Another newbie question... (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?)



P

Peter Clinch

Guest
sothach wrote:

> ITYM 'underkill' - the mech discs I've tried have served a purely
> decorative function, but at least on an urban bike discs won't be the
> liability they are off-road.


Not entirely fair. While the cheese-tastic discs one sees adorning
gaspipe in Tesco and Toys R Us are almost certainly considerably less
use than properly adjuested Vs, cantis or DPs, there are worthwhile
mechanical discs out there. Wouldn't buy them myself, as it strikes me
that if you're going to town you might as well do the job /really/ well
and get hydraulics, but you can get examples that are decently
engineered and stop the bike properly.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
S

sothach

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
> sothach wrote:
>
> > ITYM 'underkill' - the mech discs I've tried have served a purely
> > decorative function, but at least on an urban bike discs won't be the
> > liability they are off-road.

>
> Not entirely fair. ... there are worthwhile mechanical discs out there.

I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed once.
Who makes decent ones?
I think the whole idea is barse ackwards, and hydrualic rims brakes
make a lot more sense: more leverage, more 'modulation', longer pad
life & easier pad change, free choice of wheels, less load on spokes,
and off-road: clearance for rocky stream beds & less prone to
branch-ingestion damage (for the last two: DAMHIKIJKOK)
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"sothach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> sothach wrote:
>>
>> > ITYM 'underkill' - the mech discs I've tried have served a purely
>> > decorative function, but at least on an urban bike discs won't be the
>> > liability they are off-road.

>>
>> Not entirely fair. ... there are worthwhile mechanical discs out there.

> I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed once.
> Who makes decent ones?


I know of MTB tandem riders who swear by the Avid ones. I think that's
probably a pretty good recommendation...

cheers,
clive
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Ken
Aston ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> After getting so much helpful information here
>

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...422e0fc4d58/f393e72de2466ab0#f393e72de2466ab0
> I can't wait to buy a nice bike and get on the road. Yesterday I went
> to the bike shop and almost bought a Marin Fairfax:
>

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2007/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_fairfax.html
> But after talking to the staff I got a little confused.
>
> Mainly I will ride around the city, but next year I want to go on a
> month-long road trip. I assumed that attaching front and rear racks and
> going on the road with the extra 30 kg of weight would be OK. But the
> shop staff told me that the bike is not suitable for this purpose. The
> weight would be too heavy for the carbon fork and the thin tyres. And
> besides I would not be able to attach a front rack.
>
> My weight is only 70 kg so I don't understand why 100 kg would be a
> problem for the bike. Does it mean that taller/heavier people would not
> be able to ride the bike even without a load? I don't really believe
> this point. But now I am worried that I won't find a front rack for
> this bike. Here are some photos of the bike which I took at the store
> yesterday:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
>
> Do you think I will find a suitable front rack for regular panniers
> which I can attach to the bike? Do you see any problems with the extra
> weight or with taking the bike on a long road trip?


I think attaching a rack and panniers to this bike would be a mistake. If
you want a bike to take panniers then something a bit more utilitarian
would be better. But in my opinion a trailer is a better solution than
panniers anyway and would work fine with that bike.

One of these if you're on a budget:
http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=21738

One of these if you're not:
http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=23392

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

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

Dave Larrington

Guest
In news:[email protected],
Clive George <[email protected]> scribed:

> I know of MTB tandem riders who swear by the Avid ones. I think that's
> probably a pretty good recommendation...


The only time I tried Avid mechanical discs, I swore /at/ them...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Whatever it is, I'd like it in mango & passion fruit, please.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
sothach wrote:

> I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed once.
> Who makes decent ones?


I've heard good things said of (IIRC) Hope's.

> I think the whole idea is barse ackwards, and hydrualic rims brakes
> make a lot more sense: more leverage, more 'modulation', longer pad
> life & easier pad change, free choice of wheels, less load on spokes,
> and off-road: clearance for rocky stream beds & less prone to
> branch-ingestion damage (for the last two: DAMHIKIJKOK)


But no rim wear, so especially if you're on grit and sand you don't
destroy your wheels by the act of using the brakes, and the rotor isn't
as prone to a damn good soaking in rather low friction fluids.

Only the rim wear is an argument on the road, but that's still an argument.

Pete (who uses HS-33s).
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> I think attaching a rack and panniers to this bike would be a mistake. If
> you want a bike to take panniers then something a bit more utilitarian
> would be better. But in my opinion a trailer is a better solution than
> panniers anyway and would work fine with that bike.
>

Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.
 
S

sothach

Guest
Rob Morley wrote:

> Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.

I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while
until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I
think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing
tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the
morning)

But even with an urban MTB, something like a Toppeak MTX beam rack is a
useful permanent fixture, at least it makes a good mounting point for a
rear light.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
sothach <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.

> I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while
> until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I
> think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing
> tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the
> morning)
>

You'd have noticed it a lot sooner if you'd gone through a narrow gap.
:) And what about finding parking space?
 
P

Paul Boyd

Guest
On 10/11/2006 09:39, Ken Aston said,
>> Which means you *can* buy another bike!!

> That's really a great idea... but where do a put the bike stand? I live
> in a mini apartment in Tokyo... The spot I rent for my bike
> unfortunately has no space for a bike stand. Renting another spot costs
> as much as it costs to rent a car garage in smaller cities. So we are
> back to one bike. :)


How mini are these mini-apartments that you didn't mention you lived
in??? Surely there's enough room to stand up, and my two bikes are not
much higher than head height. The point of this bike stand is that two
bikes take up the same floor space as one.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>
Paul Boyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/11/2006 09:39, Ken Aston said,
> >> Which means you *can* buy another bike!!

> > That's really a great idea... but where do a put the bike stand? I live
> > in a mini apartment in Tokyo... The spot I rent for my bike
> > unfortunately has no space for a bike stand. Renting another spot costs
> > as much as it costs to rent a car garage in smaller cities. So we are
> > back to one bike. :)

>
> How mini are these mini-apartments that you didn't mention you lived
> in??? Surely there's enough room to stand up, and my two bikes are not
> much higher than head height. The point of this bike stand is that two
> bikes take up the same floor space as one.
>
>

Or tie them to the ceiling and they take no floor space at all - but
mind your head. :)
 
P

Pinky

Guest
I have only towed a trailer this year ( a standard BoB Yak) and apart from
the huge advantage when camping/touring I actually found that I towed the
trailer nearly all the time. I did all my shopping with it and together
with a discarded box from the market ( it fitted nearly perfectly). I
certainly didn't notice its unloaded state behind me, apart from a few more
rattles.

It also had the advantage of being "different" in the traffic. The dozy
cagers saw it and all motorist gave me a wider berth

Sadly, because I was changing to a recumbent trike (and ICE said their
machine didn't like it and there would be warranty problems.)

I sold it at a very fair price in mid September. Another lesson learned -- I
should have waited until I had the box of pieces of Trice Q NT delivered
before I sold it.

Trice and I fell out in some 3 hours on evening day before they promised
delivery. I won't go into that. But I wish I hadn't sold my very useful BOB
Yak trailer

A tail end query what is the Edinburgh "copy" like I am in particularly
interested in the rain proofness of the "dry sack"
Next year, with my v small tent, I am starting in Venice and doing a "half"
of Italy circular tour of about 2000 kms. The trailer beats carrying 4
panniers and I shall be definitely towing one again -- and almost certainly
a single wheeled one like the Yak

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

"sothach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
>> Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.

> I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while
> until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I
> think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing
> tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the
> morning)
>
> But even with an urban MTB, something like a Toppeak MTX beam rack is a
> useful permanent fixture, at least it makes a good mounting point for a
> rear light.
>
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Ken Aston wrote:
>
>> Mainly I will ride around the city, but next year I want to go on a
>> month-long road trip. I assumed that attaching front and rear racks
>> and going on the road with the extra 30 kg of weight would be OK.
>> But the shop staff told me that the bike is not suitable for this
>> purpose. The weight would be too heavy for the carbon fork and the
>> thin tyres. And besides I would not be able to attach a front rack.
>>
>> My weight is only 70 kg so I don't understand why 100 kg would be a
>> problem for the bike. Does it mean that taller/heavier people would
>> not be able to ride the bike even without a load?

>
> I think it's the carbon fork that's the problem rather than the bike
> itself. It won't have braze-ons (obviously...) for dedicated racks
> and the attachment systems of racks that don't need braze-on eyelets
> will stress and crush the carbon in ways it wasn't designed for. If
> you're going to use it as a tourer I think it'll work a lot better
> with light loads, or you're compromising its fundamental design
> goals, and the gearing will make you suffer badly on hills with that
> much extra weight (gearing on my tourer goes about a third lower, and
> I use the lot!)
>> Do you think I will find a suitable front rack for regular panniers
>> which I can attach to the bike?

>
> I'm not sure you can do it sensibly without replacing the fork for
> something metal.


Tifosi CKF8 carbon forks have "mudguard eyes" on the aluminium dropouts.
I'd expect these to be OK with a rack and some luggage. What the safe limit
would be though, I'm not sure.

http://www.dotbike.com/ProductsP192.aspx

1" but there are ways of using them with frames that take 1 1/8" forks.

ITM did/do similar forks as well, perhaps 1 1/8".

~PB
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Ken Aston wrote:
> OK, I see. So would it be practical to change the fork shortly before
> going on a road trip?


Not a bad idea if you're happy enough with the rest of the bike.

> How about the 28 spokes of the front wheel? Will they make it?


Probably.

~PB
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> sothach wrote:
>
>> I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed once.
>> Who makes decent ones?

>
> I've heard good things said of (IIRC) Hope's.


Hope hydraulics are definitely very nice (if sometimes noisy). I didn't
know they made mechanicals.

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

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> I have only towed a trailer this year ( a standard BoB Yak) and apart
> from the huge advantage when camping/touring I actually found that I
> towed the
> trailer nearly all the time. I did all my shopping with it and together
> with a discarded box from the market ( it fitted nearly perfectly). I
> certainly didn't notice its unloaded state behind me, apart from a few
> more rattles.
>
> It also had the advantage of being "different" in the traffic. The dozy
> cagers saw it and all motorist gave me a wider berth
>
> Sadly, because I was changing to a recumbent trike (and ICE said their
> machine didn't like it and there would be warranty problems.)
>
> I sold it at a very fair price in mid September. Another lesson learned
> -- I should have waited until I had the box of pieces of Trice Q NT
> delivered before I sold it.
>
> Trice and I fell out in some 3 hours on evening day before they promised
> delivery. I won't go into that. But I wish I hadn't sold my very useful
> BOB Yak trailer
>
> A tail end query what is the Edinburgh "copy" like I am in particularly
> interested in the rain proofness of the "dry sack"


I think the answer is, like all Edinburgh Bicycle products, built to a
price but remarkably good value. The design is very good. It is steel;
unlike the BoB Yak it folds flat and packs away into it's own bag.
Execution is not quite so good. It's heavy and the welding is a bit crude.
The wheel is not particularly high quality and I'd be a little concerned
about the durability of the bearing, but after all if it failed after a
couple of years it would be easy to rebuild the wheel on a better hub. The
one that I've seen regularly shows some signs of rust after only about six
months use, so you may find it needs repainted at some point. But it's
amazingly cheap.

This review:
http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/news/reviews/Revolution_Cargo_trailer.html

says the waterproofing of the bag doesn't work - it leaks at the seams. But
putting a plastic bin bag inside it would be a cheap solution to that.

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

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Ken
Aston ('[email protected]') wrote:

> OK, I see. So would it be practical to change the fork shortly before
> going on a road trip?
>
> How about the 28 spokes of the front wheel? Will they make it?


OK, let's cut through some of the nonsense.

Carbon forks are typically stronger and more resilient than any other forks
used on road bikes. Strength of the forks is not an issue. Second, as I've
pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which I crashed at 46mph
into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic Ksyrium. Apart from a
dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in good condition. Modern
quality low-spoke-count wheels are very strong. Strength of the wheel is
not an issue.

The bike /can/ carry the luggage. Finding a front rack which will fit to
the forks might be an issue but is probably not impossible. As you point
out in your photos, it does have the braze-ons to take a rear rack.

But the bike has race geometry, which is designed to have light, sensitive
steering. This means, of course, that it's sensitive to weight on the
steering subsystem, and relatively more likely to suffer dynamic steering
oscillations than a more stable geometry.

I wouldn't burden this bike with pannier racks. You'd spoil the feel of the
bike, and it would be a shame. A trailer doesn't cost much more than an
equivalent set of panniers and racks for them.

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

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.
 
P

philk

Guest
Hi.
Just thought I'd chip in as I have had a Fairfax for about 18 months.
I've been very happy with the bike and have taken it touring,
admittedly for only a week at a time (once to Devon and once to
Normandy). Otherwise I use it for commuting and recreational rides. I
have fitted a rear rack and used panniers for touring. I can't afford
to have more than one bike but this has suited me fine.
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> Carbon forks are typically stronger and more resilient than any other
> forks used on road bikes. Strength of the forks is not an issue.


Crushing resistance will be if trying to clamp something to them.

> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which
> I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic
> Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in
> good condition.


That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger in
general, as I think you've agreed before.

~PB
 
M

Mark Thompson

Guest
>> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which
>> I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic
>> Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in
>> good condition.

>
> That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger in
> general, as I think you've agreed before.


I think he meant strong, not stronger.
 

Similar threads