Best roadbike for rough pave'?

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:57:57 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:31:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> racing bikes 50-60 years ago were benefitting from the development
>> >> of touring bicycles- thanks to the Luddite tendencies of Henri
>> >> Desgranges.
>> >
>> > Those derailleurs were the beginning of the end --- not reliable
>> > enough. A single speed, or double with a cog on each side of the
>> > wheel, is much less failure prone.
>>
>> Let's not rewrite history. Racers used two sided fixed gear hubs
>> because Henri Desgranges wanted them to, not because of issues of
>> reliability. He was implacably opposed to derailleurs and thought
>> they were for sissies and people over 40. He believed that primitive
>> equipment emphasized the athletic dimension of competition rather than
>> the technical (and he might have had a point in some instances, such
>> as the aHour Record). In the meantime, amateur cyclotourists were
>> getting up and down mountains faster than the pros because they had
>> superior equipment: reliable derailleurs, effective brakes,
>> freewheels, aluminum alloy...
>>
>> Once racers were permitted to use that equipment, it got off to a
>> weird start (early racing derailleurs were cumbersome in the extreme)
>> but eventually caught up with the cyclotourist designs. At that
>> point, technical development progressed on the racing side almost
>> exclusively.
>
>Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
>steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
>and the far better stem to steering tube design.
>
>Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly
>wider gearing available to non-racers.

A lot of mountain bike advances came from mountain bike _racing_.

JT


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

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > ...
> > how's the campaign to get 'bents' into UCI racing btw?
>
> About as well as Moulton's and Y-Frame uprights.
>
> The UCI is not about progress in design.
>
> They banned recumbents in 1933 after the hour record was broken on a
> recumbent (Mochet Velocar).
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on a
bent?

Ya know, bents have been around for a long time, They are not ever
going to be mainstream. Trek made one, mass produced many, sold few,
stopped production. They are the bicycle version of a wheelchair. It
gives somebody with a physical reason they cannot ride an upright, the
ability to ride a 'bike'. But for a well fitting upright, bents answer
no question, solve no problem. I rode yesterday into a headwind of
about 20mph...I still have no urge to get a bent.

Bents are a 'gadget' that some rave about but the majority will not
buy.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:31:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> racing bikes 50-60 years ago were benefitting from the development
> > >> of touring bicycles- thanks to the Luddite tendencies of Henri
> > >> Desgranges.
> > >
> > > Those derailleurs were the beginning of the end --- not reliable
> > > enough. A single speed, or double with a cog on each side of the
> > > wheel, is much less failure prone.
> >
> > Let's not rewrite history. Racers used two sided fixed gear hubs
> > because Henri Desgranges wanted them to, not because of issues of
> > reliability. He was implacably opposed to derailleurs and thought
> > they were for sissies and people over 40. He believed that primitive
> > equipment emphasized the athletic dimension of competition rather than
> > the technical (and he might have had a point in some instances, such
> > as the aHour Record). In the meantime, amateur cyclotourists were
> > getting up and down mountains faster than the pros because they had
> > superior equipment: reliable derailleurs, effective brakes,
> > freewheels, aluminum alloy...
> >
> > Once racers were permitted to use that equipment, it got off to a
> > weird start (early racing derailleurs were cumbersome in the extreme)
> > but eventually caught up with the cyclotourist designs. At that
> > point, technical development progressed on the racing side almost
> > exclusively.
>
> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
> steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
> and the far better stem to steering tube design.

Let's not rewtite this history either. Threadless came from fork makers
trying to save money. They painted it as easier and better, both of
which continue to be an open question. They weren't liooking for
"simplier HS bearing preload and a better stem to steerer design'.
>
> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly
> wider gearing available to non-racers.
>
> --
> Michael Press

 

[SMS]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

>> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
>> steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
>> and the far better stem to steering tube design.
>
> Let's not rewtite this history either. Threadless came from fork makers
> trying to save money. They painted it as easier and better, both of
> which continue to be an open question. They weren't liooking for
> "simplier HS bearing preload and a better stem to steerer design'.

The early threadless steering tubes didn't have the convenient method of
setting the pre-load, with the star-fangled nut. I remember calling a
bicycle manufacturer (Montague) after receiving one of the first
bicycles with an Ahead threadless headset, and receiving information on
how to assemble the bicycle.

Threadless has opened up a whole new accessory market for after-market
extenders, since the bicycle manufacturers cut the steering tubes so short.

 

[Jeff Starr]

On 1 Feb 2006 06:14:39 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on a
>bent?
>
>Ya know, bents have been around for a long time, They are not ever
>going to be mainstream. Trek made one, mass produced many, sold few,
>stopped production. They are the bicycle version of a wheelchair. It
>gives somebody with a physical reason they cannot ride an upright, the
>ability to ride a 'bike'. But for a well fitting upright, bents answer
>no question, solve no problem. I rode yesterday into a headwind of
>about 20mph...I still have no urge to get a bent.
>
>Bents are a 'gadget' that some rave about but the majority will not
>buy.


I think trikes in all their forms, streamlined or the type that old
people sometimes ride, are more likely the bicycle version of a
wheelchair.
Bents do require balance and technique.

I run into one guy who now rides his bents due to his leg giving him
problems. Of course it was made worse by being hit by a car, while on
his bent. I worry about their lack of visibility in traffic. Often a
car to the left of another, doesn't know they are there. While on an
upright we are more visible.

Odds are, someday, I'll be forced to go the streamlined trike route.
If I can ride a two wheeler, it will be an upright.


Life is Good!
Jeff

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Qui
si parla Campagnolo ([email protected]) wrote:

> Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on a
> bent?

They have. Leo de Nooier, whom I understand to be a strong amateur, did
53.43 km on the Ghent-Blaarmeersen track in 2000. This compares with
the amateur hour record using an "aero"-style bike of 49.95 km

However, most recumbent racers in Europe use tail-faired bikes which, to
the average roadie, is "cheating". No-one has yet come up with an
internationally-agreed definition of what constitutes a naked recumbent,
though I am given to understand that the IHPVA's Rules Committee may be
issuing a definition any decade now

> Ya know, bents have been around for a long time, They are not ever
> going to be mainstream. Trek made one, mass produced many, sold few,
> stopped production

This, however, was possibly not unconnected with the fact that it was a
pretty gormless piece of kit. Cannondale's offering is almost as bad,
in that it is almost, but not quite, completely at odds with
Cannondale's image in the eye of the consumer (and, in the UK at least,
costing nearly half as much again the the very similar HP Velotechnik
Spirit).

> They are the bicycle version of a wheelchair. It
> gives somebody with a physical reason they cannot ride an upright, the
> ability to ride a 'bike'. But for a well fitting upright, bents answer
> no question, solve no problem. I rode yesterday into a headwind of
> about 20mph...I still have no urge to get a bent.

Peter Marshall wrote of P-B-P in 1999, "A lot of statistics about my PBP
are missing. I didn't wear a watch. I didn't check opening or closing
times of controls. I have no idea how fast I rode on average. I have no
clue how long I slept. But I do know the most telling statistic - how
many painkillers I consumed in 1,260km: None. After riding PBP on the
Trice XL I had no (as in: Zero. Zilch) aches and pains anywhere apart
from mild tingling in the soles of the feet. I was perfectly happy to
get back on the trike the next morning to ride 240km to Ouistreham. With
a fully functional grin..." And I /know/ he did L-E-L this year on an
upright...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Better hide the pork scratchings...

 

[Jay Beattie]

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> >> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
> >> steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
> >> and the far better stem to steering tube design.
> >
> > Let's not rewtite this history either. Threadless came from
fork makers
> > trying to save money. They painted it as easier and better,
both of
> > which continue to be an open question. They weren't liooking
for
> > "simplier HS bearing preload and a better stem to steerer
design'.
>
> The early threadless steering tubes didn't have the convenient
method of
> setting the pre-load, with the star-fangled nut. I remember
calling a
> bicycle manufacturer (Montague) after receiving one of the
first
> bicycles with an Ahead threadless headset, and receiving
information on
> how to assemble the bicycle.
>
> Threadless has opened up a whole new accessory market for
after-market
> extenders, since the bicycle manufacturers cut the steering
tubes so short.

I saw custom builders going threadless at the end of the 70s --
usually on time trial or other special purpose road bikes. These
were one-off designs using cartridge bearings. I saw one on
display in 1981 in a shop in Carbondale, Ill on my way across the
US. Mountain bikers did not invent the design, although it was
commercialized for that market. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:57:57 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:31:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> racing bikes 50-60 years ago were benefitting from the development
> >> >> of touring bicycles- thanks to the Luddite tendencies of Henri
> >> >> Desgranges.
> >> >
> >> > Those derailleurs were the beginning of the end --- not reliable
> >> > enough. A single speed, or double with a cog on each side of the
> >> > wheel, is much less failure prone.
> >>
> >> Let's not rewrite history. Racers used two sided fixed gear hubs
> >> because Henri Desgranges wanted them to, not because of issues of
> >> reliability. He was implacably opposed to derailleurs and thought
> >> they were for sissies and people over 40. He believed that primitive
> >> equipment emphasized the athletic dimension of competition rather than
> >> the technical (and he might have had a point in some instances, such
> >> as the aHour Record). In the meantime, amateur cyclotourists were
> >> getting up and down mountains faster than the pros because they had
> >> superior equipment: reliable derailleurs, effective brakes,
> >> freewheels, aluminum alloy...
> >>
> >> Once racers were permitted to use that equipment, it got off to a
> >> weird start (early racing derailleurs were cumbersome in the extreme)
> >> but eventually caught up with the cyclotourist designs. At that
> >> point, technical development progressed on the racing side almost
> >> exclusively.
> >
> >Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
> >steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
> >and the far better stem to steering tube design.
> >
> >Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly
> >wider gearing available to non-racers.
>
> A lot of mountain bike advances came from mountain bike _racing_.

Not the threadless steering tube. Not the wide gearing.
Not the compact chain wheels. Furthermore I named three
advances that apply to bicycling for non-racing in all
categories: sport, touring, utility bicycling, ... . While
you try to shift the discussion to only mountain bicycles.

Now you tell us all the general bicycle advances that came
from mountain bicycle racing.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:31:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> racing bikes 50-60 years ago were benefitting from the development
> > > >> of touring bicycles- thanks to the Luddite tendencies of Henri
> > > >> Desgranges.
> > > >
> > > > Those derailleurs were the beginning of the end --- not reliable
> > > > enough. A single speed, or double with a cog on each side of the
> > > > wheel, is much less failure prone.
> > >
> > > Let's not rewrite history. Racers used two sided fixed gear hubs
> > > because Henri Desgranges wanted them to, not because of issues of
> > > reliability. He was implacably opposed to derailleurs and thought
> > > they were for sissies and people over 40. He believed that primitive
> > > equipment emphasized the athletic dimension of competition rather than
> > > the technical (and he might have had a point in some instances, such
> > > as the aHour Record). In the meantime, amateur cyclotourists were
> > > getting up and down mountains faster than the pros because they had
> > > superior equipment: reliable derailleurs, effective brakes,
> > > freewheels, aluminum alloy...
> > >
> > > Once racers were permitted to use that equipment, it got off to a
> > > weird start (early racing derailleurs were cumbersome in the extreme)
> > > but eventually caught up with the cyclotourist designs. At that
> > > point, technical development progressed on the racing side almost
> > > exclusively.
> >
> > Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
> > steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
> > and the far better stem to steering tube design.
>
> Let's not rewtite this history either. Threadless came from fork makers
> trying to save money. They painted it as easier and better, both of
> which continue to be an open question. They weren't liooking for
> "simplier HS bearing preload and a better stem to steerer design'.

I do not accept your unsupported word on this one. Can you
document a refutation of the assertion I make?

The thread-less steering tube and associated headset
bearing pre-load and the stem clamped to the outside of
the steering tube was invented by the inventors of
mountain bicycles. Furthermore their purpose was to
construct a stronger steering mechanism, not to reduce
manufacturing costs.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> writes:

> Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on
> a bent?

Try Google, Peter.

http://www.ihpva.org/hpva/hpvarech.html

According to the IHPVA, the men's recumbent hour record is:

51.33 miles 82.60 km Lars Teutenberg 1/27/02

I believe that this was set riding a streamliner. for women, the
record is:

42.46 miles 68.33 km Ellen van der Horst 8/20/02

And a few more records at:

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/hpra/hpra_track_records.htm

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> writes:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
>> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless steering
>> tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load, and the far better
>> stem to steering tube design.
>
> Let's not rewtite this history either. Threadless came from fork
> makers trying to save money. They painted it as easier and better,
> both of which continue to be an open question. They weren't liooking
> for "simplier HS bearing preload and a better stem to steerer
> design'.

Clamp-on stems were around for decades before mountain bikes, albeit
with threaded steerer tubes and headsets. The stems generally clamped
on to a tube brazed into the top of the steerer. Modern threadless
stems, forks and headsets arrived as Peter says- as a way to avoid
having to thread the steerer.

>> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly wider
>> gearing available to non-racers.

Not quite. Tourists were using wider ranged gearing decades before
mountain bikes were a gleam in the Marin County crew's eyes. TA made
chainrings from 24 teeth to 60 teeth in the 50s. The first triples
used on mountain bikes were TAs, from the photgraphic evidence.
Borrowed from touring bikes.

While it seems like mountain bikes have driven technology, they
haven't. They've adapted existing technology (and before anyone makes
the claim, full suspension bicycles existed long before mountain
bikes, with forks that looked very very similar to Rock Shox and a
variety or rear suspension designs).

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:52:11 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:57:57 GMT, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:31:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> racing bikes 50-60 years ago were benefitting from the development
>> >> >> of touring bicycles- thanks to the Luddite tendencies of Henri
>> >> >> Desgranges.
>> >> >
>> >> > Those derailleurs were the beginning of the end --- not reliable
>> >> > enough. A single speed, or double with a cog on each side of the
>> >> > wheel, is much less failure prone.
>> >>
>> >> Let's not rewrite history. Racers used two sided fixed gear hubs
>> >> because Henri Desgranges wanted them to, not because of issues of
>> >> reliability. He was implacably opposed to derailleurs and thought
>> >> they were for sissies and people over 40. He believed that primitive
>> >> equipment emphasized the athletic dimension of competition rather than
>> >> the technical (and he might have had a point in some instances, such
>> >> as the aHour Record). In the meantime, amateur cyclotourists were
>> >> getting up and down mountains faster than the pros because they had
>> >> superior equipment: reliable derailleurs, effective brakes,
>> >> freewheels, aluminum alloy...
>> >>
>> >> Once racers were permitted to use that equipment, it got off to a
>> >> weird start (early racing derailleurs were cumbersome in the extreme)
>> >> but eventually caught up with the cyclotourist designs. At that
>> >> point, technical development progressed on the racing side almost
>> >> exclusively.
>> >
>> >Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless
>> >steering tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load,
>> >and the far better stem to steering tube design.
>> >
>> >Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly
>> >wider gearing available to non-racers.
>>
>> A lot of mountain bike advances came from mountain bike _racing_.
>
>Not the threadless steering tube.

BFD. And BTW, a big advantage to threadless is safe lighter steerer
tubes (aluminum and carbon) which are from road racing.

>Not the wide gearing.

Umm, the wide gearing came from road touring bike (not well executed)
then to mountain bike racing then to mountain bikes in general and
then back to road.

>Not the compact chain wheels.

? See below. These came from mountain bikes in general which grew
out of racing.

> Furthermore I named three
>advances that apply to bicycling for non-racing in all
>categories: sport, touring, utility bicycling, ... . While
>you try to shift the discussion to only mountain bicycles.
>
>Now you tell us all the general bicycle advances that came
>from mountain bicycle racing.

Mountain bikes themselves -- fat tire multigeared strong braked bikes.
From racing and racers using their bikes in downhill and
cross-countrhy racing in the 1980s. From guys like Gary Fisher and
Joe Breeze and Chris Chance racing the things. It's fundamental.

JT

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

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> writes:

> Michael Press wrote:
>>
>> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for threadless steering
>> tubes with the simpler headset bearing pre-load, and the far better
>> stem to steering tube design.

All of those claims are debatable. Bearing preload with a threaded
headset is a simpler design that uses fewer parts and separates the
functions of bearing preload adjustment and stem adjustment. The "far
batter" method of attaching the stem to the steerer precludes having
a reasonable amount of adjustment without a lot of faffing around. It
might be a mechanically better attachment method, but it introduces
other drawbacks.

>> Mountain bike inventors are responsible for the vastly
>> wider gearing available to non-racers.

And this one is patently wrong.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:52:11 +0000, Michael Press wrote:

> Now you tell us all the general bicycle advances that came from mountain
> bicycle racing.

SPDs, and other walkable, clipless pedals. Suspension.

Matt O.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Michael Press wrote:
> ...
> Now you tell us all the general bicycle advances that came
> from mountain bicycle racing.

M*k* V*nd*m*n on Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> ...
> While it seems like mountain bikes have driven technology, they
> haven't. They've adapted existing technology (and before anyone makes
> the claim, full suspension bicycles existed long before mountain
> bikes, with forks that looked very very similar to Rock Shox and a
> variety or rear suspension designs).

There are some early patents for bicycle suspensions reproduced in this
blog:
<http://patentpending.blogs.com/patent_pending_blog/bicycle_technology/index.html>.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>
> Why hasn't anybody rented a velodrome and attempted the hr record on a
> bent?

Actually, I know of a couple people who are seriously considering it.
The IHPVA recently established this as a record category:
<http://www.ihpva.org/>.

> Ya know, bents have been around for a long time, They are not ever
> going to be mainstream. Trek made one, mass produced many, sold few,
> stopped production....

The Trek R200 was over-priced, slow and had design flaws. After the
person primarily responsible for its development died prematurely, the
R200 had no champion within Trek and did not receive the attention to
development that Trek normally would use for a new upright bicycle.
Basically, Trek gave up on the R200 before the first ones were ever
shipped to dealers.

> They are the bicycle version of a wheelchair. It
> gives somebody with a physical reason they cannot ride an upright, the
> ability to ride a 'bike'. But for a well fitting upright, bents answer
> no question, solve no problem. I rode yesterday into a headwind of
> about 20mph...I still have no urge to get a bent.

So you like going slower than necessary? Do you have extra weights to
add for riding in the mountains?

> Bents are a 'gadget' that some rave about but the majority will not
> buy.

Many people give up on cycling altogether because traditional upright
bicycles are too uncomfortable. Regular upright riders are a biased
sample of the general population. If these people that found upright
too uncomfortable all rode recumbents, cycling in general would
benefit.

For every obnoxious recumbent "evangelist" out there (pace Jobst
Brandt) there are many upright riders who will offer gratuitous insults
to someone riding a recumbent.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[James Annan]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> I was perfectly happy to
> get back on the trike the next morning to ride 240km to Ouistreham. With
> a fully functional grin..."

IRTA "a fully functional groin"

James

 

[Tim McNamara]

Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 22:52:11 +0000, Michael Press wrote:
>
>> Now you tell us all the general bicycle advances that came from
>> mountain bicycle racing.
>
> SPDs, and other walkable, clipless pedals. Suspension.

Suspension, no. SPDs were just a refinement of pre-existing
technology but I'd go along with that one as an advancement, albeit a
minor one.

 

[[email protected]]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> While it seems like mountain bikes have driven technology, they
> haven't. They've adapted existing technology (and before anyone makes
> the claim, full suspension bicycles existed long before mountain
> bikes, with forks that looked very very similar to Rock Shox and a
> variety or rear suspension designs).

Yes.

Anyone who's interested in bike technology should browse _The Data
Book_, which is really a large collection of artistic drawings of bike
components dating back to, oh, roughly 1890.

Also check out the reprint edition of _Bicycles and Tricycles_
(originally published in 1890-something).

These will make you despair about ever inventing anything new.

- Frank Krygowski