|A Mirror that works||Skip|
Aug 12, 2001 6:35 PM
|Here are some pictures of my mirror and the CF mount that I fabricated, that works fine. Great, clear, large field of view to the rear, little to no vibration, ergonomic, and easily adjusted for any rider. It is positioned high enough up on the STI that it does not interferre with hand positions on the hoods, or access to the brakes. The CF mount is just taped to the rubber of the STI with plastic tape. (Sorry for the size of the pics, but this forum wouldn't accept larger; also the focus from the throw away cam). Freddish, but works great.
|re: A Mirror that works||DINOSAUR|
Aug 12, 2001 7:53 PM
|How did you do it, and what kind of bike is that (curious, looks nice).
|re: A Mirror that works||Skip|
Aug 12, 2001 8:24 PM
|The bike is a Merlin Extralight, with an AME Alpha-Q all carbon fork, Velomax Ascent wheels, 3TTT - 199 HB, ITM Millennium stem, DA group, SLR Evolution saddle, Bold Ti seat post, CK headset, Speedplay X-2 pedals, SRP bolt kit, and King Ti cages - just over 16 #. I'll post a full picture.
As for the mount. First, I fully taped/covered everything in the area that I didn't want epoxy resin on! Then I used plastic bags (Ziplock), taped and contoured to the STI hood to protect them. I wrapped this with what is called peel-ply (a very fine mesh Dacron cloth). I cut out several pieces of CF cloth (approx. 4 X 6" each), then mixed up a batch of Epoxy resin (Aero-poxy), and wet out each piece of cloth. Then after applying 5 layers of resined cloth over the STI, I wrapped it with peel-ply, and then used several rolls of 3/4" plastic tape, wrapped with tension to hold the shape. 24 Hours later, I removed the shell, and sanded it to the final shape I wanted. I epoxied the base mount from the Rhode-Gear mirror in the location I wanted, and then covered over this with another couple layers of CF cloth to feather/blend it in. The final step was applying a final epoxy clear coat over the well shaped and sanded mount.
|Here's a picture of my Merlin Extralight||Skip|
Aug 12, 2001 8:48 PM
|Merlin XL 56|
|Say, how'd you teach your bike to stand up like that? (nm)||Kristin|
Aug 13, 2001 5:23 AM
|Say, how'd you teach your bike to stand up like that? (nm)||Skip|
Aug 13, 2001 9:50 AM
|Good one. Very good bike training. The bike leaned into a strong wind, or fast run and shoot should work; but what I did was: take a 1/2" X approx. 16" aluminum rod and pushed it into the ground just far enough that the top of the rod was level with the BB, then carefully balance the bike against this "kick stand" located at the center of the left crankarm. Now you know my secret - Ha! Thanks.|
Aug 12, 2001 9:02 PM
|Say, how do you get this forum to accept larger sized pictures? I know I've seen bigger prints here. I had to keep reducing the size of my scanned picture before it was accepted. A lot of detail gets lost in the smaller pics. Thanks.
Aug 13, 2001 5:04 AM
|Instead of decreasing the number of pixels in the image, increase the jpeg compression. An ordinary photograph of 500-800 pixels in one dimension should compress down to under 100k without too many unsightly artifacts: a jpeg setting of 10-20% should do.
You'll need a graphics application of some kind to do this- but your scanner probably came with something like Adobe Photodeluxe, which would be fine. Photoshop, or Macromedia Fireworks offer the best feedback and control of image compression, but are obviously overkill for casual use.
If you click on the Photo Gallery link at the top of the page, I think it contains a link to demonstrate how best to compress images.
Aug 13, 2001 10:06 AM
|I wish I were computer literate enough to fully comprehend what you suggeted.
I'm not sure that I decreased the pixils in the picture, but reduced the size of the photo to 35% in the scanning process. Maybe that's the same thing, I'm just not computer savy enough. If you compress a photo (which I'll need to read my HP R80 manual to learn how), doesn't that reduce the size of the picture? Maybe other URL's can accept a larger photo - see the size of the picture under the "New Cycling Racing Software..." thread below.
Aug 13, 2001 11:13 AM
|I probably blustered ahead with jargon assuming you knew what I was talking about, which no sane person should expect to.
The correlations between the resolution, file size, file density, and printed size of digital images are subtle and complex, so I won't go into a confusing essay on the subject here. The crux is that there are two distinct ways of shrinking the file size of an image.
1. You can make the image "smaller": without considering resolution- which only complicates things- this just means "composing the image from fewer pixels than otherwise". Example, shrinking a 500*300 pixel image to 250*150 pixels, will effectively quarter the number of pixels, and hence the file size. This is what you're doing already.
2. "Compress" the image. The mechanics behind this are complex and well beyond me, but there are verious protocols with which you can make the file size of an image smaller than it ought to be. The standard protocol used for photographs is called "JPEG" (there are also "GIF" and "PNG" methods, which are better for graphic images: I won't go into the reasons). The computer does some techno-jiggery to average out parts of the image, so that it doesn't have to remember as much. Jpeg compression is known as 'lossy' because it actually dispenses with some of the file information permanently- others don't- but this loss can be controlled, is subtle and often unnoticeable, and results in some very small files- often less than 10% of the original. Virtually all of the photographic or natural media images you see on the web are Jpeg's, and they mostly look fine.
There's a lot more along these lines on the web, just do a search for 'jpeg tutorial' or somesuch.
You're right about the other picture in the software thread- that's 380k- but I don't know what limits this forum applies. My point is, that an image can be both large (dimensionally) and small (file size).
Hope this was useful....
Aug 13, 2001 12:29 PM
|Thank you so much for the education.|
|even beter mirror that ain't "freddish"||club|
Aug 13, 2001 6:25 AM
|try one of those lil tiny mirrors that stick to the inside of your glasses lens. They're so close to the eyeball that you get a fine field of view (with a bit of ear visible in the corner); it moves with your head so you can scan a wider field; it doesn't geek up your bike like your mirror does; and if you're wearing dark glasses it's invisible to others, so you can freak everybody out by announcing "car back" without ever glancing back.|
|But they don't work with M Frames. nm||MikeC|
Aug 13, 2001 6:41 AM
|even beter mirror that ain't "freddish"||Skip|
Aug 13, 2001 10:13 AM
|Thanks club. I tried those on my Oakley's and Rudy Project Kerosene's, but they didn't work. It seems that the only sunglasses they may fit are the Smith's. Thanks.|
|re: A Mirror that works||david bogie|
Aug 19, 2001 7:17 AM
|I've been using helmet mirrors since my first SkidLid way back in 1979. I break one about every 2 years by catching my Timbuk2 bag on it. Of all the models I've tried, I still prefer the ThirdEye brand 1 incher on the long stem.
If you are looking for a helmet mount, I suggest you avoid convex mirrors. The illusion of adequate space is deceptive, things are so far away you can't tell what they are, and cars can come up on you really fast.
The first bar mount mirror I tred was from Rhode, back in 1985. It was impractical on a non-shocked mountain bike because of the vibration.