Good wheels

A Muzi said:

Both Avocet and Vetta sold Selle Italia brand saddles, rebadged, at
one time.
Not only has Selle Italia discontinued those nice ample designs, the
American remarketers discovered that a feature-laden Chinese lump of
plastic can cost less and sell for more, hence our modern world with
it's dismal choices. At least Brooks fit some riders, after that, what?

Fashion being what it is, I reckon that five inches will not be the
cool width for a saddle forever. About the time that prospects are
looking really grim, I bet the marketeers will decide that a saddle
you can actually sit on is the new hotness.

One can always hope, anyway.

Chalo

Chalo said:

A Muzi said:

Both Avocet and Vetta sold Selle Italia brand saddles, rebadged, at
one time.
Not only has Selle Italia discontinued those nice ample designs, the
American remarketers discovered that a feature-laden Chinese lump of
plastic can cost less and sell for more, hence our modern world with
it's dismal choices. At least Brooks fit some riders, after that, what?

Fashion being what it is, I reckon that five inches will not be the
cool width for a saddle forever. About the time that prospects are
looking really grim, I bet the marketeers will decide that a saddle
you can actually sit on is the new hotness.

One can always hope, anyway.

Five inches is plenty for most male bones. I just hate the smooshy
padding which makes the hideous slot necessary.

ebay is a fine place to shop for saddles if you really want to give a
vintage vetta a shot.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Vetta-leather-saddle_W0QQitemZ300122677697QQihZ020QQcategoryZ106951QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle

Quoted message said:

I wonder, where do you find a lugged Waterford to be lacking?

Joe Bernard said:

"Waterfords lacking" is too negative a reference. Instead of saying
Waterfords don't "do it" for me, I should have said I've always wanted
a custom Rivendell and nothing else will do. Waterford makes many
excellent bikes, -snip-

Rivendell's are Grant's design. Each Waterford is completely to _your_
design, suggested basic geometries are considered a 'starting point'.
More, Waterford's palette is several hundred hues wide and, yes, custom
lug cuts are available. A recent Waterford here was pink with red heart
cutouts in the lugs. Here's a nice example of lug cuts:
http://waterfordbikes.com/site/tech/dwflame.php

Waterfords run 3 to 5 weeks, exactly as you request.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tim McNamara said:

Have you got a B.17 Standard or a B.17N? The latter is a couple cm
narrower. I checked my Pros; my ischial tuberosity dents are about 9 cm
center to center, so for me 13 cm would be plenty of room. I can sit
about 3 cm in front of the rear stretcher (the thing the top is riveted
to) and not feel the metal at all, and be perfectly comfortable. At the
same point, the B.17 Standard I have is a couple cm wider than the Pros,
which might be why it's not as comfortable to me at the Pros are.

Brooks saddles may just not be for you. Just like Flites aren't for me.
Does that mean they are [censored]? Nope. We have to be careful about
inflating our personal experiences into universal judgments, something
that is all too common in human nature.

The problem I had with Brooks is that they sag too much. I need a very
flat saddle. If there's any sag at all, I go numb. Flites were fine
shape-wise for me, but a little too hard for brevets. I used a Selle
Italia "Tri-matic" right out of the box and rode a 400K. I almost lost a
whole season screwing around with Brooks (Pro & B-17). I think it's a
simple matter of anatomy (individual) and perhaps riding position. I
also tend to ride with lower bars than most.

As far as lugs go, I think they're a bit unreliable. I've had 2 lugged
frames fail, one right along the lug edge where they tend to concentrate
stress, the other had a tube pull out of the lug, from a bad braze,
which are impossible to check. I'll take welded, thanks.

As for wheels, I'm just practical. You can get a pair of nice
Ultegra/Mavic for cheap & tweak them and they'll be pretty bullet-proof,
I just don't have the patience to screw around with anything more
exotic. I think Mavic rims are a bit of a rip though.

I like Cinelli tape all right, but it's too fragile. Very hard to wrap
it tight enough to not slip around & lay flat. I've found the Nashbar
house tape to be better. You can pull it very tight and it's grippy. The
last roll I bought was $3.

Joe Bernard said:

And balderdash to you my friend. I'm referring to "plush" bikes, cool
road bikes that regular Joes actually want to buy. Touring bikes are
purchased by tourers and those long wheelbase, thick-tubed, canti-
braked bikes aren't road bikes, anyway. "Touring bike" is its own
category. Folks who wanted a regular sidepull-brake road bike bought
low-bar race bikes, no matter what kind of riding they actually did. I
don't remember any "sport/touring" bikes from Trek or Cannondale ten
years ago. Maybe Novara had one. One bike in the corner of REI doesn't
exactly make a trend.

I have both an 80's Fuji and Cannondale, coincidentally, I also have
frames 15-20 years newer from both. The new frames are called "touring",
the old frames weren't. The geometries are virtually identical. Seems
that all that new frames have done in design is to make the chain stays
as short as possible. I think this makes a bike handle poorly.

Only one of my long-stayed frames has canti's, the rest are sidepulls.
Really makes little difference. I do prefer the canti's over long reach
sidepulls. Modern frames & brakes have such limited capacities for
things like big tires & fenders. Not all of my bikes have those, but I
like the idea of being able to use them at my option.

I think bike "categories" are mostly made up by marketeers (like Grant).

A Muzi said:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle

Quoted message said:

I wonder, where do you find a lugged Waterford to be lacking?

Joe Bernard said:

"Waterfords lacking" is too negative a reference. Instead of saying
Waterfords don't "do it" for me, I should have said I've always wanted
a custom Rivendell and nothing else will do. Waterford makes many
excellent bikes, -snip-

Rivendell's are Grant's design. Each Waterford is completely to _your_
design, suggested basic geometries are considered a 'starting point'.
More, Waterford's palette is several hundred hues wide and, yes, custom
lug cuts are available. A recent Waterford here was pink with red heart
cutouts in the lugs. Here's a nice example of lug cuts:http://waterfordbikes.com/site/tech/dwflame.php

Waterfords run 3 to 5 weeks, exactly as you request.

--
Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

As I stated, Waterfords are fine bicycles. I like Grant's designs. I
love my Romulus and want a lighter version. I want it to be red.
Rivendells come in red. Are you saying I shouldn't want the bike I
want?

Peter Cole said:

Tim McNamara said:

Have you got a B.17 Standard or a B.17N? The latter is a couple cm
narrower. I checked my Pros; my ischial tuberosity dents are about 9
cm center to center, so for me 13 cm would be plenty of room. I can
sit about 3 cm in front of the rear stretcher (the thing the top is
riveted to) and not feel the metal at all, and be perfectly
comfortable. At the same point, the B.17 Standard I have is a couple
cm wider than the Pros, which might be why it's not as comfortable to
me at the Pros are.

Brooks saddles may just not be for you. Just like Flites aren't for
me. Does that mean they are [censored]? Nope. We have to be careful about
inflating our personal experiences into universal judgments, something
that is all too common in human nature.

The problem I had with Brooks is that they sag too much. I need a very
flat saddle. If there's any sag at all, I go numb. Flites were fine
shape-wise for me, but a little too hard for brevets. I used a Selle
Italia "Tri-matic" right out of the box and rode a 400K. I almost lost a
whole season screwing around with Brooks (Pro & B-17). I think it's a
simple matter of anatomy (individual) and perhaps riding position. I
also tend to ride with lower bars than most.

I think you are quite right, it is a matter of individual anatomy as to
which saddles suit a person. Brooks saddles have acquired a mystique
(both pro and con) that IMHO is pretty much disproportionate to reality.
They work for some people, they don't for others.

Quoted message said:

As far as lugs go, I think they're a bit unreliable. I've had 2 lugged
frames fail, one right along the lug edge where they tend to concentrate
stress, the other had a tube pull out of the lug, from a bad braze,
which are impossible to check. I'll take welded, thanks.

Every method of joining tubes has a failure rate. I've seen broken
lugged frames and broken welded frames, but only one broken fillet
brazed frame. That was a Viscount Aerospace Pro, bought in 1976 and
broken by 1981. The seat tube cracked just above the fillet. Fillet
brazed frames being rarer than lugged or welded might be why I've only
seen the one. I have a fillet brazed Ritchey road frame that I raced on
for a few years and have ridden for 8 or 9 years with no sign of failure
anywhere. I suspect- as with all the other methods- the skill of the
welder/brazer is rather important. I'm really just a bit prejudiced- I
think welded frames are butt-ugly and they remind me of Sears Free
Spirits and Huffys and the like. If I wasn't an old fart who worked in
bike shops in the late 70s to mid-80s, I might think differently.

Quoted message said:

As for wheels, I'm just practical. You can get a pair of nice
Ultegra/Mavic for cheap & tweak them and they'll be pretty bullet-proof,
I just don't have the patience to screw around with anything more
exotic. I think Mavic rims are a bit of a rip though.

I agree competely except I no longer use Mavic rims (I do have a back
stock of three unused MA2s in reserve- I bought out the local bike
shop's stock when the MA2 was discontinued). Mavic rims cost at least
twice what they should.

Quoted message said:

I like Cinelli tape all right, but it's too fragile. Very hard to wrap
it tight enough to not slip around & lay flat. I've found the Nashbar
house tape to be better. You can pull it very tight and it's grippy. The
last roll I bought was $3.

Cinelli's cork tape used to be much better than it is now, IMHO. I've
developed a pretty good touch with it so I can get it to wrap well, but
it's fragile and cuts easily if anything hits the handlebars. I was
given a free package of some cheap-ass tape by the LBS, and darned if it
isn't actually pretty good. It's a rubbery material, I think it's
polyurethane but I am not sure and I don't have the box anymore. I
haven't tried the Nashbar house brand, haven't ever even looked at it on
their Web site.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Featuritis and gratuitous branding attempts on OEM and racing
> bike saddles have resulted in normal, practical, comfortable
> plastic saddles looking out-of-fashion. Not so for Brookses.
> They look cool and authentic, like the real tack-and-harness
> stuff from which they are descended. Lots of cool-kid bike
> messengers are using them. If that's what you can buy to get an
> 8" wide saddle that isn't shaped like a pie with a snout and
> isn't overly squishy, so be it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Michael Press said:

Brooks saddles had all but disappeared, but now I am seeing them
regularly again. Is this the hobbit effect?

Quoted message said:

Joe Bernard said:

I kinda doubt it. I think it's parallel to the New Beetle/ PT
Cruiser/ New '69 Mustang effect, and it's in tandem with the fixie
effect, which is kind of a retro back-to-the-simple-days thing
itself. Of course, Brooks saddles being anything but simple to care
for, something got lost in translation.

Tim McNamara said:

There's something complicated about caring for Brooks saddles? Have I
missed out? I mean I rub some leather treatment on it once a year or so
but I'd hardly call that un-simple. And I put a plastic bag over it if
I get caught in the rain but again that's not exactly complicated. What
am I missing out on?

As long as I've been around bicycles the wackiest advice about leather
saddles comes from people who have never ridden or owned one (baseball
bats, hot oil and on, ad absurdum).
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Chalo said:

Fashion being what it is, I reckon that five inches will not be the
cool width for a saddle forever.

Haven't very wide arses gone out of cycling fashion? You should have
been a Pacific Islander :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Peter Cole said:

Joe Bernard said:

And balderdash to you my friend. I'm referring to "plush" bikes, cool
road bikes that regular Joes actually want to buy. Touring bikes are
purchased by tourers and those long wheelbase, thick-tubed, canti-
braked bikes aren't road bikes, anyway. "Touring bike" is its own
category. Folks who wanted a regular sidepull-brake road bike bought
low-bar race bikes, no matter what kind of riding they actually did. I
don't remember any "sport/touring" bikes from Trek or Cannondale ten
years ago. Maybe Novara had one. One bike in the corner of REI doesn't
exactly make a trend.

I have both an 80's Fuji and Cannondale, coincidentally, I also have
frames 15-20 years newer from both. The new frames are called "touring",
the old frames weren't. The geometries are virtually identical. Seems
that all that new frames have done in design is to make the chain stays
as short as possible. I think this makes a bike handle poorly.

Only one of my long-stayed frames has canti's, the rest are sidepulls.
Really makes little difference. I do prefer the canti's over long reach
sidepulls. Modern frames & brakes have such limited capacities for
things like big tires & fenders. Not all of my bikes have those, but I
like the idea of being able to use them at my option.

I think bike "categories" are mostly made up by marketeers (like Grant).

Not entirely.

Touring bicycle: 590 wheels. 450 mm chain stay, 71 degree head tube and seat tube,
65 mm chain stay drop

racing bicycle: 622 wheels. 390 mm chain stay, 74 degree head tube and seat tube,
72 mm chain stay drop

--
Michael Press

Peter Cole said:

Joe Bernard said:

And balderdash to you my friend. I'm referring to "plush" bikes, cool
road bikes that regular Joes actually want to buy. Touring bikes are
purchased by tourers and those long wheelbase, thick-tubed, canti-
braked bikes aren't road bikes, anyway. "Touring bike" is its own
category. Folks who wanted a regular sidepull-brake road bike bought
low-bar race bikes, no matter what kind of riding they actually did. I
don't remember any "sport/touring" bikes from Trek or Cannondale ten
years ago. Maybe Novara had one. One bike in the corner of REI doesn't
exactly make a trend.

I have both an 80's Fuji and Cannondale, coincidentally, I also have
frames 15-20 years newer from both. The new frames are called "touring",
the old frames weren't. The geometries are virtually identical. Seems
that all that new frames have done in design is to make the chain stays
as short as possible. I think this makes a bike handle poorly.

Only one of my long-stayed frames has canti's, the rest are sidepulls.
Really makes little difference. I do prefer the canti's over long reach
sidepulls. Modern frames & brakes have such limited capacities for
things like big tires & fenders. Not all of my bikes have those, but I
like the idea of being able to use them at my option.

I think bike "categories" are mostly made up by marketeers (like Grant).

And, if you are a marketeer whose existance depends on selling
different bike models to the same smallish group of people (not the
same demographic, but the very same small group of buyers), you have
to continually invent new "categories". The "Country Bike" is a
perfect example of this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle
> I wonder, where do you find a lugged Waterford to be lacking?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Joe Bernard said:

"Waterfords lacking" is too negative a reference. Instead of saying
Waterfords don't "do it" for me, I should have said I've always wanted
a custom Rivendell and nothing else will do. Waterford makes many
excellent bikes, -snip-

Quoted message said:

A Muzi said:

Rivendell's are Grant's design. Each Waterford is completely to _your_
design, suggested basic geometries are considered a 'starting point'.
More, Waterford's palette is several hundred hues wide and, yes, custom
lug cuts are available. A recent Waterford here was pink with red heart
cutouts in the lugs. Here's a nice example of lug cuts:http://waterfordbikes.com/site/tech/dwflame.php
Waterfords run 3 to 5 weeks, exactly as you request.

Joe Bernard said:

As I stated, Waterfords are fine bicycles. I like Grant's designs. I
love my Romulus and want a lighter version. I want it to be red.
Rivendells come in red. Are you saying I shouldn't want the bike I
want?

Nope, not at all.
I often note that no one can be wrong about his own opinion. Just
expanding on the available choices.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole said:

Joe Bernard said:

And balderdash to you my friend. I'm referring to "plush" bikes, cool
road bikes that regular Joes actually want to buy. Touring bikes are
purchased by tourers and those long wheelbase, thick-tubed, canti-
braked bikes aren't road bikes, anyway. "Touring bike" is its own
category. Folks who wanted a regular sidepull-brake road bike bought
low-bar race bikes, no matter what kind of riding they actually did. I
don't remember any "sport/touring" bikes from Trek or Cannondale ten
years ago. Maybe Novara had one. One bike in the corner of REI doesn't
exactly make a trend.

Quoted message said:

I have both an 80's Fuji and Cannondale, coincidentally, I also have
frames 15-20 years newer from both. The new frames are called "touring",
the old frames weren't. The geometries are virtually identical. Seems
that all that new frames have done in design is to make the chain stays
as short as possible. I think this makes a bike handle poorly.

Quoted message said:

Only one of my long-stayed frames has canti's, the rest are sidepulls.
Really makes little difference. I do prefer the canti's over long reach
sidepulls. Modern frames & brakes have such limited capacities for
things like big tires & fenders. Not all of my bikes have those, but I
like the idea of being able to use them at my option.

Quoted message said:

I think bike "categories" are mostly made up by marketeers (like Grant).

And, if you are a marketeer whose existance depends on selling
different bike models to the same smallish group of people (not the
same demographic, but the very same small group of buyers), you have
to continually invent new "categories". The "Country Bike" is a
perfect example of this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Country Bike came about when Grant decided to pursue 650B wheels
and center-pull super-long reach brakes, now also augmented by super-
long dual-pivots. This makes a pretty unique bike. Hardly worth
tossing off as just another "category bike" to sell to existing
customers.

Joe

landotter said:

Chalo said:

Fashion being what it is, I reckon that five inches will not be the
cool width for a saddle forever. About the time that prospects are
looking really grim, I bet the marketeers will decide that a saddle
you can actually sit on is the new hotness.

Quoted message said:

One can always hope, anyway.

Five inches is plenty for most male bones. I just hate the smooshy
padding which makes the hideous slot necessary.

That assumes that the flesh compressed between the saddle and sit
bones can deal with the implied pressure per area. What works for a
rider of 130 lbs may not be just right at 350 lbs. That doesn't mean
that a foam birthday cake in the approximate shape of a saddle is
appropriate either.

I just sat on a piece of styrofoam board. The deepest part of the
indentations in the board are on 6" centers, but the depressed area is
almost 11" wide. All of the saddles that have ever worked for me have
been between these two dimensions in width.

Quoted message said:

ebay is a fine place to shop for saddles if you really want to give a
vintage vetta a shot.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Vetta-leather-saddle_W0QQitemZ30012267769...

Unlike leather and steel, plastics don't age so well. I have problems
tearing the rails out of plastic saddle noses even when they're
fresh. But if I run across one that seems well preserved and doesn't
cost too much, I may give it a try.

Chalo

Michael Warner said:

Haven't very wide arses gone out of cycling fashion? You should have
been a Pacific Islander :-)

Mine is thriving in the cycling arena. It's clearly passé in budget
air travel, though.

Too bad I can't cycle to Samoa to work on my tan and pick up a nice
lavalava in size XXXXL.

Chalo

Michael Press said:

Touring bicycle: 590 wheels.

^^^^^^^^^^

Drugs, man... gotta give 'em a rest sometimes.

I've been paying close attention to bike shops for over 20 years now,
and I have yet to see a new OEM bike with that wheel size. I have
seen a passel of touring bikes, though-- all with 559, 622, or 630
wheels.

If you care to look back as far as the days when 590 and 597 wheels
roamed the earth, you'll find that the racing bikes of those days had
longer than 39cm chainstays, too.

Chalo

Joe Bernard said:

The Country Bike came about when Grant decided to pursue 650B wheels
and center-pull super-long reach brakes, now also augmented by super-
long dual-pivots. This makes a pretty unique bike. Hardly worth
tossing off as just another "category bike" to sell to existing
customers.

Hmmm... smaller wheels, longer brakes....

Don't you mean "when Grant decided to figure out a way to sell the
same frame to the same customers a second time"?

Sounds like something even less noteworthy than a gratuitous category
of bike to me.

Chalo

In article
<[email hidden]>
,

Chalo said:

Michael Press said:

Touring bicycle: 590 wheels.

^^^^^^^^^^

Drugs, man... gotta give 'em a rest sometimes.

I've been paying close attention to bike shops for over 20 years now,
and I have yet to see a new OEM bike with that wheel size. I have
seen a passel of touring bikes, though-- all with 559, 622, or 630
wheels.

If you care to look back as far as the days when 590 and 597 wheels
roamed the earth, you'll find that the racing bikes of those days had
longer than 39cm chainstays, too.

I meant to write 559. Sorry for the confusion.

--
Michael Press

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 05:24:37 -0000, Chalo <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

landotter said:

Chalo said:

Fashion being what it is, I reckon that five inches will not be the
cool width for a saddle forever. About the time that prospects are
looking really grim, I bet the marketeers will decide that a saddle
you can actually sit on is the new hotness.

Quoted message said:

One can always hope, anyway.

Five inches is plenty for most male bones. I just hate the smooshy
padding which makes the hideous slot necessary.

That assumes that the flesh compressed between the saddle and sit
bones can deal with the implied pressure per area. What works for a
rider of 130 lbs may not be just right at 350 lbs. That doesn't mean
that a foam birthday cake in the approximate shape of a saddle is
appropriate either.

When someone says "most" he's talking about "most" -- not about
someoen whose size and shape is a far outside of "most".

Quoted message said:

I just sat on a piece of styrofoam board.
The deepest part of the
indentations in the board are on 6" centers,
but the depressed area is
almost 11" wide.

Whether or not your remark above is useful depends at least in part in
where you fall in terms of "most men." Is your body sized like most
men?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Chalo said:

Whether or not your remark above is useful depends at least in part in
where you fall in terms of "most men." Is your body sized like most
men?

I'd be willing to bet that I'm moster than you and landotter
combined!

Chalo