P
Peter Clinch
Guest
Pete Biggs wrote:
> (They're not common on new "city" bikes). I've so far failed to find a Brooks saddle (sprung or
> not) which I find to be comfortable (although I haven't given up yet) - BUT I accept that they may
> be better for some/many people.
This is rather sliding past the point that the *assumption* is that they *will* be worse than a
modern plastic squidgy gel one, a very high % of which as supplied on cheap bikes are very grim
indeed. The point being that new technology does not necessarily improve matters.
> uncomfortable. They may yet make a comeback (if new owners of Brooks get their act together).
They've never gone away, if you open your eyes.
> In any case, having a comfy saddle is not enough if the bike is still a pig to ride for other
> reasons.
I find the converse to be true, but other people seem to manage okay. And if you don't think there's
anyone using a ghastly bike with a ghastly saddle but still getting around on it, again I think you
have a somewhat idealised picture of Real World cycling.
> Won't so well get up the hills* or accelerate so well (even on the flat).
As I've pointed out elsewhere, these are implementation issues rather than basic design, the extra
*necessary* weight on a roadster from having a hub and a chaincase is not enough to really dent
performance. And saying "but they're not built that way" is a cop out if you want to use the same
arguments for the knobbly tyres, no mudguards and no racks that are (not) supplied on MTBs.
> The more urban the streets, the more frequent the accelation required.
Again it's the case that how bikes are actually cycled and your ideal picture don't meet up IME. I
accelerate much better than most people even on a 40+ lb bike where I can't stand up simply because
I use appropriate gears and they're mashing at continental drift rates. If you had a hub you could
change down after stopping at a light, of course...
> well as any total weight difference, the riding position makes an MTB faster and more
> sprightly, IME.
If you're going at a constant speed where aerodynamics become a factor, yes, but again I see reality
as being that typical cyclists (most of whom I see on MTBs, of course) don't. Sprightliness is more
to do with wheels and tyres than riding position (why a Brommie is easily more sprightly for close
urban handling than any of my other bikes, I think).
The riding position of an MTB makes it very good for shifting your weight about out of the saddle.
Very handy in the rough, pretty pointless in the streets. It gives a default view of the road rather
than where you're going, less use in an urban setting.
> The fatter tyres provide more comfort and protection over the potholes - and more choice of tyres
> as well.
And you have to change them (which both Arthur and I have noted they don't generally do in
"non-enthusiast" cases) to give you something that's comfortable and efficient over flat tarmac. 2"
tyres are mad for tarmac use.
> Easier to maintain and modify.
Easier to modiify, yes, but again we seem to be living in slightly different but largely parallel
universes if you find people in general modify bikes a lot. As for easier to maintain, the whole
*point* of things like hub gears and chaincases is that there's far, far, far less maintenance to do
in the first place. And again back to the General Public who don't even realise oiling a chain is
easy and good for it, that's more important.
> And for the fastest riders (a sizeable minority),
Sorry, this is silly. "Fastest" is a relative term, so deciding it's a "sizeable minority" just
means you've moved along the bell curve of speed distribution. You can say 50% are the fastest or 1%
are the fastest and both can be true, the statement is meaningless.
> * Even many of the cyclists in central London ride from/to areas with some nasty hills.
Again, an implementation issue, not a design one.
> Who cares? They're having a good time and don't want to cycle any great distance. Quite a
> different bunch from the people cycling to work/college/shops, etc.
True, but where I am the poeple doing that are, by and large, far more likely to be a cheap, heavy
MTB with the saddle lower than optimum, in too high a gear to accelerate easily, who will stand up
rather than change gear when they get to a small rise, who have their insteps on the pedals, who hug
the kerb rather more closely than they might and who, even if they've fitted a rack, won't use it
and have a rucksack on and are rumbling about at a sedate pace on underinflated, knobbly tyres.
Though I see enlightened people on responsive and well built and well ridden MTBs they are very much
in a minority.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> (They're not common on new "city" bikes). I've so far failed to find a Brooks saddle (sprung or
> not) which I find to be comfortable (although I haven't given up yet) - BUT I accept that they may
> be better for some/many people.
This is rather sliding past the point that the *assumption* is that they *will* be worse than a
modern plastic squidgy gel one, a very high % of which as supplied on cheap bikes are very grim
indeed. The point being that new technology does not necessarily improve matters.
> uncomfortable. They may yet make a comeback (if new owners of Brooks get their act together).
They've never gone away, if you open your eyes.
> In any case, having a comfy saddle is not enough if the bike is still a pig to ride for other
> reasons.
I find the converse to be true, but other people seem to manage okay. And if you don't think there's
anyone using a ghastly bike with a ghastly saddle but still getting around on it, again I think you
have a somewhat idealised picture of Real World cycling.
> Won't so well get up the hills* or accelerate so well (even on the flat).
As I've pointed out elsewhere, these are implementation issues rather than basic design, the extra
*necessary* weight on a roadster from having a hub and a chaincase is not enough to really dent
performance. And saying "but they're not built that way" is a cop out if you want to use the same
arguments for the knobbly tyres, no mudguards and no racks that are (not) supplied on MTBs.
> The more urban the streets, the more frequent the accelation required.
Again it's the case that how bikes are actually cycled and your ideal picture don't meet up IME. I
accelerate much better than most people even on a 40+ lb bike where I can't stand up simply because
I use appropriate gears and they're mashing at continental drift rates. If you had a hub you could
change down after stopping at a light, of course...
> well as any total weight difference, the riding position makes an MTB faster and more
> sprightly, IME.
If you're going at a constant speed where aerodynamics become a factor, yes, but again I see reality
as being that typical cyclists (most of whom I see on MTBs, of course) don't. Sprightliness is more
to do with wheels and tyres than riding position (why a Brommie is easily more sprightly for close
urban handling than any of my other bikes, I think).
The riding position of an MTB makes it very good for shifting your weight about out of the saddle.
Very handy in the rough, pretty pointless in the streets. It gives a default view of the road rather
than where you're going, less use in an urban setting.
> The fatter tyres provide more comfort and protection over the potholes - and more choice of tyres
> as well.
And you have to change them (which both Arthur and I have noted they don't generally do in
"non-enthusiast" cases) to give you something that's comfortable and efficient over flat tarmac. 2"
tyres are mad for tarmac use.
> Easier to maintain and modify.
Easier to modiify, yes, but again we seem to be living in slightly different but largely parallel
universes if you find people in general modify bikes a lot. As for easier to maintain, the whole
*point* of things like hub gears and chaincases is that there's far, far, far less maintenance to do
in the first place. And again back to the General Public who don't even realise oiling a chain is
easy and good for it, that's more important.
> And for the fastest riders (a sizeable minority),
Sorry, this is silly. "Fastest" is a relative term, so deciding it's a "sizeable minority" just
means you've moved along the bell curve of speed distribution. You can say 50% are the fastest or 1%
are the fastest and both can be true, the statement is meaningless.
> * Even many of the cyclists in central London ride from/to areas with some nasty hills.
Again, an implementation issue, not a design one.
> Who cares? They're having a good time and don't want to cycle any great distance. Quite a
> different bunch from the people cycling to work/college/shops, etc.
True, but where I am the poeple doing that are, by and large, far more likely to be a cheap, heavy
MTB with the saddle lower than optimum, in too high a gear to accelerate easily, who will stand up
rather than change gear when they get to a small rise, who have their insteps on the pedals, who hug
the kerb rather more closely than they might and who, even if they've fitted a rack, won't use it
and have a rucksack on and are rumbling about at a sedate pace on underinflated, knobbly tyres.
Though I see enlightened people on responsive and well built and well ridden MTBs they are very much
in a minority.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
