[ This is a repost of the following article: ]
[ From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org ]
[ Subject: Re: Switching to a new bike for long rides ]
[ Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.rides ]
[ Message-ID: <Z3qZd.10763$m31.116566@typhoon.sonic.net> ]
Dane Bramage writes:
> Hey there - this is probably a bit off topic, but wanted some advice
> about bikes that are built for long rides and any recommendations.
> Since this group is experienced with longer rides, I figure you all
> would have a good viewpoint.
> I currently ride a Cannondale T2000 touring bike. I like it a lot,
> but it's heavy and built to carry a load. Looking for something I
> can upgrade to that's lighter and built more for speed.
> Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out for on
> day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a more
> comfortable ride than I'm used to.
You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see in
stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment made,
be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic rims,
bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low, at
least in this area where every town once had at least one criterium
and the region had many great road races.
Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All road
racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance is
there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff at
nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were better.
I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is still my
best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail good
bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with spoilers
on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing" bicycles
to a suitable location.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Jay Beattie
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:cdqZd.10765$m31.116680@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [ This is a repost of the following
]
> [ From:
]
> [ Subject: Re: Switching to a new bike for long
]
> [ Newsgroups:
]
> [ Message-ID:
16566@typhoon.sonic.net> ]
>
> Dane Bramage writes:
>
> > Hey there - this is probably a bit off topic, but wanted some
advice
> > about bikes that are built for long rides and any
recommendations.
> > Since this group is experienced with longer rides, I figure
you all
> > would have a good viewpoint.
>
> > I currently ride a Cannondale T2000 touring bike. I like it a
lot,
> > but it's heavy and built to carry a load. Looking for
something I
> > can upgrade to that's lighter and built more for speed.
>
> > Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out
for on
> > day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a
more
> > comfortable ride than I'm used to.
>
> You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see
in
> stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment
made,
> be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic
rims,
> bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low,
at
> least in this area where every town once had at least one
criterium
> and the region had many great road races.
>
> Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All
road
> racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance
is
> there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff
at
> nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were
better.
> I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is
still my
> best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
> understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail
good
> bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
> reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with
spoilers
> on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing"
bicycles
> to a suitable location.
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/
Soma, Surley, Rivendell, Trek and a number of others make a sport
tourer-type bike. Frankly, my old T1000 is pretty spry when I
use lighter wheels, but the top tube is (wait for it) . . . . too
short. Unbelievably, some of the older bicycles with longer
wheelbases have short top tubes. My current Cannondale racing
bike has a longer top tube than my 18 year old T1000. I find
that my current racing bike is much more comfortable than my
touring bike, although it has a short wheel base and can skip
when climbing hard out of the saddle. I would (and do) use my
racing bike for 100 mile day rides, assuming I do not need
fenders and do not need 28mm tires for riding over rough roads.
I understand Jobst complaints about too short chain stays,
botique wheels, close clearances, etc., but a properly fitting
racing bike can be -- and should be -- pretty darn comfortable
over 100 miles of smooth roads. -- Jay Beattie.
Ryan Cousineau
In article <cdqZd.10765$m31.116680@typhoon.sonic.net>,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> [ This is a repost of the following article: ]
> [ From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org ]
> [ Subject: Re: Switching to a new bike for long rides ]
> [ Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.rides ]
> [ Message-ID: <Z3qZd.10763$m31.116566@typhoon.sonic.net> ]
>
> Dane Bramage writes:
> > Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out for on
> > day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a more
> > comfortable ride than I'm used to.
>
> You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see in
> stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment made,
> be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic rims,
> bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low, at
> least in this area where every town once had at least one criterium
> and the region had many great road races.
I can't speak for your region, but in Vancouver bike racing is waxing.
The last three years have seen events in this area added until the
schedule is near saturation levels (there are three different weekly
training crit series, plus all manner of varied weekend events).
That, however, doesn't count the huge phenomenon that is mountain bike
racing. To some extent, cross-training and synergy mean that the sports
complement each other, but the biggest local road races will attract 250
riders; the biggest mountain bike races are three times that large, if
not larger. I can think of a few reasons why that might be, but there
you go.
> Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All road
> racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance is
> there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff at
> nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were better.
> I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is still my
> best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
> understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail good
> bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
> reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with spoilers
> on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing" bicycles
> to a suitable location.
For all the guff you give modern racing bikes, they are completely
rideable for long distances, as the pros routinely demonstrate. The
worst knocks that might be laid on modern racing gear are that the
wheels are compromised towards aerodynamics rather than reliability (and
yet they still work pretty good, since low spoke counts have been
compensated by deeper (and thus stronger) rims), the geometry is mildly
biased towards raciness (though not in any fatal way) and that the
lightest components are too light for durability (a fair argument, but
one at least partly addressed by UCI weight limits). You can build a
pretty boringly durable but still very racy bicycle in the 16-17 pound
range, and even the better 15-pound bikes seem fairly durable. I have
less confidence in the 12-pound bikes:
But nobody is allowed to race on anything like a 12-pound bicycle. Oh,
the lightest bike on that site is closing on 9 pounds.
http://www.light-bikes.com/BikeGallery/
Lots of very racy bikes get ridden to and from coffee shops or charity
rides or in other non-racy situations. But the race bikes I see get
ridden hard and often and don't seem the worse for the wear. The parts I
see breaking in races (for reasons other than crashes) are drivetrains,
and those are the same on race bikes and touring bikes.
The thing that really separates touring bikes from racing bikes these
days is accomodation for fenders and racks. I have both on my
winter/commute machine, and that's pretty much that. As I have said
before, I think the best place to get such a bike is at a garage sale,
but opinions vary.
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Ryan Cousineau writes:
> Lots of very racy bikes get ridden to and from coffee shops or
> charity rides or in other non-racy situations. But the race bikes I
> see get ridden hard and often and don't seem the worse for the
> wear. The parts I see breaking in races (for reasons other than
> crashes) are drivetrains, and those are the same on race bikes and
> touring bikes.
> The thing that really separates touring bikes from racing bikes
> these days is accommodation for fenders and racks. I have both on my
> winter/commute machine, and that's pretty much that. As I have said
> before, I think the best place to get such a bike is at a garage
> sale, but opinions vary.
As I reported from my last ride in the Alps, I was passed by a young
rider going briskly on a brand new 14" seat post hyena shaped bicycle
with "tight coupled geometry". I saw him again half way up the
Klausen Pass (CH) standing with dejected look on the side of the road,
unable to turn the rear wheel because one of the few spokes on that
wheel broke. With not more than 3mm design clearance to the seat
stays it was dead and with no suitable spokes, tools or ability to do
anything about it he had no bicycle. He had a spare tubular but that
didn't get its test n this run. I suggested he carry the bicycle to
the next bus stop for the postal bus that stops at two places on this
hill.
I wouldn't want to ride such a bicycle on a tour. It had no margin
for error. It had to be perfect in all aspects to work. These are
bicycles on which tires scrape their brake bridges when riding over
wet highway sanding on winter roads.
Who needs any of that?
Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Sheldon Brown
Jobst Brandt wrote:
> As I reported from my last ride in the Alps, I was passed by a young
> rider going briskly on a brand new 14" seat post hyena shaped bicycle
> with "tight coupled geometry". I saw him again half way up the
> Klausen Pass (CH) standing with dejected look on the side of the road,
> unable to turn the rear wheel because one of the few spokes on that
> wheel broke. With not more than 3mm design clearance to the seat
> stays it was dead and with no suitable spokes, tools or ability to do
> anything about it he had no bicycle. He had a spare tubular but that
> didn't get its test n this run. I suggested he carry the bicycle to
> the next bus stop for the postal bus that stops at two places on this
> hill.
>
> I wouldn't want to ride such a bicycle on a tour. It had no margin
> for error. It had to be perfect in all aspects to work. These are
> bicycles on which tires scrape their brake bridges when riding over
> wet highway sanding on winter roads.
>
> Who needs any of that?
But wouldn't the team car be dropping of a spare bike for him as soon as
they realized he had had a "mechanical?"
Sheldon "But It Looked SO Kewl!" Brown
+--------------------------------------------+
| Most people would sooner die than think; |
| in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell |
+--------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Wheel
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> As I reported from my last ride in the Alps,
Do people actually read that stuff?
> I was passed by a young
> rider going briskly
Ah yes, to be young and brisk. Do you remember?
Peter Cole
>
> Soma, Surley, Rivendell, Trek and a number of others make a sport
> tourer-type bike. Frankly, my old T1000 is pretty spry when I
> use lighter wheels,
> I would (and do) use my
> racing bike for 100 mile day rides, assuming I do not need
> fenders and do not need 28mm tires for riding over rough roads.
> I understand Jobst complaints about too short chain stays,
> botique wheels, close clearances, etc., but a properly fitting
> racing bike can be -- and should be -- pretty darn comfortable
> over 100 miles of smooth roads. -- Jay Beattie.
I find the whole idea of wanting a bike to be "fast, light and
comfortable" for rides over 100 mi to be a little silly. If you do the
math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a skinny
rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of 0.5% over
a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort. In racing, that weight might
make a 5% difference in climbing and sprinting, something that
separates winning and losing, but for distance riding, it's just
posing. Of course touring bikes don't have frames that are 6 lb
heavier. The weight difference is spread amongst all the components.
When it comes to comfort, racing bikes are a poor model -- racers are
paid to suffer. I wouldn't find riding all day in rain without fenders
comfortable. I wouldn't enjoy riding 100+ miles on 20mm/150 psi tires.
Racing bikes are also a poor safety example -- racers are paid to take
risks. When flying down unfamiliar roads in the dark, I wouldn't want
to be on featherweight wheels. I can't affort to discard my fatigued
ultra-light components after a season's use. 100+ mile rides usually
take you well off the beaten path. Without a team car support, finicky
racing components start looking a little sketchy.
Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one answer
is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so well
in those events.
David L. Johnson
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:04:42 -0800, Peter Cole wrote:
> I find the whole idea of wanting a bike to be "fast, light and
> comfortable" for rides over 100 mi to be a little silly.
Well, within reason. Certainly, if there is a choice of comparable bikes,
which have the features you want and have durable components, then a
difference in weight would seem to be a valid way to choose between them.
I'm not talking about stupid-light stuff, but I might choose a carbon fork
over a steel one, since it saves a nontrivial amount of weight while still
being reliable, and the $/g ratio is pretty good.
If you do the
> math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a skinny
> rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of 0.5% over
> a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort.
Interesting estimate. 6lbs of a 200lb total is 3%. So, you are presuming
that only something like 16% of the effort in a hilly ride is involved
in lifting the weight over the top of the hill. That depends on the hills.
> When it comes to comfort, racing bikes are a poor model -- racers are
> paid to suffer.
But not unnecessarily. A racer who is more comfortable will be faster.
> I wouldn't find riding all day in rain without fenders
> comfortable. I wouldn't enjoy riding 100+ miles on 20mm/150 psi tires.
But "racing bikes" don't necessarily have to have 20mm tires. Granted,
current styles don't allow for decent fenders, but there are ways to do
that without adding a lot of weight, which seems reasonable.
>
> Racing bikes are also a poor safety example -- racers are paid to take
> risks.
Again, not unnecessary ones. A better-handling bike is a faster bike.
> When flying down unfamiliar roads in the dark, I wouldn't want to
> be on featherweight wheels.
I'd be more worried about adequate lighting....
> Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one answer
> is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so well
> in those events.
You don't see a lot of touring bikes on those events. While most brevet
riders avoid stupid-light stuff for obvious reasons, they do want as light
a bike as can be comfortable and reliable.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.
russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Peter Cole wrote:
>
> Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
answer
> is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so
well
> in those events.
I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed Dura
Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes. I doubt there was a touring bicycle within
24 hours of his time on PBP. He still rides the same bike and
components today. So much for your concept of durability.
I know several other people who have ridden PBP and other brevets on
OCLV bikes. One man rode the same 5500 OCLV on the 1995 and 1999 PBP
and a new 5900 OCLV on the 2003 PBP. Another man rode PBP in 1991 or
1995 on a Specialized Sequoia touring bike. In 2003 he rode PBP on a
Dura Ace titanium Serotta Legend. He can hardly believe he rode PBP on
the heavy weight Sequoia. He still owns the Sequoia but when it came
time to put the tire to the road he chose the correct bicycle. The
heavy Sequoia is for night time riding around town.
I have a touring bike and road racing bicycles. The road racing
bicycles are more comfortable over long miles. The overall lightness
of the bike, the nimble responsive handling, light wheels, skinny
efficient 130 psi tires all make the bike take less effort to ride.
When its 160 miles into a 300 km brevet, I want the bike to pedal and
react as easily as possible. All of the extra heavy parts and racks
and wheels on the touring bike make it less nimble and more tiring to
stand and ride up hills.
Jay Beattie
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> wrote in
message news:pan.2005.03.15.14.42.46.768213@lehigh-nospam.edu...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:04:42 -0800, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > I find the whole idea of wanting a bike to be "fast, light
and
> > comfortable" for rides over 100 mi to be a little silly.
>
> Well, within reason. Certainly, if there is a choice of
comparable bikes,
> which have the features you want and have durable components,
then a
> difference in weight would seem to be a valid way to choose
between them.
> I'm not talking about stupid-light stuff, but I might choose a
carbon fork
> over a steel one, since it saves a nontrivial amount of weight
while still
> being reliable, and the $/g ratio is pretty good.
>
> If you do the
> > math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a
skinny
> > rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of
0.5% over
> > a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort.
>
> Interesting estimate. 6lbs of a 200lb total is 3%. So, you
are presuming
> that only something like 16% of the effort in a hilly ride is
involved
> in lifting the weight over the top of the hill. That depends
on the hills.
>
> > When it comes to comfort, racing bikes are a poor model --
racers are
> > paid to suffer.
>
> But not unnecessarily. A racer who is more comfortable will be
faster.
>
> > I wouldn't find riding all day in rain without fenders
> > comfortable. I wouldn't enjoy riding 100+ miles on 20mm/150
psi tires.
>
> But "racing bikes" don't necessarily have to have 20mm tires.
Granted,
> current styles don't allow for decent fenders, but there are
ways to do
> that without adding a lot of weight, which seems reasonable.
> >
> > Racing bikes are also a poor safety example -- racers are
paid to take
> > risks.
>
> Again, not unnecessary ones. A better-handling bike is a
faster bike.
>
> > When flying down unfamiliar roads in the dark, I wouldn't
want to
> > be on featherweight wheels.
>
> I'd be more worried about adequate lighting....
>
> > Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races,
one answer
> > is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't
do so well
> > in those events.
>
> You don't see a lot of touring bikes on those events. While
most brevet
> riders avoid stupid-light stuff for obvious reasons, they do
want as light
> a bike as can be comfortable and reliable.
I have done a zillion 100 mile rides on various racing bikes, and
have lived to tell about it. I was not stranded on any Alpine
passes, or beaten to death by the horrible pounding of the road,
or crashed in a ditch because I descended on 20mm tires. In
fact, I was grateful that I did not have to lug my touring bike
up and down the goddamn hills and that I would get home in time
to mow the lawn. But then, I was riding on reliable equipment,
on a properly-fitted bike, on reasonably smooth roads in dry
weather. Now, if I had been touring with cargo or in bad weather
or on cobbled roads or in the dark, I would have taken my touring
bike, even if it is less comfortable. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> > Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
> answer
> > is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so
> well
> > in those events.
>
> I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed
Dura
> Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes. I doubt there was a touring bicycle
within
> 24 hours of his time on PBP. He still rides the same bike and
> components today. So much for your concept of durability.
I never made any claim for the durability of carbon fiber bike frames,
so I don't know what you're talking about.
Doing a PBP in that time is doing it as a race. Since tactical/team
riding isn't involved, it's more like doing it like a time trial (more
likely a team time trial). Since sprints & breakaways aren't involved,
the benefit of weight reduction can be trivially computed. A 0.5% time
reduction may be meaningful to someone who is racing (about 15 min in
his case), it isn't really a big deal otherwise.
> I know several other people who have ridden PBP and other brevets on
> OCLV bikes. One man rode the same 5500 OCLV on the 1995 and 1999 PBP
> and a new 5900 OCLV on the 2003 PBP. Another man rode PBP in 1991 or
> 1995 on a Specialized Sequoia touring bike. In 2003 he rode PBP on a
> Dura Ace titanium Serotta Legend. He can hardly believe he rode PBP
on
> the heavy weight Sequoia. He still owns the Sequoia but when it came
> time to put the tire to the road he chose the correct bicycle. The
> heavy Sequoia is for night time riding around town.
The difference in time would have been miniscule, the rest is in his
head.
> I have a touring bike and road racing bicycles. The road racing
> bicycles are more comfortable over long miles. The overall lightness
> of the bike, the nimble responsive handling, light wheels, skinny
> efficient 130 psi tires all make the bike take less effort to ride.
> When its 160 miles into a 300 km brevet, I want the bike to pedal and
> react as easily as possible. All of the extra heavy parts and racks
> and wheels on the touring bike make it less nimble and more tiring to
> stand and ride up hills.
The math is trivial, the difference is in your head.
russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Peter Cole wrote:
> russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> > >
> > > Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
> > answer
> > > is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do
so
> > well
> > > in those events.
> >
> > I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed
> Dura
> > Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes. I doubt there was a touring bicycle
> within
> > 24 hours of his time on PBP. He still rides the same bike and
> > components today. So much for your concept of durability.
>
> I never made any claim for the durability of carbon fiber bike
frames,
> so I don't know what you're talking about.
Mr. Cole writes:
Racing gear doesn't do so
> > well
> > > in those events.
Mr. Seaton writes:
I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed
> Dura
> > Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes.
Mr. Cole writes:
> I never made any claim for the durability of carbon fiber bike
frames,
> so I don't know what you're talking about.
Apparently when Mr. Cole says "racing gear doesn't do so well in those
events" he excludes Trek OCLV bikes used in the Tour de France and Dura
Ace equipment used in the professinal bike races.
What exactly are you referring to when you say "racing equipment
doesn't do so well in those events"? If a man rides an OCLV racing
bike equipped with Dura Ace racing equipment on PBP in a very fast time
and a variety of other people I know ride OCLV bikes on PBP in less
quick times, what doesn't so so well in those events?
I guess everyone here would like to know what you are talking about.
>
> Doing a PBP in that time is doing it as a race. Since tactical/team
> riding isn't involved, it's more like doing it like a time trial
(more
> likely a team time trial). Since sprints & breakaways aren't
involved,
> the benefit of weight reduction can be trivially computed. A 0.5%
time
> reduction may be meaningful to someone who is racing (about 15 min in
> his case), it isn't really a big deal otherwise.
>
The man used racing equipment, OCLV and Dura Ace, on PBP. What about
the OCLV and Dura Ace does not do so well in these events?
>
> > I know several other people who have ridden PBP and other brevets
on
> > OCLV bikes. One man rode the same 5500 OCLV on the 1995 and 1999
PBP
> > and a new 5900 OCLV on the 2003 PBP. Another man rode PBP in 1991
or
> > 1995 on a Specialized Sequoia touring bike. In 2003 he rode PBP on
a
> > Dura Ace titanium Serotta Legend. He can hardly believe he rode
PBP
> on
> > the heavy weight Sequoia. He still owns the Sequoia but when it
came
> > time to put the tire to the road he chose the correct bicycle. The
> > heavy Sequoia is for night time riding around town.
>
> The difference in time would have been miniscule, the rest is in his
> head.
>
Maybe. But he had a choice and he knew what it was like riding a heavy
touring bike on PBP. He chose the racing bike. Serotta Legend
titanium with Dura Ace. And what is it about this racing equipment
that does not do so well on these events?
>
> > I have a touring bike and road racing bicycles. The road racing
> > bicycles are more comfortable over long miles. The overall
lightness
> > of the bike, the nimble responsive handling, light wheels, skinny
> > efficient 130 psi tires all make the bike take less effort to ride.
> > When its 160 miles into a 300 km brevet, I want the bike to pedal
and
> > react as easily as possible. All of the extra heavy parts and
racks
> > and wheels on the touring bike make it less nimble and more tiring
to
> > stand and ride up hills.
>
> The math is trivial, the difference is in your head.
No it is much easier to stand and ride up hills with the lighter more
nimble racing bike than the heavier, sluggish touring bike. On a
brevet it is very important to get out of the saddle and vary your
position. Do not remain fixed in one position if you hope to complete
these types of events. A bike that is easier to vary your position is
important.
Werehatrack
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:43:52 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org may
have said:
>... It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with spoilers
>on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing" bicycles
>to a suitable location.
Image is everything, substance matters little, for those who respond
to marketing.
Of course, you probably have been disgusted by that fact for longer
than I have.
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Peter Cole
russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> Apparently when Mr. Cole says "racing gear doesn't do so well in
those
> events" he excludes Trek OCLV bikes used in the Tour de France and
Dura
> Ace equipment used in the professinal bike races.
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no quibble with
CF bike frames or Shimano components.
> What exactly are you referring to when you say "racing equipment
> doesn't do so well in those events"? If a man rides an OCLV racing
> bike equipped with Dura Ace racing equipment on PBP in a very fast
time
> and a variety of other people I know ride OCLV bikes on PBP in less
> quick times, what doesn't so so well in those events?
>
> I guess everyone here would like to know what you are talking about.
As I said before, weight doesn't have much impact on these sorts of
events. Weight is important in stage races and crits where acceleration
and rate of climb can split packs and anyone who can't keep up is off
the back & out of the draft. Racing gear is (justly) preoccupied with
weight. As the man said: light, strong, affordable -- pick any 2. You
don't need racing gear for distance cycling, and if there's any
tradeoff (and there always are), you may regret it.
> Maybe. But he had a choice and he knew what it was like riding a
heavy
> touring bike on PBP. He chose the racing bike. Serotta Legend
> titanium with Dura Ace. And what is it about this racing equipment
> that does not do so well on these events?
You seem obsessed with brand names. If you're the type to believe
marketing over science then you should purchase all the fancy names or
else you'll psych yourself out. It is in your mind though -- do the
math.
> No it is much easier to stand and ride up hills with the lighter more
> nimble racing bike than the heavier, sluggish touring bike.
I'm sorry, but that's silly (the part about standing). Even if a brevet
were the Mt. Washington climb, the heavier bike would make the rider
only a few % slower, but a typical brevet average grade is about 1%, so
the impact is much less. The numbers don't lie.
> On a
> brevet it is very important to get out of the saddle and vary your
> position. Do not remain fixed in one position if you hope to
complete
> these types of events. A bike that is easier to vary your position
is
> important.
Thanks for the tip. I have completed several brevets. Standing to pedal
has never been a problem, nor has it been on any bike I've owned going
back to childhood.
datakoll@yahoo.com
the knee is a weak link.a complex structure whose parts wear against
and into each other-meshing
riding in one postition then changing to another stresses knee parts
into newpositions and may weaken the knee.
one way to reduce the problem is knee excercisdes covering a rangeof
motions so your not caught completly out when you ask the knee to do
something new.
advise is raising or lowering the saddle in small increments so the
power down doesn't force the knee out of position with the lower
leg-possibly dislocating the entire structure
Jeff Starr
On 15 Mar 2005 14:14:03 -0800, "Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net>
wrote:
>russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Apparently when Mr. Cole says "racing gear doesn't do so well in
>those
>> events" he excludes Trek OCLV bikes used in the Tour de France and
>Dura
>> Ace equipment used in the professinal bike races.
>
>Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no quibble with
>CF bike frames or Shimano components.
>
What is this "racing gear" you speak of? Could you be specific?
Life is Good!
Jeff
Tim McNamara
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh-nospam.edu> writes:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:04:42 -0800, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
>> answer is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't
>> do so well in those events.
Well, for the 200K brevet it's not so much the case- I ride my old
race bike in last year's 200 and have ridden it for several 100+ mile
rides. But I have done most of the really long rides on my 'cross
bike which is suitable although less than ideal. My good friend with
whom I did the brevets and PBP rode his bouncy Moots race bike.
> You don't see a lot of touring bikes on those events. While most
> brevet riders avoid stupid-light stuff for obvious reasons, they do
> want as light a bike as can be comfortable and reliable.
At brevets I see people on everything from fenderless carbon fiber
wunderbikes to full-on tourers to "comfort bikes." At PBP I saw at
least a half dozen Moultons from a two-speed kickback MK I or II to
several MK IIIs to an NS Pylon, to a British tandem trike to a Finnish
guy on a push scooter. I saw fewer true randonneuses: a couple of
Gilles Berthouds and a Pierre Perrin. No Alex Singers, no Rene Herses
(although I am told they were there and I just didn't see them).
There was one Leitra velomobile and several tadpole trikes.
Tim McNamara
russellseaton1@yahoo.com writes:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
>> answer is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't
>> do so well in those events.
>
> I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed
> Dura Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes. I doubt there was a touring bicycle
> within 24 hours of his time on PBP.
I suspect you'd be wrong on thinking every randonneur on a "touring
bike" needed 80 hours or more to finish. Was that hyperbole or just
plain ignorance on your part?
> He still rides the same bike and components today. So much for your
> concept of durability.
> I know several other people who have ridden PBP and other brevets on
> OCLV bikes. One man rode the same 5500 OCLV on the 1995 and 1999
> PBP and a new 5900 OCLV on the 2003 PBP. Another man rode PBP in
> 1991 or 1995 on a Specialized Sequoia touring bike. In 2003 he rode
> PBP on a Dura Ace titanium Serotta Legend. He can hardly believe he
> rode PBP on the heavy weight Sequoia. He still owns the Sequoia but
> when it came time to put the tire to the road he chose the correct
> bicycle. The heavy Sequoia is for night time riding around town.
The "correct" bicycle is one which is comfortable for you and which
has gearing and carrying capacity suitable to your needs. If you're
really strong, a 53/39 x 12-25 might work for you. If you're doing
PBP with a support car, you don't need to carry much (but then, IMHO,
you're also not riding the event in the spirit of randonneuring). For
your friends, the OLCV might be fine- for me it would not. C'est la
vie and bonne route to them!
If, on the other hand, you ride with the idea of self-reliance that is
part of the tradition of randonneurs, then you will find your OLCV
race bike less well suited to the demands of the event. But you have
to decide- are you riding PBP to have a wonderful and fascinating
experience, see France and maybe find out something about yourself in
the process? Or are you riding to prove what big huevos you have? I
saw people doing both in PBP, and what bike they were riding was not a
good predictor.
Tim McNamara
russellseaton1@yahoo.com writes:
> I guess everyone here would like to know what you are talking about.
No, what I'm wondering about is why you're being such a persistent
dickhead.
Ryan Cousineau
In article <1110862547.260846.187050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Wheel" <wheel_of_ixion@yahoo.com> wrote:
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > As I reported from my last ride in the Alps,
>
> Do people actually read that stuff?
Yes.
> > I was passed by a young
> > rider going briskly
>
> Ah yes, to be young and brisk. Do you remember?
In his youth, Brandt led rides in the Bay Area that attracted actual pro
riders and left them tired. Remember? I suspect he's still more brisk
than he admits.
Then again, I have this to contemplate right now:
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/races05/BC/march13/parttwo/pages/5476.htm
This is a finishing sprint (for sixth). Doesn't my form look nice? Too
bad about my 20-years-older teammate pipping me at the line.
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
