Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

cyclingnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#381

Post by tremon »

kragen wrote: post #377
bricemo wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the movie was false?

this is a ridiculous question i am not going to subject myself to hours of manipulative propaganda for which truth is not even a consideration in order to write a 'rebuttal' nobody wants to read, thus implicitly affirming all the errors that i missed or that didn't seem important enough to mention dramatizations are works of fiction literally everything in them is false with the occasional exception every word, every…

this is a ridiculous question

I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to your assertion that "movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions" in order to defend the GP comment.

If that's a ridiculous question, it's only because your assertion was equally ridiculous given the context of the thread.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#382

Post by TaylorAlexander »

0_____0 wrote: post #372
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At two horsepower you can call my mountain bike a motorcycle if you want, but I just consider it a hopped up ebike.

At 1500W the human power component is ornamental really, and the vehicle becomes inappropriate for multiuse paths and bike lanes. Much closer to a moped (e.g. the 49cc Honda Ruckus), and probably faster! I love any form of transport that isn’t a car! Love that the e-Moto or e-Moped or HighPower_eMTB segment is taking off, I’m just anticipating that we’re going to eventually see them become their own segment with diff…

> the vehicle becomes inappropriate for multiuse paths and bike lanes

I’m pretty much riding it in on the streets with the flow of traffic, where less power would have cars whizzing past me and would feel unsafe. If I do take it on a bike path, I slow down and don’t use the full power. It is easy to reduce the maximum power on the control interface and move at a relaxed pace. I’ve been cycling for 20 years, and I have no interest in behaving in a way which would be upsetting to other people. I know too that inappropriate behavior reflects poorly on the ebike community and could get them banned, so again I am thoughtful with my riding.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#383

Post by jfengel »

analog31 wrote: post #283
1MachineElf wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Florida, living between the coast and the everglades, rain is a daily occurrence. Having grown up there for 20 years, I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all. I have questioned the averseness northerners have towards getting wet. Living in Maryland now, so many I've interacted with will just not go outside all day if there is rain. They've been raised by parents who've trained them to wait for the rain to stop, t…

This strikes me as odd. I live in Wisconsin, which is not particularly rainy, but also not a desert. I'm a cyclist, for recreation and utility. On rainy days, there are certainly fewer people out on the bike paths, but far from zero. Likewise during the winter. I see people walking past my house, and at the parks, when it's wet out. There are also people who don't like to be outdoors under those conditions, or who th…

I'd actually rather be out at -20F than +30F. Once things have frozen, there's no risk of being cold and wet at the same time, which is harder to dress for than just being cold.

That's the real issue in Maryland and similar latitudes. We often alternate between sub-freezing and above-freezing temperatures. Snow falls, melts, and then accumulates in large puddles. Bonus: on a particularly cold night, the puddle freezes on top, and then you fall through.

I'm not trying to win some kind of misery Olympics. But mid-temperatures can be tricky to handle in ways that aren't obvious.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#384

Post by synecdoche »

icelancer wrote: post #306
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not telling you to cook differently or but a specific pan, but I don’t get it. I’ve had the same metal pans for about 15 years and they work as well as ever. Just about nothing sticks to them. I don’t need to worry about what might seep out of them into my air or dinner, they were extremely economical, I think they look nice, etc. Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marke…

> Why is there even a market for potentially harmful cookware? Was it driven by marketing or am I mistaken, and my pans aren’t any good? Eggs. There's a reason almost all professional chefs, despite knowing more than anyone about how to season metal-based pans, use nonstick pans for eggs. (And sometimes fish.)

It’s funny you would say that. A fried egg in one of these steel pans [1] is so much better that it is almost a different dish. The white gets a wonderful crispy texture. Pan seasoned by heat only. No oils. And it is non-stick after that.

[1] https://www.debuyer.com/en/1-1359.html

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#386

Post by Raidion »

paulcole wrote: post #169
Raidion wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a runner myself, does being waterproof make that much of a difference? I've done pretty cold runs with various layers of under armour (or related) and while you don't stay dry, you do stay warm, and you will dry out pretty quickly if the rain stops. Only thing I can think of would be very rainy and very windy weather but those are pretty rare in my area.

When it’s very wet, being truly waterproof and breathable makes a huge difference. It’s both much more comfortable and keeps me much warmer over the course of a 4-8 hour long run.

4-8 hour runs! I can't pretend to understand. I'd top out at ~3 hours at max marathon long run. I would love to do an ultra someday, but not sure if my knees are gonna let me. Take a few extra steps for me next time!

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#387

Post by fomine3 »

krolden wrote: post #374
fomine3 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe like studded tires, for some region

Where are studded tires banned?

It's banned (at least for regular vehicles) here in Japan. Stud powder dust is a problem. Since then, better studless tires being developed.

Edit: TIL it's not banned for bicycle/motorcycle

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#388

Post by int_19h »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #370

Historically Gore has made their membranes from ePTFE. Other companies have made their membranes from electrospun PU due to Gore's patents. My understanding is that PU is widely viewed as inferior to ePTFE for performance and durability. So if Gore plans to switch from ePTFE to PU, it's a step backwards in terms of performance. This at the same time that the industry has switched DWR coatings from C8 to C6 and soon C…

It really depends on the products. E.g. I'm not sure quite what PolarTec NeoShell is, but I can confirm that it's noticeably more breathable than regular Gore-Tex.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#389

Post by wolverine876 »

tremon wrote: post #379
wolverine876 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "A war on all fats" is a pretty good summary No, it's pushing hyperbole. It tells the world your emotional position - you think it was a war. Let's try something more factual, that reveals the underlying issues - if we know the facts. Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point. Look at the NYT article on the FDA's plans, for example.

It tells the world your emotional position It doesn't read as if they're describing their own position, emotional or not. It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat. Low fat and fat free is still a big selling point Yes, that's mainly because of aforementioned public messaging.

It's a selling point because it has an impact on people's health.

> It's a characterization of the public messaging surrounding dietary fat.

Hyperbole is characterization, reflecting the author's emotional state.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#390

Post by eternityforest »

kragen wrote: post #231
CameronNemo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA mentions Gore is putting a lot of money into R&D for PFA alternatives. They may fail, not sure if that is what you meant. But they will certainly try.

no other class of materials is anywhere close to perfluorocarbons in many properties, such as low affinity for both water and hydrocarbons (and consequently fats), and ultraviolet resistance coupled with softness additionally such levels of resistance to biodegradation are rarely found in combination with either of the previous two qualities no other known organic compounds, out of the currently 182 million assigned…

There's always active materials. We already have heated jackets, why not dehumidified jackets?

Then again, I don't do activities where failure of my clothes could kill me, so I'm not sure how the market would respond.

Post reply on HN