bar-end shifters



On 21 Jan 2006 20:10:05 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Unless they are racing where a slight reduction in frontal area would
>be significant, there is no benefit in riding extremely narrow tires.
>Tires of 28-32 mm width provide better ride comfort, handling, and
>traction, and offer greater versatility on what surfaces can be ridden
>on. And unless the bike is for fair weather only, fenders are an
>excellent addition. Again, the extra weight and drag of fender should
>only be of concern to racers.


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.

Thanks,

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > I've had people ask me about getting a new bikes, tell me they "are
> > not interested in racing" and ask about the combined break
> > lever/shifters they've seen.... ^^^^^

>
> "Break lever/shifters" - what an apt description of brifters. ;)
>
>


LOL!!
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2006 19:55:08 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'm still curious what your story is. Seriously, what's the deal?
> >>

> >
> >
> >
> >In this very thread, you asked me about my history w/r/t barends.
> >
> >When the answer didn't suit your agenda, you *ducked out*.

>
> Can you repost the answer?
>


Google. Know how to use it?
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
The Wogster <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
> bicycles, because a racer who pays $500


Not real, come on !

> for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post


Same ...

> isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
> set of fenders.


Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a guess !) of
folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in inclement weather. The
bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but fenders don't make a difference
here.

> Mountain bikes are also an issue, because mud and **** can get caught
> between the tire and fender, but this can be resolved with higher
> clearence, for example a frame designed so that there is say 10cm
> clearance wouldn't have an issue, it works on dirt bikes....
>

--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
In article <[email protected]>, John Forrest
Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:23:11 -0500, Luke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Recently, after riding my road bike (57mm reach calipers, 28c tires)

>
> The road bike I used today fits low-profile cross tires (like 28s) and
> similar road tires -- it's a racing frame that's about six or seven
> years old (a LeMond). Short-reach brakes.
>
> JT
>


I should've been more clear: the bike I referred to was equipped with
28c tires at the time but can accept 32c size rubber with fenders and
larger sizes without - I suppose a contemporary equivalent would be a
Rivendell Rambouillet. And I also owned an Asian made Bianchi racer
from the late 80s that accommodated 32c tires (without fenders).
Calipers notwithstanding, essentially these 'road bikes' were what
today pass for CX bikes, that is, drop bar bikes that afford a wider
choice of rubber. (Put drop bars on an average modern hybrid and the
same could be said of it.)

Their versatility was an asset, particularly as it did not detract in
any way from performance.

Luke
 
Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
> The Wogster <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>>There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
>>bicycles, because a racer who pays $500

>
>
> Not real, come on !
>
>
>>for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post

>
>
> Same ...
>
>
>>isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
>>set of fenders.

>
>
> Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a guess !) of
> folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in inclement weather. The
> bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but fenders don't make a difference
> here.


There are essentially two kinds of drop bar bikes:

Racing bikes (be just like Lance), where everything is based on weight
reduction, and yeah, racing teams would likely get a custom built
seatpost, and pay $500 for it, if it reduced the weight even 5g to give
their racer as much advantage as possible. They certainly would not
"waste" 200g per wheel for fenders.

Road bikes, ever head out, on a nice sunny day, not a cloud in the sky,
nothing forecast except sun, and then get a torrential 2 minute
downpour, and end up with the "skunk stripe" as the only proof, because
it got sunny again afterwards? The real issue here, is that frame
designers leave the 2.5mm wheel clearence dictated from racing bikes,
which means no chance of stuffing a fender in there. If they left say
5cm, and added the frame mountings, it wouldn't make any real differance
weight wise, and people could add their own fenders.

Then again, you might have so many people add after market fenders, that
a whole new style of road bike would be born, the fendered road bike,
and bike assemblers would start adding them as standard equipment.

A rear only option, would be to add a rack, the rack could have a solid
piece over the top, which would remove the skunk stripe and wet behind,
effectively making a rear fender, debating doing this with my MTB......

W
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2006 20:10:05 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Unless they are racing where a slight reduction in frontal area would
> >be significant, there is no benefit in riding extremely narrow tires.
> >Tires of 28-32 mm width provide better ride comfort, handling, and
> >traction, and offer greater versatility on what surfaces can be ridden
> >on. And unless the bike is for fair weather only, fenders are an
> >excellent addition. Again, the extra weight and drag of fender should
> >only be of concern to racers.

>
> 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, unless one is racing at a level where a
couple of seconds difference in elapsed time will affect placement.
Otherwise, lower spokes counts are a silly fashion statement, trading
looks for decreased reliability/longevity.

If professional riders that are putting out average power in the range
of 400 watts when riding hard use 53/39 chainrings and 11-23 clusters,
then this gearing is obviously way too high for an average road bike
rider with less than half the power.

>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.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
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

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Luke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Peter Cole
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I have a 700c fixed gear (80's Fuji tourer frame) with a "flip-flop"
>>hub.

>
> Dumpster diving veterans can attest that a resurrected vintage road
> bike (circa 80s) often equals in versatility a typical CX bike of today
> - both can accommodate a variety of tire sizes and peripheral equipment
> (racks and fenders).


Older "sports tourer" frames are versatile in that they can take some
pretty fat tires. I use 35mm studded knobby tires on one of my bikes in
the winter. When forks and chainstays were brought closer together, and
chainstays were shortened in the recent fashion, I think usefulness was
lost and nothing substantial was gained.
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
The Wogster <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> Dans le message de news:[email protected],
>> The Wogster <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>>
>>
>>> There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
>>> bicycles, because a racer who pays $500

>>
>>
>> Not real, come on !
>>
>>
>>> for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post

>>
>>
>> Same ...
>>
>>
>>> isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
>>> set of fenders.

>>
>>
>> Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a
>> guess !) of folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in
>> inclement weather. The bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but
>> fenders don't make a difference here.

>
> There are essentially two kinds of drop bar bikes:


Well, there's the first wrong turn ...
>
> Racing bikes (be just like Lance), where everything is based on weight
> reduction, and yeah, racing teams would likely get a custom built
> seatpost, and pay $500 for it, if it reduced the weight even 5g to
> give their racer as much advantage as possible. They certainly would
> not "waste" 200g per wheel for fenders.


You may not have been paying much attention to racing in the last 4-5 years.
There is a weight minimum, and pretty much anyone can be riding an illegal
(sub-weight) bike in the PRO peleton, not to mention the many elite and
not-so-elite racers. So there really is not any target of 5 grams, not 50
grams, and depending on who is riding what, 500 or more grams. The weight
battle is over, unless UCI changes the minima.
>
> Road bikes, ever head out, on a nice sunny day, not a cloud in the
> sky, nothing forecast except sun, and then get a torrential 2 minute
> downpour, and end up with the "skunk stripe" as the only proof,
> because it got sunny again afterwards? The real issue here, is that
> frame designers leave the 2.5mm wheel clearence dictated from racing
> bikes, which means no chance of stuffing a fender in there. If they
> left say 5cm, and added the frame mountings, it wouldn't make any
> real differance weight wise, and people could add their own fenders.


It's water and dirt, and it doesn't happen all that often. I must be among
the privileged, having a washing machine. The way you write, it rains on
your parade all the time. Aside from Seattle, I have not heard of too many
other reliably rainy cities. But I don't know, so you can tell me where
they are.

> Then again, you might have so many people add after market fenders,
> that a whole new style of road bike would be born, the fendered road
> bike, and bike assemblers would start adding them as standard
> equipment.


I have a Zefal fender on my winter bike. It jumps over the rear triangle
and clips onto the seat tube. My delightful frame has exactly enough seat
tube above the joint so that it goes there, and with the saddle, does a good
job keeping me reasonably dry. On my good season bike, no fenders, and back
to washing machine and showers for solutions.

> A rear only option, would be to add a rack, the rack could have a
> solid piece over the top, which would remove the skunk stripe and wet
> behind, effectively making a rear fender, debating doing this with my
> MTB......


Take a look at the Zefal - it may be the kind of answer you would accept.
It clips on or off in seconds.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm, denigration, snotty remarks,
indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that "you do the math", conceited
visions of a better world on wheels according to [insert NAME here].
 
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
 
Sandy wrote:
> ...
> It's water and dirt, and it doesn't happen all that often. I must be among
> the privileged, having a washing machine. The way you write, it rains on
> your parade all the time. Aside from Seattle, I have not heard of too many
> other reliably rainy cities. But I don't know, so you can tell me where
> they are....


Are the French meteorologists so superior that they can reliably
predict when rain will occur?

In much of North America, what starts out as a clear sunny day can
change to rain in a couple (not 7.5) of hours, and there are many days
where it is cloudy but no rain occurs. With inferior North American
weather predictions, what do we do?

Should we have a spare bike with fenders in the support van? Oh, I
forgot, we are not all racers with a support team!

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
>
>>...
>>It's water and dirt, and it doesn't happen all that often. I must be among
>>the privileged, having a washing machine. The way you write, it rains on
>>your parade all the time. Aside from Seattle, I have not heard of too many
>>other reliably rainy cities. But I don't know, so you can tell me where
>>they are....

>
>
> Are the French meteorologists so superior that they can reliably
> predict when rain will occur?


That's not the point.
Once in a while you get wet with or without fenders. When it's cold,
like in the winter fenders could be usefull in combination with
rainclothes.
In the summer getting wet it's not a big deal. No need for fenders all
year round. That's why people have winterbikes in the winter and washing
machines in the summer.


>
> In much of North America, what starts out as a clear sunny day can
> change to rain in a couple (not 7.5) of hours, and there are many days
> where it is cloudy but no rain occurs. With inferior North American
> weather predictions, what do we do?
>
> Should we have a spare bike with fenders in the support van? Oh, I
> forgot, we are not all racers with a support team!


No just get wet once in a while. No big deal.

Lou


--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
 
John Forrest Tomlinson 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.


No, she just must accept that her wheels are less durable than they
could otherwise be for no real benefit.

> 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?


She must accept that if the rear derailleur were to get accidentally
whacked, shifting may not work and she may be stuck in one gear until
the bike received shop attention, while with an optional friction mode,
most of the gears would still be useable. She must also accept that the
front shifting will likely not work well with non-standard chainrings
sizes, and that both these detriments come at additional cost with no
real advantage. (I presume she is not racing on a flat bar bike unless
it is an ATB used for off-road racing).

For the money spent on your wife's bicycle, different design/components
decisions could have resulted in a more durable and practical bike at
the same weight.

> >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?


The non-racing rider should be aware they are not gaining any real
advantage at the price of additional cost, lower durability, more
frequent need to adjust indexing (and possibly weaker rear wheels due
to increased dish).

> 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?


Since the investment has already been made, ride the frame until it
starts to exhibit signs of impending failure, with the acceptance that
fixing the frame is likely not economical.

> 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?


There is a relationship between rider weight and spoke counts (for a
given rim diameter). 28-spoke wheels are likely fine for a rider with a
mass of 50 kg, but a 120 kg mass rider would be better off with
48-spoke wheels.

--
Tom Sherman - Planet Barcon
 
Jeff Starr wrote:
>
> 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.


How much speed do you gain in return for the reduced longevity and
additional cost?

> 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.


Ah, an honest answer. Appearance is more important than functionality.

> 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.


A SiDi Dominator shoe with one of the several types of cleats (e.g.
SPuD M or S, Eggbeaters, Frogs) would provide identical performance and
be much better for walking in. I hope you have a support vehicle
available if you ever are in the situation of a bike beyond field
repair.

> 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?


Just realize that you have spent more money for lesser durability and
practicality in the name of fashion.

--
Tom Sherman - Planet Barcon
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
[much too much - hence removed]

Get this to the FAQ editors at once !
Then we won't have to read the same drivel again.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sandy wrote:
>> ...
>> It's water and dirt, and it doesn't happen all that often. I must
>> be among the privileged, having a washing machine. The way you
>> write, it rains on your parade all the time. Aside from Seattle, I
>> have not heard of too many other reliably rainy cities. But I don't
>> know, so you can tell me where they are....

>
> Are the French meteorologists so superior that they can reliably
> predict when rain will occur?
>

You can be elegantly stupid. Where I live, real rainstorms are
exceptionally rare. And we go out in them, anyway. To top it off, the
meteo is usually poor, even short-term.

> In much of North America, what starts out as a clear sunny day can
> change to rain in a couple (not 7.5) of hours, and there are many days
> where it is cloudy but no rain occurs. With inferior North American
> weather predictions, what do we do?


Guess what !? I'm not living there, so I don't care. But if I did, I would
ride in the rain, as I already do. Or maybe read a book. Or something fun.
My grandmother could predict weather better than the meteo, but she died
long ago, so you can't call her.

> Should we have a spare bike with fenders in the support van? Oh, I
> forgot, we are not all racers with a support team!


No spare bike - no fenders - get wet. Some summer days, you may just pray
for it to rain.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
On 22 Jan 2006 10:13:28 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson 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.

>
>No, she just must accept that her wheels are less durable than they
>could otherwise be for no real benefit.
>
>> 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?

>
>She must accept that if the rear derailleur were to get accidentally
>whacked, shifting may not work and she may be stuck in one gear until
>the bike received shop attention, while with an optional friction mode,
>most of the gears would still be useable. She must also accept that the
>front shifting will likely not work well with non-standard chainrings
>sizes, and that both these detriments come at additional cost with no
>real advantage. (I presume she is not racing on a flat bar bike unless
>it is an ATB used for off-road racing).
>
>For the money spent on your wife's bicycle, different design/components
>decisions could have resulted in a more durable and practical bike at
>the same weight.


Well, I'm a racer and had a spare 28 hole hub around, so it actually
didn't cost anything. And I got a heavy rim on closeout. And there's
no way that wheel is ever going to get messed up -- my wife is tiny
and had fat road tires on it.

But I guess better safe than sorry, huh? Should have made a better
design choice just in case. I guess we have to accept that it's got a
tiny decrease in durability for no performance benefit. Big mistake
on my part it seems.

>> >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?

>
>The non-racing rider should be aware they are not gaining any real
>advantage at the price of additional cost, lower durability, more
>frequent need to adjust indexing (and possibly weaker rear wheels due
>to increased dish).


Really, riders need to adjust the indexing more often with 8 instead
of 9? I've never had to adjust the indexing on my bikes after the
fist week, except replacing a cable or when the derailleur hanger got
bent once? If I did, I guess having to adjust it once a year isn't
worth an extra gear, huh? I mean, unless someone is a racer of
course.

>> 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?

>
>Since the investment has already been made, ride the frame until it
>starts to exhibit signs of impending failure, with the acceptance that
>fixing the frame is likely not economical.


What if it never breaks? Shoudl I be worried about that? The rider
would never have a chance to replace it with a more economical,
practical steel frame. Is that a problem.

>> 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?

>
>There is a relationship between rider weight and spoke counts (for a
>given rim diameter). 28-spoke wheels are likely fine for a rider with a
>mass of 50 kg, but a 120 kg mass rider would be better off with
>48-spoke wheels.


My wife weights less than 45Kg. I thought a 28 spoke wheel was silly
but now maybe it's acceptable? I'm confused. I thought 36 holes was
somehow special enough that you could prognosticate about it in
general, but now it seems like there is some wiggle room. Can you
clear this up for me?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On 22 Jan 2006 10:13:28 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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?

>
>The non-racing rider should be aware they are not gaining any real
>advantage at the price of additional cost, lower durability, more
>frequent need to adjust indexing (and possibly weaker rear wheels due
>to increased dish).


One other thing. As far as I can tell, 8, 9 and 10 speed road wheels
have the same amount of dish. Have I set things up wrong? Should I
add some extra dish to my 9 speed wheels just to get them weaker than
8, so I'm not getting "something for nothing," (beyond the obvious
increases in fragility from going from 8 to 9)? I race bikes, so
maybe can deal with the increased risk of more dish.

Let me know.

Thanks,

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> ...
> Well, I'm a racer and had a spare 28 hole hub around, so it actually
> didn't cost anything. And I got a heavy rim on closeout. And there's
> no way that wheel is ever going to get messed up -- my wife is tiny
> and had fat road tires on it.


That 28-hole hub cost someone money at some point.

> But I guess better safe than sorry, huh? Should have made a better
> design choice just in case. I guess we have to accept that it's got a
> tiny decrease in durability for no performance benefit. Big mistake
> on my part it seems.


Well, now you know better. ;)

> >> >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?

> >
> >The non-racing rider should be aware they are not gaining any real
> >advantage at the price of additional cost, lower durability, more
> >frequent need to adjust indexing (and possibly weaker rear wheels due
> >to increased dish).

>
> Really, riders need to adjust the indexing more often with 8 instead
> of 9? I've never had to adjust the indexing on my bikes after the
> fist week, except replacing a cable or when the derailleur hanger got
> bent once? If I did, I guess having to adjust it once a year isn't
> worth an extra gear, huh? I mean, unless someone is a racer of
> course.


If the damage to the hanger was only moderate, then friction shifting
would still work. I find that switching my bar-ends over to friction
mode does not appreciably increase the difficulty of shifting the rear
derailleur. In addition, I have found bar-end shifters to work well
with such things as 73/52 and 54/44/24 chainring combinations. Try that
with STI or Ergo!

> >> 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?

> >
> >Since the investment has already been made, ride the frame until it
> >starts to exhibit signs of impending failure, with the acceptance that
> >fixing the frame is likely not economical.

>
> What if it never breaks? Shoudl I be worried about that? The rider
> would never have a chance to replace it with a more economical,
> practical steel frame. Is that a problem.


Rhetorical questions. Next.

> >> 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?

> >
> >There is a relationship between rider weight and spoke counts (for a
> >given rim diameter). 28-spoke wheels are likely fine for a rider with a
> >mass of 50 kg, but a 120 kg mass rider would be better off with
> >48-spoke wheels.

>
> My wife weights less than 45Kg. I thought a 28 spoke wheel was silly
> but now maybe it's acceptable? I'm confused. I thought 36 holes was
> somehow special enough that you could prognosticate about it in
> general, but now it seems like there is some wiggle room. Can you
> clear this up for me?


A small stature can get away with fewer than 36 spokes, but it makes
the wheels less versatile (e.g. switching them to a bike with a heavier
rider).

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)
 

Similar threads

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