J
Johnny Sunset
Guest
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)
> ...
> 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)