Advice sought re buying a new bike. (incl which brands have what reputations)

[David Damerell]

begin quoting Tom Sherman <[email protected]>:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>>Could be - he did say "I suspect the breaks may have been dragging".
>>Changing the gearbox isn't the answer to being overtaken when
>>you leave the handbrake on though.
>I have witnessed people riding tandems with bar-end mounted drag brakes
>unintentionally have the brake on.

A bogus as bogus can be test suggests, empirically, you can expect this to
happen once every 500 miles.

"Hey, Robin, is the brake on?"
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Leicesterday, February.

 

[RonSonic]

On 22 Feb 2005 06:46:17 -0800, "ship" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Hi
>
>(Original poster here again.)
>
>
>Okay guys go ahead - have your fun!

Thanks, bro and you too. Healthy attitude and perspective.

>But I still reckon that yeah it WAS the bike!
>The bike had cr*p brakes that were almost impossible to fix so that
>they
>wouldnt rub at all for more than half a journey. (And the drum break at
>the
>back - that might have rubbed a fraction too, difficult to tell).
>
>==>Re: Mechanically challenged?
>No just what you guys would call lazy. My bike is a tool to get me from
>A to
>B. And no I dont like spending every weekend brush my chain with a
>toothbrush!

There is that. I can't really argue the priorities.

>But yes I suppose I might treat my bike better if it performed well
>enough to earn some respect in the first place!

The cruel and brutal irony is that the cheaper and crappier the bike the more
maintenance it will require.

>Out of interest though, how much time how often SHOULD I be spending
>cleaning & adjusting my bike? I cycle atleast 10-15 miles/day. How
>often should I clean the chain / how often should I be cleaning & adjusting
>derailers etc

I would expect to fuss with it anywhere from once a week to once a month
depending on weather and storage and mileage. Mostly cleaning and lubrication.

>==>Re: "Having cake and eating it"
>Yes and no.
>I want to go as fast as I reasonably can WITHOUT screwing up my
>back/neck.
>(I gather all sorts of law suits are being prepared against racing bike
>manufacturers in the US). Hence I am up for as upright as possible a
>riding position.

>==> Re: recyclined riding position
>I've seen these things and I think they are one of the most dangerous
>things
>I've ever seen. You cant be seen and you cant see anyone else. Absolute
>suicide! And lets face it, being run over by a double decker bus is
>even worse for my spine... ;^)

Besides you are entirely too cool for one of those. We call them "bents" the
people who ride them think that is an abbreviation for "recumbent."

>==> Hub gears
>Well until someone can give me some HARD scientifically proven numbers
>on
>this I remain unconvinced... Surely every cog in ever gear is going to
>lose
>appreciable amounts of power! If we're talking less than say 0.5%
>energy
>loss then I might consider it. Though on a cold day I bet all that
>lubricating oil/grease will soak up a heck of a lot more...
>
>I mean e.g. if I can go say 20.0 MPH on a derailer, what MPH other
>things being identical would I go on a good derailer? Does anyone actually
>know the *FACTS* here, or is this all just hot air and ginding of axes that I'm
>hearing?
>
>My plan is to get some slightly more expensive derailers and hope that
>they last better than the cheap ones. I am more than happy to adjust & fine
>tune all these things just so long as I dont need to fish out my entire
>toolbox to do it. Although to be fair any grinding of gears etc clearly needs
>to be fixed right away.

Slightly more expensive makes sense. Past a certain point the increase in cost
is all for exotic materials, light weight and bragging rights. Cleanliness is
the biggest issue I find. That exposed chain and all those cogs are just out
there collecting dust and mud. The actual adjustments can be done with one
screwdriver, if that.

The usual triumverate of desiderata are Rugged, Cheap, Fast. With cycling being
so racing obsessed the industry tends to emphasize Fast when it gets away from
cheap.

>==>Re changing gears
>Is it likely to be okay to just use the front derailer most of the time.
>I seem to spend my whole life waiting at traffic lights in London...
>And if I just had 3 main gear rations to play with that would probably
>do - (And then on a prolonged bit of flat into a wind or whatever I
>could fine tune
>accordingly... every now and then with the full range of gears)

The front der tends not to shift as easily and smoothly as the back. Even so,
since you aren't spending large money to have something customized to your
riding style you may find that front shifter coming in handy. For most riders
it isn't used as much. More like an overdrive on a car, open road, or around
town.

>==> "Distressing" the bike
>Any more bright ideas on how to distress my nice shiny new bike
>to reduce it's "nickability". I'm not planning on selling the thing I'm
>thinking of
>a) spraying it with a variable mixure of rust and black coloured paint
>all
>over the place so that there arent too many shiny new silver bids left.
>b) putting some tape on to the seat.
>c) scraping off some of the paint - maybe with paint stripper.
>If it has aluminium underneath it wont rust in any case.
>d) wierd swept-back bars might help make it look old-fashioned too...

New York messengers used to wrap the whole blasted bike in black cloth handlebar
tape. I don't know that they still don't, but it's been years since I've been
there. Anyway, it pretty well masks the profile without doing harm. Some
mustache bars might suit your style AND deter crooks. Any excuse to not be
normal is a good one.

>==> Chain lube
>By the way I imagine the chain can waste huge amount of energy if dirty
>or with too thick lubricant. What's the word on the street about these
>wax-based "self-cleaning" chain lubricants? The idea I gather is that
>they slowly shed the wax together with dirt. But they seemed quite stiff to
>me.

Thick grease is NOT the problem you seem to think it is, either on the chain or
in pedals and hubs. The problem with grease on a chain is that it catches and
holds dirt in an abrasive slurry that will eat components. I prefer more
conventional lubes. I really don't have enough experience with the waxing thing
to say anything against it.

Good luck.

Ron

>Thanks for all your input so far -
>Much appreciated.
>
>
>Ship
>Shiperton Henether

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, ship
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Out of interest though, how much time how often SHOULD I be spending
> cleaning & adjusting my bike? I cycle atleast 10-15 miles/day. How
> often
> should I clean the chain / how often should I be cleaning & adjusting
> derailers etc

With a derailleur setup, commuting on dirty roads, it's going to need a
clean, lube and adjust once a week at least. With a hub-gear setup and
a full chain case, once every three months or so should do. Obviously
if you have the hub gear but no chain case then your chain is still
exposed to all the filth of the roads, but a hub gear chain is both
more robust and less cruelly treated than a derailleur chain so once a
fortnight would probably do.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

 

[Marvin]

ship wrote:
> Hi
>
> (Original poster here again.)
>
> But I still reckon that yeah it WAS the bike!
> The bike had cr*p brakes that were almost impossible to fix so that
> they
> wouldnt rub at all for more than half a journey. (And the drum break
at
> the
> back - that might have rubbed a fraction too, difficult to tell).

In which case, you need to change your maintenance schedule, or any
bike on the market is going to die under you pretty quickly. My best
suggestion is to find a friendly shop (doesn't matter if they're a bit
pricier than usual) and every month or so drop in and ask them what
needs replacing and how badly. They ought to be happy enough to
eyeball your bike over for you and they'd be very happy to do the work
if you can't be bothered.

> ==>Re: "Having cake and eating it"
> Yes and no.
> I want to go as fast as I reasonably can WITHOUT screwing up my
> back/neck.
> (I gather all sorts of law suits are being prepared against racing
bike
> manufacturers in the US).
> Hence I am up for as upright as possible a
> riding
> position.

You have two completely (and I do mean completely) opposed
requirements. FYI, well over 90% of your effort will go into
overcoming air resistance, so you have three options:

1: put in more effort
2: lean over more, thereby reducing air resistance
3: fiddle around with that remaining 5-10% as though it's really going
to make a difference.

So if you want comfortable, expect to sacrifice speed and vice versa.

> ==> Hub gears
> Well until someone can give me some HARD scientifically proven
numbers
> on
> this I remain unconvinced... Surely every cog in ever gear is going
to
> lose
> appreciable amounts of power! If we're talking less than say 0.5%
> energy
> loss then I might consider it. Though on a cold day I bet all that
> lubricating oil/grease will soak up a heck of a lot more...

Hard facts, roger that. Just don't complain when they don't agree with
your preconceptions.

"Every cog in every gear" loses power in derailleurs and hub gears,
some gears more so than others. "Appreciable" is a subjective term but
derailleurs and hub gears all float around the 85-95% range when new,
state of maintenance and gear selected make up such a huge difference
that saying one is more efficient than the other is a nonsense.

99.5% efficiency is a pipe dream, around 97% with a brand new fixed
wheel is possible.

Viscosity of oil and grease have a truly negligible effect on bike
transmissions. Pro mechanics preparing bikes for the Paris-Roubaix,
widely regarded as the worst conditions anyone throws at a road bike,
used to use a big handful of axle grease to lubricate the chains. I
don't hear their riders complaining.

I repeat, 90% of your effort is still going into aerodynamic losses.
Efficiency of the drivetrain is a pretty minor consideration.

> ==>Re changing gears
> Is it likely to be okay to just use the front derailer most of the
> time.

No, no it is not. Front mechs are all-round clunkier and less
mechanically nice than the rear, bikes are designed for lots of rear
shifts and few front. Shifting four cogs on the back should get you
the same effect as one on the front and be kinder to your chain in the
process.

> I seem to spend my whole life waiting at traffic lights in London...
> And if I just had 3 main gear rations to play with that would
probably
> do - (And then on a prolonged bit of flat into a wind or whatever I
> could
> fine tune
> accordingly... every now and then with the full range of gears)

I repeat, you are perfect for a hub gear. Lots of time in lights and
traffic, not much time for maintenance, no real requirements for lots
of gears. Be a little bit broad minded and have a test ride on
something hub-geared, you might just like it.

(I've recently had a play with a range of modern sit-up-and-beg
hub-geared bikes, and I can assure you the *only* slow thing about them
is the upright position. Tyres, hub gear, transmission are all but
indistinguishable from my road bike.)

> ==> Chain lube
> By the way I imagine the chain can waste huge amount of energy if
dirty
> or
> with too thick lubricant. What's the word on the street about these
> wax-based "self-cleaning" chain lubricants? The idea I gather is that
> they
> slowly shed the wax together with dirt. But they seemed quite stiff
to
> me.

You're not wrong, but the big problem is oil combined with road dirt,
which is usually composed of mud and grit. This combines to make a
remarkably good grinding paste on your gears, which wears them and
ruins the efficiency even further.

Cheers
Dave M

 

[ship]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ship wrote:
>
> > ==>Re: Mechanically challenged?
> > No just what you guys would call lazy. My bike is a tool to get me
from
> > A to B. And no I dont like spending every weekend brush my chain
with a
> > toothbrush!
>
> If you can't or won't do ongoing basic maintenance it amounts to the
> same thing though. If you don't like doing maintenance get a bike
that
> requires less and/or pay a bike shop to do it.
>
> > But yes I suppose I might treat my bike better if it performed well
> > enough to earn some respect in the first place!
>
> Chicken and egg thing. If you won't give it a break it's not
> intrinsically likely to give you one...
>
> > Out of interest though, how much time how often SHOULD I be
spending
> > cleaning & adjusting my bike? I cycle atleast 10-15 miles/day. How
> > often should I clean the chain / how often should I be cleaning &
adjusting
> > derailers etc
>
> Whenever it needs doing. Not very helpful, admittedly, but true
> nonetheless. Chains don't need much cleaning if they live in a
> chaincase and/or there's not much salt on the roads, OTOH an
unprotected
> chain in winter with grit down should be cleaned ideally after every
> journey if it's 10-15 miles. Brakes should be adjusted the first
time
> maintenance is possible if you've become unhappy with them.
Derailleurs
> need adjusting if they're not changing smoothly.

Yikes you're telling me to clean my chain every DAY then!
How long does chain cleaning take & what are you supposed to
do? I've never really understood all that - I mean am I really supposed
to take the chain off (every day!!)

Cant I just use that waxy stuff I was talking about that sheds the
dirt.
Or is it too high viscosity for a fast ride..?


>
> > ==>Re: "Having cake and eating it"
> > Yes and no.
> > I want to go as fast as I reasonably can WITHOUT screwing up my
> > back/neck.
>
> Then you want a sporty(ish) recumbent. Expensive cake, mind you, but
it
> does fit the bill.
>
> > ==> Re: recyclined riding position
> > I've seen these things and I think they are one of the most
dangerous
> > things I've ever seen. You cant be seen and you cant see anyone
else.
>
> Then how come I'm still alive? You can very easily be seen, and not
> only that you are sufficiently different to stick out like a sore
thumb:
> the cycle calls very loud attention to itself. Mine has the seat at
> about car seat height. Can you see other vehicles if you're in a
car?
> I can, so I imagine you can too.
>
> > Absolute suicide!
>
> Though nobody appears to have noticed a worse accident rate for
> recumbents than upright bikes. OTOH, because of the riding position
you
> can have more effective braking that doesn't tend to throw you over
the
> handlebars, similarly impacts are less likely to have you bound for
the
> tarmac head first, and if you come off you've less far to fall.
>
> There are several regular recumbent riders on u.r.c., and none of us
> feel we're in any more danger than our upright bikes. Many of us
have
> noticed plenty of blind assumptions made to the contrary, almost 100%
of
> which are made without any experience to judge from.

Well I'll give it some consideration I guess.
Roughly what do they cost? (he asked lazily)
Are they faster than regular/upright position bikes?

>
> > ==> Hub gears
> > Well until someone can give me some HARD scientifically proven
numbers
> > on
> > this I remain unconvinced... Surely every cog in ever gear is going
to
> > lose
> > appreciable amounts of power! If we're talking less than say 0.5%
> > energy
> > loss then I might consider it. Though on a cold day I bet all that
> > lubricating oil/grease will soak up a heck of a lot more...
>
> How about all the salt on your derailleur transmission? Higher up
you
> said you want to do a minimum of maintenance, and derailleurs are
/not/
> the way to achieve this.
>
> > last better than the cheap ones. I am more than happy to adjust &
fine
> > tune
> > all these things just so long as I dont need to fish out my entire
> > toolbox
> > to do it.
>
> That's not what you said earlier though...

Well on my last bike I could fine tune the adjustment of both break
and gear shift cable settings with a thumb screw on the the handle
bars.
I'm delighted to do that! I just want to waste as little time as I can
on the whole biking thing all considered together. That is the cycling
bit
*and* the maintenance bit!

And I don't like being overtake by fat-arsed female wearing huge
annoraks. Not ever. If that starts to happen then and only then
am I prepared to fiddle with my bike more than minimally!

I can see everyone in this NG seems to be pushing me towards hub-gears.

But last time I bought a 7-speed Giant hub-gear thing the man in the
shop told me
it was JUST AS FAST. But even from new it definitely wasnt.

> > ==>Re changing gears
> > Is it likely to be okay to just use the front derailer most of the
> > time.
>
> No, you use the rear one most of the time.
Why?!


> In fact, for urban commute
> work there's little, if anything, to be gained with a front
derailleur
> at all. A single chainwheel and sensibly chosen 8 speed rear should
be
> all you need.

Yes but I dont like having to change up AND down the full 8 gears
almost every time I hit traffic lights....

>
> > I seem to spend my whole life waiting at traffic lights in
London...
>
> Where hub gears are really nice 'cause you can change while stood
still.
> If you only want three gears get a SRAM 3 speed hub. Really.

See above!
>
> > c) scraping off some of the paint - maybe with paint stripper.
> > If it has aluminium underneath it wont rust in any case.
>
> But it can still corrode.

Even better - even more un-nickable!


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[ship]

To be fair if you had been killed then would you be talking to me?
ERGO only the lucky ones are still alive, kicking & chatting on this
NG!


Ship

PS Does yours have a wiggly flag flying to show motorised vehicle
drivers where you are?

PPS Who goes faster you are the conventional cyclists?

 

[Marvin]

ship wrote:
> Hi
> 1. HUB GEARS.
> One thing I'm *not* happy about though, is the hub-gear suggestions.
>
> HOWEVER, having driven one for about 5 year around London
> (a Giant thing cost about GBP350 new), I am now very against them.
>
> The problem is that a) they are *extremely* heavy [atleast mine was]
> and b) they are less efficient - i.e. [Cue spectre's large, lardy
arses
> over-taking]

*ding* - I know pretty much which ol' Giant sit-up-and-beg that was.
The whole bike was a heavy beast designed for those who cared very
little about speed and everything about solid stability. Trust me,
things have moved on a heckuva way since then.

> Also my hub gear bike was pretty difficult to set up correctly so
that
> it changed gear cleanly. And finally the damned thing has
> now seized up completely. I suspect the breaks may have been dragging
> too quite badly on occassion...

Probably one of the old SRAM units, they were never the best ever.
Taking it back to a competent shop should've got some better results
though.

> So this time I want something well made and new.
> e.g. I want pedals that spin properly - why cant anyone design pedals
> with efficient ball bearings?
> And I want wheels whose bearings wont blow up after a year.
> I want brake cable that wont need replacing after 6 months to a year
> etc etc etc!

What you want is to either maintain your bike properly or accept that
not maintaining it is breaking it. *NOTHING* will stand up to 50 miles
a week and zero maintenance. Get a shop to do it, regularly, if you
haven't got the time/patience/inclination/ability.

And finally, the next time you get overtaken by a "lardy-arsed woman",
catch her up for long enough to ask what she's riding, you might want
to take notes

 

[ship]

> ship wrote:
> > ==>Re: Mechanically challenged?
> > No just what you guys would call lazy.
>
>
> So don't complain when it costs you £450 a year to maintain your
bike
> (although I find it hard to imagine how you can possibly spend that
> much on maintenance unless you really are driving your bike into the
> ground and getting it fixed by the most expensive mechanic on earth).

>
> > And no I dont like spending every weekend brush my chain with a
> > toothbrush!
>
>
> Nor do I, but I'd rather spend on average less than half an
> hour a week
> on bike maintenance (which is all it takes) than £450 a year to get
> someone else to do what I can do for free.
>
> > (I gather all sorts of law suits are being prepared against racing
> bike
> > manufacturers in the US).
>
>
> Really? That's crazy. Perhaps not entirely surprising, but
> still crazy.

It's what the guy in Evans's bike shop was telling me.
And my osteopath hates me riding bikes in general - and
the further forward leaning the riding position the more
he hates it! Apparently it's particularly bad for the top
of the neck - that and sloughing in front of a PC all day.
Hmmm... tricky.


>
> > Hence I am up for as upright as possible a
> > riding
> > position.
>
>
> I'm afraid you'll just have to accept that upright riding
> position and
> racing speed are mutually exclusive.

Correct. No I got that.


>
> > ==> Re: recyclined riding position
> > I've seen these things and I think they are one of the most
> dangerous
> > things
> > I've ever seen.
>
>
> Is that what you "think", is it? How much actual thought have you put

> into the matter? And more pertinently, given your criticism of what
> other people "think" about hub gears, what does what you
> "think" count
> for anyway? How about some hard scientifically proven numbers to back

> up what you "think"?
>

Well before you all go too crazy at me, this a basic human process
that we all do!
We start with consulting our own intuition & common sense
and then check with the experts to see if we're correct.

Which is what I'm doing here.

As I freely admit I am a relative newbie to all this. And yep
it may be that statistics prove that reclined cycling is safer
than upright cycling. I'd be fascinated to know the hard stats.
But just looking at them terrifies me!

The thing is that no one seems to be able to actually produce
and like-for-like tests. I've asked around in various bike shops
and everything is incredibly "wooly". If fact is seems that even
the light bikes that are sold on being "really light"... again
there are no HARD facts available even in the catalogues!

Sure you can pick it up and it *feels* (subjectively, note )
lighter, but there is an objective reality here. This bike either
is or is not 1 Kg heavier than another.

And likewise either this bike would go 1.5 MPH faster than
this bike under these XYZ specified conditions or it wouldnt!

If we dont have objective facts all we have is subjective
opinions debate and competing theories.


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[ship]

Ron

Enjoyed your post - thanks.

Just one thing:

>>>
The front der tends not to shift as easily and smoothly as the back.
Even so,
since you aren't spending large money to have something customized to
your
riding style you may find that front shifter coming in handy. For most
riders
it isn't used as much. More like an overdrive on a car, open road, or
around
town.
>>>

Are you saying then that it's actually quicker to go all the way up and
down
the rear gear than to use the front ones? I find this strange because
all the derailer bikes in shops I've looked at seem to use pump action
or rapid fire or whatever you call it - that is one-gear-at-a-time
changing.

Or is this "rapid-fire" thing something I should try and avoid getting?

BTW, someone posted about having 3 or even just one gear ratio. But I
dont like
that either. There are various hills around London - including several
on my commute and for that gears do come in pretty useful.


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[David Martin]

ship wrote:

> Are you saying then that it's actually quicker to go all the way up and
> down
> the rear gear than to use the front ones?

You shouldn't need to. Well, not all the way anyhow.

> I find this strange because
> all the derailer bikes in shops I've looked at seem to use pump action
> or rapid fire or whatever you call it - that is one-gear-at-a-time
> changing.

Not necessarily. I have rapidfire and that changes up to 5 gears at a
time. It depends on the model. You may be happier with gripshift.

> Or is this "rapid-fire" thing something I should try and avoid getting?

Possibly. If I was buying a commuter bike for London I'd probably go for
a 7/8 speed hub gear, enclosed chaincase, hedgehog crushing tyres,
racks, mudguards, dynohub and disk brakes.

Easiest maintenance going after a fixie, and there is no discernable
difference between modern hub and derailleur gears in terms of ease of
pedalling, when compared to the engine and the aerodynamics.

And I do have some experience of London having lived there for most of
my life and commuted into central London for a significant part of it.

...d

 

[ship]

Strangely enough intuition already told me that wind resistance
would be where the vast majority of energy was going.

I would be interested to know how much difference it would
make if I was moderately leaning forward (just enough to
screw up my spine - if US medics are to be believed) vs. if I was
completely upright. I would guess no more than what 0.5MPH
at 20MPH??

Note: At the end of the day I'm mainly trying to save on TIME here.
And being self-employed, time in the Osteopath costs me twice - money
out of my pocket AND lost earning potential!

Not to mention costs a bad back can have on the sex life.

Which reminds me - did any of you guys see that article in the
New Scientish I think about how much damage racing saddles
do to the male organ?! Full bloody medical trials, everything.
Impotency, dyfunctions, inflamed glands... Almost brought tears
to just reading about it...

And I cant say I'm surprised. Every saddle Ive ever tried has been
HELLISH uncomfortable. And being a man who isnt prepared
to wear cyclying shorts (too much of that time wasted change
at both ends!) I do now use a big fat jell-based cover over the most
comfortable saddle I could find. It does help quite a lot but... still
a
long way from perfect.

And I stand up to cycle quite a lot - particularly whenever that
article
comes to mind!

Hey ho.


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[ship]

> Not necessarily. I have rapidfire and that changes up to 5 gears at a

> time. It depends on the model. You may be happier with gripshift.

Interesting. When you say it changes up to 5 gears at at time, do I
take
it that you're going pump-pump-pump-pump-pump five times in rapid
succession... and that the chain them snakes straight over five at
once?

Or is there some clever switch that goes "gimme five" ?!

Ship
Shiperton Henethe

 

[David Martin]

ship wrote:
> Strangely enough intuition already told me that wind resistance
> would be where the vast majority of energy was going.
>
> I would be interested to know how much difference it would
> make if I was moderately leaning forward (just enough to
> screw up my spine - if US medics are to be believed) vs. if I was
> completely upright. I would guess no more than what 0.5MPH
> at 20MPH??

You'd be wrong. Very wrong. At 20mph (a good speed on the flat if you
can get there) the difference sitting up would make in my experience is:

drops -> hoods, drop 1.5 mph
hoods -> top of bars drop 2 mph
sit right up no hands drop another 1.5mph

> Note: At the end of the day I'm mainly trying to save on TIME here.
> And being self-employed, time in the Osteopath costs me twice - money
> out of my pocket AND lost earning potential!
>
> Not to mention costs a bad back can have on the sex life.

My back isn't as good as it could be but that doesn't seem to be a
problem.. What you will need to do is to make sure the reach and
position of the handlebars is correct. Overstretching will be
unconfortable. Too upright will lose you speed.

> Which reminds me - did any of you guys see that article in the
> New Scientish I think about how much damage racing saddles
> do to the male organ?! Full bloody medical trials, everything.
> Impotency, dyfunctions, inflamed glands... Almost brought tears
> to just reading about it...

Mostly scaremongering.[2]

> And I cant say I'm surprised. Every saddle Ive ever tried has been
> HELLISH uncomfortable. And being a man who isnt prepared
> to wear cyclying shorts (too much of that time wasted change
> at both ends!) I do now use a big fat jell-based cover over the most
> comfortable saddle I could find. It does help quite a lot but... still
> a long way from perfect.

And the wrong thing to do if you ride more than a short distance. What
you need to do is to find a saddle that fits you, where the weight is on
the 'sit bones'. There is no 'one size fits all' saddle. Most of the
people riding long [1] distances use harder saddles. This puts the
weight on the right spots rather than spreading it all over the fleshy
parts that really shouldn't be squashed. It does take a bit of time to
get used to and cycling shorts do help.

> And I stand up to cycle quite a lot - particularly whenever that
> article comes to mind!

Maybe you need to learn to spin faster in easier gears, then you'll keep
up with the fat bottomed girls. It sounds like you are grinding away in
the big gears rather than spinning in the easier gears.

...d

[1] Long distance in this context is more than about an hour.
[2] Though some people seem to think that if it is hurting or numb it
isn't worth worrying about.. are they nuts?

 

[David Martin]

ship wrote:
>>Not necessarily. I have rapidfire and that changes up to 5 gears at a
>
>
>>time. It depends on the model. You may be happier with gripshift.
>
>
> Interesting. When you say it changes up to 5 gears at at time, do I
> take
> it that you're going pump-pump-pump-pump-pump five times in rapid
> succession... and that the chain them snakes straight over five at
> once?
>
> Or is there some clever switch that goes "gimme five" ?!

My thumb. I push in once, a short way, and it will change one gear.
If I push in a bit further it changes two gears.
The maximum change I can get is five gears in one push.

That does me fine on a normal MTB cassette.

...d

 

[davek]

ship wrote:
> New Scientish

Interesting typo. Says it all.

d.

 

[ship]

>>>
*ding* - I know pretty much which ol' Giant sit-up-and-beg that was.
The whole bike was a heavy beast designed for those who cared very
little about speed and everything about solid stability. Trust me,
things have moved on a heckuva way since then.
>>>

Oh well. But you see my POV. No one in the shop nor in the catalogues
are prepared to specify how much ANY of the bikes weigh...

And some posting on this thread not withstanding everyone seems to
be a little hazy on exactly *how much* slower a generic hub is
compared to a generic derailer...

And thereagain maybe the actual hub I buy is a cr*p design, or has
some hideous hiden mechanical fault... Does this count as paranoid
yet...?

Lets be honest the sight of that lardy-**** wizzing past me wearing a
thick anorak on what appeared to be a hybrid/mountain bike style thing
whislt I was hammering along with just my shirt on my back - was a
seriously disturbing sight that will be with me for a long time to
come.

Probably serves me right for my former tormenting the fairer sex by
making
train noises - you know the good old "express-train-going-past" noises
-
starts with a gentle "too-TOO", and then
"sheeeeeeeeEEEEEEE-OOOOOOOOoooooooo...." changing tone
just as you shoot past. I know, I know extremely juvenile but it did
pass the time!


Incidentally, one more thing that winds me up about cycling technology
is the clothing. Am I correct in thinking that if you're planning on
doing
a reasonable pace - if you want to be even *vaguely* showerproof on top
that you have to resign yourself to arriving sweaty at work!

Once you I get going - even in mid winter - I find I always end up
frickin HOT!

My best compromise so far has been an ultra-ultra light bright yellow
jacket
that's only shower-proof - but it packs up into the size of an apple.
I think its a material called "Pertex" by Montane. The idea
is that fine mist/spray should bead up and not be absorbed, and
yet the thing is hugely breatable. It worked like a dream when new
though to be honest hasnt worked that well with NickWaxing reproofing.
(Though I'm gonna try again)...

....But what does everyone else do? All these speed merchants
to you all just accept that you will arrive at work covered in sweat?
Even in mid-winter? If that is, you are planning on being even vaguely
showerproof! I see a lot of folks wearing big yellow jackets - but
I know I would absolutely cook in them. And no there aint no showers
at work, FWIW! So this isnt just me thinging of me, here... ;^)

A

 

[ship]

Cool - I Like it!
Is there a technical term for this kind of gear changing action?
Are they very expensive?
(No one mentioned this type of thing in a shop so far... maybe
they'll be overly pricey - or heck maybe most Shimano derailers
can nowadays do this for all I know. But thanks that sounds like
what I need for stop starting in town.)

Ship

 

[Marvin]

ship wrote:
> >>>
> *ding* - I know pretty much which ol' Giant sit-up-and-beg that was.
> The whole bike was a heavy beast designed for those who cared very
> little about speed and everything about solid stability. Trust me,
> things have moved on a heckuva way since then.
>
> Oh well. But you see my POV. No one in the shop nor in the catalogues
> are prepared to specify how much ANY of the bikes weigh...

I might have said this before, but go have a test ride on a few. See
which you get on with, which aggravate the heck out of your back and
which are just too heavy for you. Try a few different types of gears
and shifters, whatever's been suggested that you're vaguely wondering
about.

> And some posting on this thread not withstanding everyone seems to
> be a little hazy on exactly *how much* slower a generic hub is
> compared to a generic derailer...

That's basically 'cos there's so many other variables you can't say for
sure. For your own style, hubs will be more efficient because of the
whole cleaning thing, but there really is very little in it.

> And thereagain maybe the actual hub I buy is a cr*p design, or has
> some hideous hiden mechanical fault... Does this count as paranoid
> yet...?

That's paranoid, and besides, exactly the same argument could apply to
derailleurs

> My best compromise so far has been an ultra-ultra light bright yellow
> jacket
> that's only shower-proof - but it packs up into the size of an
apple.
> I think its a material called "Pertex" by Montane. The idea
> is that fine mist/spray should bead up and not be absorbed, and
> yet the thing is hugely breatable. It worked like a dream when new
> though to be honest hasnt worked that well with NickWaxing
reproofing.
> (Though I'm gonna try again)...

Ooops. You Nikwaxed a breathable top. With your next one, ask your
friendly shop staff how best to reproof it while still keeping the
breathability.

> ...But what does everyone else do? All these speed merchants
> to you all just accept that you will arrive at work covered in sweat?

No, I ride slower and don't have such a complex about being overtaken...

 

[ship]

>>>
At 20mph (a good speed on the flat if you
can get there) the difference sitting up would make in my experience
is:

drops -> hoods, drop 1.5 mph
hoods -> top of bars drop 2 mph
sit right up no hands drop another 1.5mph
>>>

Ah now we're getting somewhere!
That's interesting.
Except I'm not sure I understand the tech terms.

"Drops" means dropped handlebars, right?
the racing style handlebards... okay.
What are "hoods" - some bit of gear racing bikes have
that you can stick your hands on ?

And so adding it up you're saying that going from Drops
to having your hands on the top of the handle bars costs you
3.5 MPH - that is from say 20MPH right down to 16.5 MPH.

Well, you're the expert... I guess you have a speedometer
on the bike right? But I do find that AMAZING! But yeah, maybe
that's the reality.

What about tyres then - medium fat smooth to very thin tyres.
Both pumped up rock hard... how many MPH?! (@20-ish MHP)


A

 

[ship]

Cheap points!

Pedantic ones at that - particularly from someone who doesnt
think his own name is important enough to capitalise... ! ;^)

Stay cool bruv



Ship
Shiperton Henethe