Colorado Highway Webcams
Independence Pass Webcam
Monarch Pass Webcam
Granite East Webcam
Fremont Pass Webcam
Eisenhower Tunnel Webcam
Berthoud Pass North Webcam

if i look back, i am lost
taylor price
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

Janaina Medeiros
🪼
Cosmic Funnies
Cosimo Galluzzi
ojovivo
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
No title available
$LAYYYTER
tumblr dot com

shark vs the universe
Stranger Things

No title available
will byers stan first human second
Show & Tell
styofa doing anything
Three Goblin Art

pixel skylines
seen from United States

seen from Ethiopia

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States

seen from Türkiye

seen from United Kingdom
seen from China
seen from Slovakia
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands

seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Australia

seen from France
@grantdoug
Colorado Highway Webcams
Independence Pass Webcam
Monarch Pass Webcam
Granite East Webcam
Fremont Pass Webcam
Eisenhower Tunnel Webcam
Berthoud Pass North Webcam
Amazon announced a new unlimited cloud storage plan for $59.00 / year. Amazon Prime customers will also get free unlimited photo storage. This chart tells you how “big four” cloud storage plans stack up during March, 2015.
My experience with OneDrive has been ugly, and I’m not alone. In my testing, OneDrive upload performance was 10 times slower than the other three. For example, an 8 gb upload completed in less than one hour on iCloud and Dropbox but was going to take an entire week on OneDrive (after 24 hours loading only 1gb, I terminated the upload).
Gaming the System. On the local drive, I nest my free cloud folders within bigger cloud folders. Why? Because Dropbox for example has ‘best in class’ platform support. For example, on the local drive iCloud Drive/OneDrive/Dropbox. That gives you a backup on all three services. I moved all my cloud data to iCloud in this folder structure, waited for Apple to sync, then turned on Dropbox; when completed I ran OneDrive.
I left Google Drive out of the analysis. I don’t trust Google not to use my personal data in the cloud files for marketing purposes.
Here are the links to current plans from Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Dropbox.
Apple Cloud Drive
Microsoft OneDrive
Dropbox
Amazon Cloud
Comparison chart
Tumblr Publish
Tumblr Publish
What state set the record for KKK membership? Alabama? Georgia? Neither - it was Indiana, where KKK membership peaked at 30% of the white male population. In the Oklahoma University racism controversy, commentators have expressed surprise the incident occurred in a Northern state. They shouldn’t be. In many ways, Northern states haven’t confronted racism in their own cultures as the South has been forced to do. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/03/10/university-of-oklahoma-condemns-fraternity-for-racist-video
#Lenovo #Spearfish threat: "The critical threat is present on Lenovo PCs that have adware from a company called Superfish installed. As unsavory as many people find software that injects ads into Web pages, there's something much more nefarious about the Superfish package. It installs a self-signed root HTTPS certificate that can intercept encrypted traffic for every website a user visits. When a user visits an HTTPS site, the site certificate is signed and controlled by Superfish and falsely represents itself as the official website certificate."
In the mountains, is the superior handling of tubulars worth it?
In the mountains, is the superior handling of tubulars worth it?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/06/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-rolling-resistance_12493#peVwloz6uWSYZqPb.99
Clinchers? Tubulars? Dear Lennard, One of my riding buddies has shown me some of the many e-chats about the “new” clincher versus tubular rolling resistance debate. The claim running around is that a top clincher has a much lower rolling resistance than a top tubular, owing mostly due to tire squirm of the tubular-glue contact. I have seen a claim at a “top” analytic cycling time trial computing site that states that on a three-kilometer track pursuit, the extra resistance of using a tubular with road glue (extra squirm as compared to the harder drying track glue) the clincher would be 2.5 seconds. Can this be true?
At a 40km distance, at that 3km pursuit speed anyway (no easy feat I know), that would be more than a 30 second advantage just by using clinchers, assuming identical aerodynamics. My friend is already selling off his tubular aero wheels in favor of clinchers, and he is pulling my leg to do the same for ITT.
See the tables at the end of this article.
Apparently there was an article in the German magazine Tour at the end of the 90′s that started this whole thing.
Clinchers are certainly easier, and if they are also faster, then it would hardly seem worth the extra effort to keep tubulars any more for a time trial bike. Is this true or is this bunk? Erik
Dear Erik, While tubulars are generally lighter for similar tire quality, and tubular wheels can save a lot of weight over clincher wheels, rolling resistance may not fall to the advantage of the tubulars. I still cannot say which is the appropriate choice for you, given the superiority of a clincher in price, installation, and probably in rolling resistance, and the superiority of a tubular in weight, round cross-section for cornering performance, capacity for high tire pressure, and staying on the rim in the case of sudden air loss.
I am attaching correspondence below from an interested engineer and bike racer named Tom who has studied the subject quite a bit and is now convinced of the superiority of clinchers, and from Alberto De Gioannini, an engineer who used to work for Vittoria and who now makes super-high-quality torque wrenches for bikes. Lennard
Dear Lennard, My conclusion is based on a careful study of the relevant data available to the general public. Check out: Check outthe results of this study. Germany’s Tour magazine has published the results of rolling resistance tests for clinchers to go along with their previously published testing of tubulars. All the tests were performed at the Continental Tire facility, and I’ve attached a summary of Coefficient of Rolling Resistance (Crr) of both types of tires tested in a single list. [Editor’s note: The following table represents a combination of these twolists.]
Tire Crr Deda Tre Giro d’Italia 0.0038 Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX 0.0039 Michelin Pro 2 Race 0.0042 Vittoria Diamante Pro Rain 0.0044 Michelin Megamium 2 0.0047 Pariba Revolution 0.0048 *Veloflex Carbon (Tubular) 0.0049 Michelin Carbon 0.0050 *Gommitalia Route du Nord (Tubular) 0.0050 Panaracer Stradius Pro 0.0051 Schwalbe Stelvio Plus 0.0052 *Gommitalia Platinum (Tubular) 0.0053 *Vittoria Corsa Evo CX (Tubular) 0.0054 Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Front 0.0056 Continental GP Force (rear specific) 0.0057 Hutchinson Fusion 0.0057 Schwalbe Stelvio Evolution Rear 0.0057 *Vittoria Corsa Evo KS (Tubular) 0.0057 Continental Ultra GatorSkin 0.0058 Ritchey Pro Race Slick WCS 0.0058 Schwalbe Stelvio 0.0059 *Continental Competition (Tubular) 0.0059 *Veloflex Roubaix (Tubular) 0.0059 *Continental Podium (Tubular) 0.0060 Specialized S-Works Mondo 0.0061 Continental GP 3000 0.0067 Hutchinson Top Speed 0.0069 *Schwalbe Stelvio (Tubular) 0.0069 Continental GP Attack (front specific) 0.0073 *Tufo Elite Jet (Tubular) 0.0073 *Schwalbe Montello 300 (Tubular) 0.0075 *Tufo Hi-Composite Carbon (Tubular) 0.0077 *denotes tubular tire test
As can be seen by that list, from a rolling resistance standpoint, the best clinchers have a significant rolling resistance advantage over the best tubulars tested. Particularly interesting to me were the results of the Vittoria Corsa CX and Open Corsa CX tires. These tires are literally identical (same casing, same tread) except for the means of attachment to the rim.
In this testing, the tubular version had an almost 40 percent higher rolling resistance, 0.0039 vs. 0.0054.
Using those results, I calculated that using identical wheelsets (I used Zipp 404 clincher and tubular models shod with Vittoria Corsas) it would take a grade of more than 8 to 9 percent before the weight advantage of the ~1 lb. lighter tubular wheelset/tire/tube combo would finally offset the lower rolling resistance advantage of the clincher versions. At all grades below that, the clinchers would save power.
You are correct that thread count is a large determiner of rolling resistance. Obviously, the higher the (true) thread count, the thinner the threads of the casing will be which lessens the thickness of the casing wall and results in less hysteresis losses. But, there are other factors in play as well, such as tread thickness and material type, anti-puncture strips, and even thickness and material of the tube.
Tubulars have an additional potential hysteresis loss due to the glue used to attach the tire to the rim. Typical “road glue” has measurable losses (as shown in the data above) whereas hard “track glue” would minimize these losses.
Tubulars attached to rims using gluing tape will inherently have even higher losses than a standard gluing since the thickness of glue is greater and the tape in the middle also contributes a hysteretic loss.
If you care to see what the predicted differences indicated by the data linked to above would be for typical TT performances, check out the online calculator Tom Compton coded up at his website.
Be sure to put in realistic entries and not just accept the default entry values.
Here are the results of some recent on-the-road tests (not rigorously performed, but eye opening).
I did four trials both up and down the hill, with Ritchey clincher set (Runs 1 and 2) with 23c Michelin Pro Race tires and 2 with Zipp 404s with Tufo Elite Road tires applied with Tufo tape (runs 3 and 4). The conditions were ideal, with very consistent temperature and no perceptible wind due to the sheltering.
The course I used omitted the very top and very bottom sections of the road and ended up being 410 feet of climbing over 0.74 miles for an average grade of 10.6 percent.
I targeted 225 watts and did pretty well with my runs showing average powers of 227, 223, 226, and 226W respectively.
Here were the times for the four runs:
1. – 7:49.5 2. – 7:56.2 3. – 8:05.8 4. – 8:02.8As you can see, runs No. 3 and 4 took a range of seven to 15 seconds longer. It was not looking good for the Tufos, especially since the wheelset was about one pound lighter than the Ritcheys.
I then took all the data (weather conditions, altitude, weight, etc.) and plugged them into www.analyticcycling.com to see how the power compared to what would be predicted for this climbing speed. The model predicted that the clinchers would take on average 5.1W more power than I actually recorded, while it predicted that the Tufos would take on average 4.3 W less than I recorded. This means that at this speed, the difference in power between the two sets was an average of 9.4W…in other words, the Tufo’s rolling resistance at this speed would require 9.4W more power in order to climb at the same speed (~5.6mph).
An important thing to remember is that the power required to overcome rolling resistance is proportional to speed and weight. So, for a heavier rider going at a faster speed, the power differential would be even greater. Back-calculating for the Coefficient of Rolling Resistance (Crr) from the power difference and the speed, I found that the difference in the Crr was .0047.
This number can then be used to calculate the power loss under other conditions. For example, using my weight traveling at 25 mph if I had Tufos mounted with tape on my wheels, it would require over 40W extra to go the same speed.
As a check, I used coast-down tests…the surprising thing is, that even though the 404s are much more aero than the Ritcheys, my “terminal velocity” was actually greater by 1mph with the clinchers (41.8mph versus 40.8mph). Plugging these numbers into www.analyticcycling.com. I get the same Crr difference to account for that speed difference.
So, it looks like I repeated the results from other tests (I recall one showing a Crr difference of 0.002 for changing just one tire…so that matches) for Tufos with tape vs. good clinchers.
Even though I took great care in performing this test (to the point of even using the same cassette on both wheelsets) the number of runs are small and an argument can be made that the differences seen are not statistically significant. I’m confident that more runs would change that…but I just don’t have the time. However, this test was just an I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it type of confirmation for me after seeing results of similar testing by other riders.
Of course, many people question the applicability of smooth drum testing vs. on-road performance, but I can explain why drum tests ARE applicable. Basically, the same mechanisms that “rank” the tires on a smooth drum (i.e. hysteresis losses) will give them the same “rank” on a rough surface. Tom
Rotating weight Dear Lennard, I’ve read with great interest the debate on rotating weigh and wheel inertia. All cyclists know by experience that light wheels make you climb faster, so all that have been said related to ‘climbing’ makes good sense (and it’s well documented too).Results seem to confirm that, given exactly the same materials (poly-cotton) and construction, a clincher tire has a lower rolling resistance than a tubular.
Read more at http://velonews.competitor.com/2007/06/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-qa-with-lennard-zinn-rolling-resistance_12493#peVwloz6uWSYZqPb.99
Top 10 Metro Areas for High-Tech Startup Density:
Boulder, Colo. Fort Collins-Loveland, Colo. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif. Cambridge-Newton-Framingham, Mass. Seattle, Wash. Denver, Colo. San Francisco, Calif. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-Va.-Md. Colorado Springs, Colo. Cheyenne, Wyo.
Avery Grant snowshoeing near Star Mountain, Twin Lakes, Colorado
lol Accenture Obamacare ad satire
CAIC reports new Sawatch zone large avalanches this week: "..have destroyed large trees, snapping them like toothpicks. Several paths have run further than they have in the last 30 years.. These were very large avalanches, over 500 feet wide, probably 3 to 6 feet deep and breaking into the old snow near the ground.. Persistent slabs can be triggered by light loads and weeks after the last storm ..you can trigger them remotely and they often propagate across and beyond terrain features that would otherwise confine wind and storm slabs. Give yourself a wide safety buffer to handle the uncertainty. Dangerous avalanche conditions persist in the zone. Two weeks of heavy snowfall and strong winds have added significant load to the snowpack, and built large slabs on top of very weak snow that formed early in the season. http://avalanche.state.co.us/forecasts/backcountry-avalanche/sawatch/
"How much do I spy on thee? Let me count the ways." Check out this fascinating - but chilling - interactive graphic of the NSA’s spy tech. Who can keep the Good intentions from morphing to the Bad, and the Ugly?
US military tacticians are hard at work replacing rigid pole traditional rapid deployment structures - from bivy tents to very large mobile command centers - with "Airbeam" based construction. There are enormous tactical advantages: great weight and packed volume savings, extreme gains in erection and disassembly speed, and improved structural toughness.
Nemo is the leading manufacturer of Airbeam structures for the military including a super-tough, 2 pound Airbeam tent now standard issue for the the US Special Forces. A few of the Airbeam tents are available to the public, like the Morpho:
"Nemo's inflatable ribs, also called airbeams, offer many advantages over conventional poles: they pack smaller, set up faster, are more field repairable, more rigid, and have a high survivability in severe winds, can’t be broken like normal poles.. when fully pressurized, are more than twice as rigid as standard aluminum poles."