On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:29:00 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>On 22 Jan 2006 06:02:47 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>> They should have 36 spokes too of course. Unless they are racers of
>>> course. Right? This is RBT right? So you really shouldn't forget to
>>> add that. And of course most people's top gear is too high. Don't
>>> forget that.
>>
>>Agreed. The weight savings and decreased aerodynamic drag from less
>>than 36 spokes is trivial,
>
>What if the increase in strength of 36 over 28 is trivial? My wife
>has 28 spokes on the front wheel of her bike. I am certain she will
>never break a spoke and almost never put that wheel out of true. Is
>that OK or do you think she should switch to 36? She is not a racer.
>Of course. Now you've got me worried, even though the wheel is fine.
>
>Will she look like a "wannabe racer"? Her bike has flat bars so I'm
>hopeful that won't happen. It does have index-only shifting. Is that
>too risky?
>
>>From a cost/use/practicality standpoint, what most road bike riders
>>should be riding are steel frame bikes with adequate frame clearances
>>for wider tires and fenders, 36-spoke wheels with aluminium alloy rims
>>(with sockets, but no anodizing), smooth tread clincher tires, 8-speed
>>freehub/cassette and bar-end shifters.
>
>Should they switch now? When racers are using 11 or 12 cogs in back
>will it be OK for other riders to use 9speeds. Or is 8 the end?
>
>And what if the aluminum frames are cheaper? Is it too risky to ride
>them? We all know of course that any weight savings between frames is
>trivial unless the rider is a racer. Of course. But steel can be more
>readily repaired, or even cold set. So what should riders with
>aluminum frames do?
>
>I am also curious about 40 or 48 spoke wheels. The weight increase and
>increased aerodynamic drag is of course trivial. Is there any
>advantage to such wheels? If those wheels were more standard, then we
>could point out that the lower weight of 36 spoke wheels was trivial
>in comparison. Wouldn't that be great?
>
>Please let me know about these questions, you seem to know what is
>best for more riders.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>JT
Wow, I just found out that I have the wrong bike. It is steel,
apparently all else is wrong.
I don't race, but one goal when upgrading was to lower weight. I have
Easton CF bars and post, a Dura-Ace driveterain, although the 9-speed
cassette [14-28] is mostly Ultegra and the crankset a triple
30/39/53.
Of course the wheels are wrong, Peter built me a set of DA hubbed
Velocity Aeroheads 28f and 32r.
I don't purposely ride in bad weather, so no fenders, not that they
would most likely fit. Part of why I love my bike, is its appearance,
fenders are ugly. And when I have gotten wet, my concern was towards
the bike, not me. The worst rainstorm I was caught in, my shoes got so
wet they were squishy, fenders wouldn't have changed that.
And God forbid, I have those evil STI brifters. The pedals are those
impractical SPD-SL Look-alikes, with Sidi Genuis 4s, which make me
waddle like a duck.
Now, why do I have a bike like that, well because it inspires me. Just
sitting there, it screams "RIDE ME". And I do. The bike has its
Ritchey WCS stem in the upward position, bars are at most 2" lower
than the saddle. The saddle is a Selle Italia Prolink Basic, not the
lightest, but for me, quite comfy. Did I mention that I enjoy riding
this bike?
Now, maybe some of you, who are convinced that only racers can ride
bikes with less than 36 spokes, no fenders, and brifters, can explain
what compells me to be so wrong. Do I need to make ammends?
Life is Good!
Jeff