Damn, boy, that’s some hella lighting setup. What kind(s) of light are those?
Lights that don’t shine straight rays 
Hey, you’re right. Lunicycle must have been riding over a small black hole.
wow! them lights are bright!
@steveyo, the lights are Ayup’s, popular in MTB night racing. Bright, light, long run time, cheap and aussie! 
http://www.ayup.com.au
@Klaas, it’s a time exposure. They are light trails created as the uni moves through the frame, not how the light beam appears to the eye
Anyways, apologies for the off topic. Main thing is I’m loving the handlebar on the 36!
Hey,
I just posted about the 2009 KH lineup here, including a description and photo of the new T-bar touring handle.
As mentioned in that thread, the objective was to make an adjustable handle that allows a moderate extended-forward riding stance, stays out of the way of your knees, and uses bar-ends that can be replaced if damaged in a crash, and is as simple as possible to install and maintain. Attached is a photo, and a schematic drawing.
So far, I believe that this style of handle, with a uni saddle, will be the most popular approach for most kinds of riding. For myself, even on long rides I find that there are a lot of times when I want to switch to an upright stance for bumps, idling, crosswinds, or just switching positions, and a combo of extended handle and a uni saddle is good for that. It is also very simple and does not introduce any additional complications such as frame sizing for different riders.
In my opinion, this configuration also (IMO) also works well for steep climbing where you are pulling up hard because you can use the existing handle with no need for additional hardware, and because if you stand up and pull on the handle, the frame will always swing forward to be directly beneath you with no additional bulk out front. For myself, I like having the frame angled back when in touring mode because there’s nothing to hit between my legs.
So far, I am not yet sure that a full, bike-like frame is needed since unlike a bike we are only supporting a handle, not a wheel, and strength seems adequate for at least the length of this production T-bar. For those of you who want to experiment with longer versions, the T-bar uses standard 22.2 mm tubing and it would be easy to make a different dimension of T-section and use all the rest of the existing hardware. A really long custom handle might require an additional reinforcement though, extending below the bar back to the frame.
Having angle adjustment and bar-ends that are adjustable also allows the handle to be clamped tight enough to stay in place, but loose enough that it can be bumped out of position in a crash, reducing the chance of breakage.
Kris
T-bar R3-Layout2_orig.pdf (159 KB)
Oh that’s cool then! I thought they were photoshopped as if you were shining at the stars.
Since this is the place for road setups, what do I need to enter into my Sigma bikecomputer for a 36" Nightrider tire as a wheelsize? I’m looking for the 4 digit code 
If you use 1 magnet 2.800, for 2 magnets 1.400. That’s what I measured anyways, I hope it’s correct.
I don’t know how the Nightrider would be different in size from the old Coker tyre. For that one there is a really fantastic page at The rollout of a Coker wheel
It takes into account rider weight, tyre pressure and tread wear, to come up with a very accurate wheel rollout! (That would be for one magnet. For two, divide by two - duh!)
I just calculated it (2 methods, so I know it’s right) and its 2869 to be exact. So you need to edit your computer to 1434 (or 5) to be more precise 
Are you sure? That would mean that I am going quite a bit faster and further than I thought. Better than the other way around though 
I calculated it with the formula from the Sigma guide and did a check with counting up the numbers from the 16" and 20" tires. It realy is right, trust me on this one 
The problem with their method is that you might multiply the fault in the initial measurement of the wheel diameter. I just used some tape and stuck it on the tire to get the precise circumference. It turned out to be 2.840 for me. This is on a used tire, so a new one would be a little more. This is without any tire pressure and body weight measurements, of course. So I guess we were both a little wrong. I do trust this new measurement now. Unless somebody can convince me it’s wrong, that is.
Find a place with hectometerpaaltjes and count wheel revolutions (while riding) for 1.000 km (NB in English this means exactly one km, not a thousand). Then divide 1000 by that number (including the last fraction of a revolution).
I have been measuring my rides using a GPS. It is easy to adjust from one unicycle to another.
Is there any reason to believe it is less accurate than the bike computer method?
Yes, there is: bad reception.
But there are also reasons to believe that it is MORE accurate. Magnet jitter, for one thing. Elimination of the influence of wobbling on total distance covered is another. If you’re wobbling a lot, it might account for a couple of percent. Although this distance is really covered by the tyre contact patch, you’ll have a hard time convincing a race director that your “real speed” was higher than that of the guy before you.
I use a GPS too. It gives so much more than speed and distance!
GPS is accurate when you go in fairly straight lines. Its main drawback is that it takes a location every 20 seconds or so, and gets the distance between this point and the last. If you’re doing switchbacks for example, the distance it calculates would most likely cut through the turns, and could underestimate the distance by quite a bit.
You can also lose connectivity to the satellites (in wooded areas, or in cities with tall buildings, for example).
For most long distance rides though, it would work just fine. For muni, it’s probably not as accurate as a bike computer. Then again, you probably don’t care as much about accuracy in muni conditions.
My GPS (Garmin Vista) takes more readings (when on Auto) if I do switchbacks or a twisty trajectory in general as compared to riding in straight lines, and therefore it pretty much covers all the curves I make. It also takes more sample points if I ride irregular speeds, or even if the elevation changes. I think it does a pretty good job of measuring speed and distance even under those conditions. And then again, even within Auto, I have still a choice of 5 sampling densities.
By the way, what you call “lose connectivity” is what GPS buffs call “bad reception” (of satellite signal, that is). That is indeed a weak point of GPS devices, although the newer units (not mine) have much better capabilities in that respect.
Man is this thread jacked!
