bar-end shifters



On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.

>>
>> I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
>> see when I walk to work.

>
>I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.


I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
to work. On the road.

>A short man, whose weight easily topped 250 pounds, is going to ride a
>bike with 23 mm tires in an area widely noted for its potholes? Well,
>if he loves fixing pinch flats, perhaps.


I don't know what his height has to do with it other than, it seems,
to add to the superiority you seem to feel to this guy.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >>
> >> It's quite bizarre to me that you seem to claim that two products that
> >> don't sell well do so because of some sort of racing/marketing
> >> influence that keeps them off the market -- bar ends and biopace --
> >> rather than because riders simply want something else. What about
> >> stuff that you think is useful - say fat tires for road use? I assume
> >> that stuff succeeds *in spite of* the racer/marketing. Seems pretty
> >> selective causality there.

> >
> >I don't claim that this "racer" effect is universal in all things. I
> >don't claim that some non-racer goods succeed, or that all things
> >race-oriented are bad for other riders, or that race-oriented reviewers
> >are responsible for every scarcity of goods.
> >
> >I'm simply saying that it's an effect that exists.

>
> Are you saying it's the reasons bar-ends are so rare? Sounds like
> grasping at straws to me.
>
> >How would you explain integrated headsets, as another example?

>
> If they don't work well enough for the users, they'll die out. If
> they work well, they'll be available in the future since they look
> nice. We'll see.
>
> >Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.

>
> I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
> see when I walk to work.
>
> > For one thing,
> > the guy buying a bike "exactly like
> > Lance rides" is never going to be
> > able to put them on.

>
> I didn't say he should and find it remarkable that you can know what
> will be better for him by just looking at him. I was just pointing
> out that your comments about racing influence on product choice sounds
> like a bunch of whining since so many cyclists choose stuff that is
> not used in racing. Like fat tires on the road.
>
> > Another racing fashion
> >thing. There's _no_ practical benefit to having the skinny tire barely
> >clearing the frame - but it's fashionable!

>
> And for most people there is no downside either.
>
> So what? If you are truly special and need that stuff, get a bike
> with it. That's my point. You tour South Dakota? OK, maybe bar-ends
> are better than STI for you. But the fact remains that for most
> riders it's the other way around.
>
> Just because you can speculate or contrive or actually even find some
> reason that the stuff you like works better, even your own experience
> in helping people choose bikes shows that STI and Ergo are a better
> choice for them, whining about racers and the ignorance of the public
> aside.


I'm not going to rag Frank because he has some valid points, but lets
review for a moment the current state of the market as it compared to
the market in, let's say, 1967 -- a golden age for fatter-tire
bicycles. I walk in to the local Schwinn shop and this is what I see:
a Varsity, a Continental (pimped out Varsity), a Suburban (a mixte
Varsity with metal fenders and upright bars), a nameless single speed
Schwinn cruiser, massive numbers of tiny little bikes with streamers
coming out the ends of the bars, some pink girl's bikes with plastic
handlebar baskets and mixte frames, and a bunch of Apple Krates and
other banana seat/ape hanger bicycles. There is one five speed
Paramount on the wall, right inext to the puddle of drool. It's not
even the one with all Campagnolo parts -- it has Weinmann center-pulls.
None of these bicycles has finger-tip shifters, by the way.

Fast forward to my lunch time trip to the downtown Trek store. I see
zillions of mountain bikes, hybrids, so-called commuters (the Portland
is on the floor now), OCLVs, three brands of cross bikes, "comfort
bikes" in CF and aluminum, various kinds of kids bikes from one-speeds
to shrunken race-worthy mountain bikes, a recumbent or two. There are
all sorts of high zoot bikes like Madones, Orbeas and others. I look at
all this and say, "damn! I sure do miss 1967." I then ask the sales
person, "excuse me, could you please show me where you keep the boat
anchors that shift like ****?"-- Jay Beattie.
 
Dane Buson wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.misc Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Dane Buson <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Well, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
>>> precipitate.

>>
>> Dang, I like that!

>
> Feel free to blame my wife for that one, she's the chemistry/biology
> geek in the household. Biology was always too *squishy* for me, I
> prefer the gentle sussuration of electrons coursing through copper.


Basic Definitions of Science:
If it's green or wiggles, it's biology.
If it stinks, it's chemistry.
If it doesn't work, it's physics.

(source unknown)

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Then you agree that bar ends are not as efficient for me, myself, to
>> shift. Finally.

>
> I've agreed with you on this time and time and time again, JJ. I
> don't know how you missed it.
>
> This horse flat enough for you yet?


Why don't you stop shooting it?
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Incidentally, fat tires for road use are fairly rare.
>>>
>>>I see dozens every day where I live -- they are the most common bike I
>>>see when I walk to work.

>>
>>I understand. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

>
>
> I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
> riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
> to work. On the road.


Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.

W
 
On 19 Jan 2006 20:20:46 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>a Suburban (a mixte
>Varsity with metal fenders and upright bars


I had boy's version of that thing as a kid and did 22-miles rides on
it. Changed my life (seriously).

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:54:59 -0500, The Wogster <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
>off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
>total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
>ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
>on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.


I don't think trying to cover the possiblity of trail riding is why
most people get mountain bikes. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of
the people I see on these "mountain bikes" ever ride off-road. They
just want fat tires for compfort or durability or feeling of security
on rough roads. And they get it -- racer marketing isn't working on
them.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "JJ" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>> "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>>> With bar-end shifters, one can avoid having to adjust the
> >>>> indexing by switching to friction mode. I find that friction mode
> >>>> works perfectly well on 9-speed Shimano drivetrains.
> >>>
> >>> That can't be as nice to shift a few huindred times a day, can it?


> It was a "simple question" with an agenda and a set of assumptions
> evident behind it. Or it was an incredibly ignorant question. I
> hadn't thought of that at the time of my writing. Which was it?


Whatever kind of question it was the answer is no,
not even close.

On wide open roads or tours the advantages of
new school shifters will be minimized. But in
city traffic and on climbs the sti is
absolutely da bomb.

Yes, I have a lot of experience with lots of
different types of shifters. STI rules. Rules
hard.

Robert
 
On 20 Jan 2006 05:47:06 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Whatever kind of question it was the answer is no,
>not even close.
>
>On wide open roads or tours the advantages of
>new school shifters will be minimized. But in
>city traffic and on climbs the sti is
>absolutely da bomb.
>
>Yes, I have a lot of experience with lots of
>different types of shifters. STI rules. Rules
>hard.
>
>Robert



So, there you have it. End of story.


Life is Good!
Jeff
 
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:54:59 -0500, The Wogster <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
>>off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
>>total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
>>ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
>>on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.

>
> I don't think trying to cover the possiblity of trail riding is why
> most people get mountain bikes. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of
> the people I see on these "mountain bikes" ever ride off-road. They
> just want fat tires for compfort or durability or feeling of security
> on rough roads. And they get it -- racer marketing isn't working on
> them.
>
> JT
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************


I think another big factor is the pricing. You can buy a "mountain bike" a
lot cheaper than road.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>

> >. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

>
> I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
> riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
> to work. On the road.


But you don't see them on Trek Madones, which is what this guy was
determined to buy. In general, you don't see them on road frames at
all. These days, 28 is the maximum tire width for most road frames,
and even that won't fit if you want decent fenders.

>
> >A short man, whose weight easily topped 250 pounds, is going to ride a
> >bike with 23 mm tires in an area widely noted for its potholes? Well,
> >if he loves fixing pinch flats, perhaps.

>
> I don't know what his height has to do with it other than, it seems,
> to add to the superiority you seem to feel to this guy.


It's not that hard, John. If a guy is 6' 4" tall and weighs 250
pounds, he can be fairly slim and athletic. If a guy is 5' 6" tall and
weighs 250 pounds, he's much more likely to be carrying a large belly.

This guy was carrying a _very_ large belly. Large enough that I can't
believe he'd ever be comfortable on that bike. People with that body
shape tend to do better with a frame that doesn't have their nose so
close to the front wheel.

- Frank Krygowski


>
> JT
>
>
>
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
On 20 Jan 2006 08:52:44 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2006 17:49:19 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >> On 19 Jan 2006 17:01:53 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >. I meant to say fat tires for road _bike_ use.

>>
>> I see dozens every day where I live. There is almost no off-road
>> riding (Manhattan). They are the most common bike I see when I walk
>> to work. On the road.

>
>But you don't see them on Trek Madones, which is what this guy was
>determined to buy. In general, you don't see them on road frames at
>all. These days, 28 is the maximum tire width for most road frames,
>and even that won't fit if you want decent fenders.


I don't understand why are you are using extreme examples in this
discussion. I thought we were talking about overall trends, what is
best for most people, what works best overall.

28 is pretty big and would suit a lot of riders, even the hugely fat
ones you mention, if they ride much distance on paved roads or easy
trails (like cinder paths). Not for touring with load in South Dakota
or course. Beyond that there are all sorts of hybrids, cross bikes
and "mountain bikes" in the shops they can choose from, despite the
influence of racing and Trek's marketing. I don't see where the
influce of racing or racing marketing is undermining bike choice for
most users.

>
>It's not that hard, John. If a guy is 6' 4" tall and weighs 250
>pounds, he can be fairly slim and athletic. If a guy is 5' 6" tall and
>weighs 250 pounds, he's much more likely to be carrying a large belly.
>
>This guy was carrying a _very_ large belly. Large enough that I can't
>believe he'd ever be comfortable on that bike. People with that body
>shape tend to do better with a frame that doesn't have their nose so
>close to the front wheel.


So you're saying racing bikes can't even fit fat people, let alone
support their weight? Umm, OK. I don't think that's true, but
whatever...

I still don't see what that has to do with the fact that for a
majority of cyclists STI or Ergo is a better choice than bar-ends.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
The Wogster wrote:

> Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
> for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
> bike total.


Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.

Bill "hardtail, fully, aluminum road and now a new carbon frame to build up"
S.
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:54:59 -0500, The Wogster <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike for
>>off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE bike
>>total. Given enough training, I could ride a century on an MTB, I could
>>ride to work on an MTB, I can ride on a trail, on an MTB. Trail riding
>>on a road or racing bike, no way Jose.

>
>
> I don't think trying to cover the possiblity of trail riding is why
> most people get mountain bikes. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of
> the people I see on these "mountain bikes" ever ride off-road. They
> just want fat tires for compfort or durability or feeling of security
> on rough roads. And they get it -- racer marketing isn't working on
> them.


I think a lot of it, is due to an appearance of durability, it's the
same reason why some people like to drive an SUV, it looks tougher then
a wussy looking car. A road bike looks like a guy at 225lbs would crush
those tiny rims, and flatten those tiny tires, where as an MTB looks
like it could take some serious abuse.

Some of it is also marketing driven, take the average person who walks
into Target (in Canada Zellers) or Walmart, the acne enhanced store
"clerk" is unlikely to know what kind of bike is sitting their for
$99.95, in case your wondering it's most likely a hybrid or MTB rather
then a road bike. I think because, it's hard to build a $100 road bike,
a MTB uses heavier looking components, which can be more cheaply built
out of the heavy steel they make $100 bikes out of.

Mind you, you can use light weight materials in an expensive MTB, that
makes for a bike that is much lighter then it looks.

W
 
Sorni wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
>>for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
>>bike total.

>
>
> Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
> chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
> more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.


I am a cyclist, and I have one bike, at least for now, would like a road
bike, and would really think I would look good as the captain of a
Greenspeed tandem trike (wonder if I could convince my SO to the stokers
seat), but those things are the price of a car!!!!

W
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>
> I don't understand why are you are using extreme examples in this
> discussion.


Just to illustrate the effects that exist.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Sorni wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
> > Most people are not going to have one bike for on road, another bike
> > for off road, another bike for commuting, they are going to have ONE
> > bike total.

>
> Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
> chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
> more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.


You're showing a lack of imagination. Specifically, you're imagining
cyclists are all people just like those posting here - or worse, that
they're all people just like you.

There's a good-sized contingent of people who are bike commuters
because that's the best way for them to get around. In some cases,
it's the only way; they can't afford a car, there's no mass transit,
and it's too far to walk.

You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons. That's
because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle. Yes,
even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum cans to
sell.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Sorni <[email protected]> wrote:
> Disagree totally. If someone is "hard core" enough to commute by bike,
> chances are they're a CYCLIST and not just a PERSON. Most CYCLISTS have
> more than one bike -- especially if they're into off-road at all.


I've been commuting by bike for years, and have always owned only one bike
(not counting our new tandem, and not counting the brief periods where I
had a new commute bike but hadn't gotten rid of the old one yet).

But I guess I'm not "hard core", since I don't own bike shorts, bike shoes,
bike jerseys, etc.
--
Darin McGrew, [email protected], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email protected], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just persons.
> That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a bicycle.
> Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering aluminum
> cans to sell.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


It's heartwarming to know you felt relaxed enough to write that.
 
"Sandy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a

déclaré :
>
> > You're right, though, that they are cyclists, not just

persons.
> > That's because a cyclist is defined as a person who rides a

bicycle.
> > Yes, even the old black guy with the rusted Huffy gathering

aluminum
> > cans to sell.
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski

>
> It's heartwarming to know you felt relaxed enough to write

that.

Sheesh! Plus, where I ride, the guy is white . . . and he has a
Burley trailer (unbelievably) stuffed with cans and ****, and he
is always parked in the bike lane on a stretch of a busy road on
my way into work. I practically crash into him about twice a
week. He sleeps under a nearby overpass. One day, I will stop
and talk with him about STI/ERGO versus finger-tips -- paired
spoke wheels, that kind of stuff. See what got him into cycling.
See where he got that Burley trailer, too. -- Jay Beattie.
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
20
Views
525
Cycling Equipment
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J