day. My solution is to regularly look down when it's safe to do so (not drafting). One idea I have is a Hololens-like setup, with a camera mounted to the front of the bike to allow the cyclist to ride in a "head down" position for long stretches, preventing neck fatigue and increasing aerodynamics.

beering 4y ago
Would belay glasses work?
asdff 4y ago
Bicyclists should just sit more upright so the neck doesn't have to be fatiqued in the first place. If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio, then you should want more wind resistance rather than less. It means you get to burn the same amount of calories in less real time and you can either chose to go on and burn more calories or do with that time however you like. If you aren't racing you should be avoiding all the 1% gain type stuff anyhow because it just makes you workout needlessly longer for a huge chunk of change, if the workout is what you are going for when riding a bike.
- seadan83 4y ago
  Body aerodynamics is more like the 30% gain territory, body geometry is the single most important factor for aerodynamics. I don't think it wise to think you know what is best for others. Longer is better cardio and needed for endurance training. Less watts wasted in air resistance just means you are riding faster. "It never gets easier, you just get faster"
  - raziel2701 4y ago
    They only said that if your goal in cycling is to get fit and health benefits then it makes the most sense to get a comfortable bike. I think it makes sense to fight back against the common recommendations you get from bike communities who are obsessing about weight and efficiency. If you are seeking to get fit by riding a bike, get a heavy bike. You'll do more work and you'll get stronger.
    - seadan83 4y ago
      I interpreted this, "If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio", as generally assuming that this is the purpose of most any bike riding. Just a lot of assumptions going on there, some know-it-all'ism that feels common. "Oh, why is this cyclist not in the bike lane?" (Perhaps because the bike lane is full of glass, perhaps because the bike lane is in a door zone, perhaps because the bike lane is hidden from busy drive ways, there could be tons of reasons but the person zooming by assumes they know everything there is about the person that spends years in the saddle..) So, this just kinda triggers me as arm-chair quarterbacking, it's really common and you just don't know a cyclists perspective until you've observed the conditions of shoulders at 2 feet away, and when you know statistics that intersections and turning traffic are more dangerous to cyclists than compared to riding further into the lane forcing traffic to move over to pass. So, I believe that is just assuming way too much. For many, 'fun' is the primary reason and for many others it is simply 'transportation'. > I think it makes sense to fight back against the common recommendations you get from bike communities who are obsessing about weight and efficiency. That could be the case, though really depends on which community one is referring to. Not all of them obsess about weight and efficiency. At the same time, being upright vs leaned over is hardly obsessive (given that it is the single largest efficiency gain you can have). Hence, if you care at all about efficiency, you're not going to be bolt upright. For safety reasons, it can be important to match traffic speed, there all sorts of reasons to ride faster that are not just 'obsessing over weight and efficiency'.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  There are a few problems with this idea. A forward position is much faster, both in terms of aerodynamics and the muscle groups involved with the pedal stroke. It allows even a relatively unfit cyclist to ride 20mph quite easily, rather than 13-14mph. This also means you can go further on a single ride. The purpose might be training, but you can't go very far on an upright bicycle—after 2 or 3 hours, there is quite a difference. Sitting upright puts more pressure on the sitbones. In a forward position, you can distribute the weight among the saddle, hands, and pedals. Again, this allows for longer, more productive rides.

beering 4y ago

Would belay glasses work?

asdff 4y ago

Bicyclists should just sit more upright so the neck doesn't have to be fatiqued in the first place. If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio, then you should want more wind resistance rather than less. It means you get to burn the same amount of calories in less real time and you can either chose to go on and burn more calories or do with that time however you like. If you aren't racing you should be avoiding all the 1% gain type stuff anyhow because it just makes you workout needlessly longer for a huge chunk of change, if the workout is what you are going for when riding a bike.

seadan83 4y ago
Body aerodynamics is more like the 30% gain territory, body geometry is the single most important factor for aerodynamics. I don't think it wise to think you know what is best for others. Longer is better cardio and needed for endurance training. Less watts wasted in air resistance just means you are riding faster. "It never gets easier, you just get faster"
- raziel2701 4y ago
  They only said that if your goal in cycling is to get fit and health benefits then it makes the most sense to get a comfortable bike. I think it makes sense to fight back against the common recommendations you get from bike communities who are obsessing about weight and efficiency. If you are seeking to get fit by riding a bike, get a heavy bike. You'll do more work and you'll get stronger.
  - seadan83 4y ago
    I interpreted this, "If the purpose of the ride is for training/health/cardio", as generally assuming that this is the purpose of most any bike riding. Just a lot of assumptions going on there, some know-it-all'ism that feels common. "Oh, why is this cyclist not in the bike lane?" (Perhaps because the bike lane is full of glass, perhaps because the bike lane is in a door zone, perhaps because the bike lane is hidden from busy drive ways, there could be tons of reasons but the person zooming by assumes they know everything there is about the person that spends years in the saddle..) So, this just kinda triggers me as arm-chair quarterbacking, it's really common and you just don't know a cyclists perspective until you've observed the conditions of shoulders at 2 feet away, and when you know statistics that intersections and turning traffic are more dangerous to cyclists than compared to riding further into the lane forcing traffic to move over to pass. So, I believe that is just assuming way too much. For many, 'fun' is the primary reason and for many others it is simply 'transportation'. > I think it makes sense to fight back against the common recommendations you get from bike communities who are obsessing about weight and efficiency. That could be the case, though really depends on which community one is referring to. Not all of them obsess about weight and efficiency. At the same time, being upright vs leaned over is hardly obsessive (given that it is the single largest efficiency gain you can have). Hence, if you care at all about efficiency, you're not going to be bolt upright. For safety reasons, it can be important to match traffic speed, there all sorts of reasons to ride faster that are not just 'obsessing over weight and efficiency'.
vehemenz 4y ago
There are a few problems with this idea. A forward position is much faster, both in terms of aerodynamics and the muscle groups involved with the pedal stroke. It allows even a relatively unfit cyclist to ride 20mph quite easily, rather than 13-14mph. This also means you can go further on a single ride. The purpose might be training, but you can't go very far on an upright bicycle—after 2 or 3 hours, there is quite a difference. Sitting upright puts more pressure on the sitbones. In a forward position, you can distribute the weight among the saddle, hands, and pedals. Again, this allows for longer, more productive rides.