Brake pads - the good the bad and the ugly?



Peter Clinch wrote:

> Pete Biggs wrote:
>
>> (Pete's suggestion of sliding hand down the bars is worth trying as well,
>> but I find it's actually easier to take hand(s) off the bars for a
>> second).

>
>
> So do I, as it happens, but sliding down the bars was how I started
> (IIRC, it was a while ago!) and I also tend to slide down bars if I'm
> doing something like descending a very bumpy road with luggage on the
> lowriders, just for that extra confidence.
>
> I'm mainly suggesting it as a simple work around to the "but I don't
> want to let go" stumbling block. Once happy and trusting, just a
> straight move is easier in practice, but it's the "happy and trusting"
> bit that seems to be the bar :-(
>
> Pete.


Now these ideas on 'in practice' have been aired, I'll have a go next
time (tomorrow?) the bike's on the turbo, and see just what's involved
in doing it. I don't think it's really going to be all that big a deal
to do, just taking that first step trying it out on the road will be the
hard one!

I'm well aware of the extra oomph behind the levers if I'm down there,
but having small hands compared to the hoods means I'm very loathe to
let my grip go - not quite sure where it'd end up, and (though I might
find out differntly tomorrow) my brain says I'd lose the grip of the
thumb long before the fingers can curl around the bar.

Oh, one last thing - I've set the angle of my bars up to suit where I am
on the hoods/tops. Obviously this means the drops are probably at a
wierd angle - but then I've noticed lots of people have them different.
Any tips on this? The bottom part of the bars have a definite
pointing toward the ground angle - they're not parallel to the ground,
but not pointing *at* them either.

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> I'm well aware of the extra oomph behind the levers if I'm down there,
> but having small hands compared to the hoods means I'm very loathe to
> let my grip go - not quite sure where it'd end up, and (though I might
> find out differntly tomorrow) my brain says I'd lose the grip of the
> thumb long before the fingers can curl around the bar.


If you're sliding down the bars to the drops you won't have a thumb
around them, or at least not the whole way, unless you have prehensile
thumbs! However, your hands will still be in contact with the bars the
whole time, at each side. That will prevent any real possibility of the
steering jacknifing, because you can still exert plenty of force on it
from having it between your two hands. You can still get effective grip
without wrapping fingers or thumbs around the whole time as you're
effectively squeezing the bars between your hands from both sides.

> Oh, one last thing - I've set the angle of my bars up to suit where I am
> on the hoods/tops. Obviously this means the drops are probably at a
> wierd angle - but then I've noticed lots of people have them different.
> Any tips on this?


Note that you can move the hoods on the bars as well as the bars
themselves, and it may be the case you'd be better moving them up and
back a little.. But ultimately whatever suits you is the right way. It
shouldn't alter the fact that getting /behind/ the levers will give you
a great deal more braking oomph.

Nigel's suggestion of additional bar top levers is a very good one, I
think. You'd be able to brake fully without being on the drops, and
you'd have less of an issue getting round to the hoods in a snap which
may make a big difference as you don't seem very happy just letting go
and getting to where you need to be.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>> I'm well aware of the extra oomph behind the levers if I'm down there,
>> but having small hands compared to the hoods means I'm very loathe to
>> let my grip go - not quite sure where it'd end up, and (though I might
>> find out differntly tomorrow) my brain says I'd lose the grip of the
>> thumb long before the fingers can curl around the bar.

>
>
> If you're sliding down the bars to the drops you won't have a thumb
> around them, or at least not the whole way, unless you have prehensile
> thumbs! However, your hands will still be in contact with the bars the
> whole time, at each side. That will prevent any real possibility of the
> steering jacknifing, because you can still exert plenty of force on it
> from having it between your two hands. You can still get effective grip
> without wrapping fingers or thumbs around the whole time as you're
> effectively squeezing the bars between your hands from both sides.


Yep - my core body strength still isn't what it should be, and I have
visions of instead of having hands on the sides, hands rapidly heading
downwards past the bars after an unforeseen bump in the road and me
ending up lying on the top tube with fetching indent of stem in my
forehead ;-)

I'll definitely have to give it a go on the turbo - didn't have time
last night in the end.
>
>> Oh, one last thing - I've set the angle of my bars up to suit where I
>> am on the hoods/tops. Obviously this means the drops are probably at
>> a wierd angle - but then I've noticed lots of people have them
>> different. Any tips on this?

>
>
> Note that you can move the hoods on the bars as well as the bars
> themselves, and it may be the case you'd be better moving them up and
> back a little.. But ultimately whatever suits you is the right way. It
> shouldn't alter the fact that getting /behind/ the levers will give you
> a great deal more braking oomph.


Yes, the hoods have been moved to enable my fingers getting to the
levers more - so don't really want to move them again unless I end up
rotating the bars inside the stem clamp.

>
> Nigel's suggestion of additional bar top levers is a very good one, I
> think. You'd be able to brake fully without being on the drops, and
> you'd have less of an issue getting round to the hoods in a snap which
> may make a big difference as you don't seem very happy just letting go
> and getting to where you need to be.
>
> Pete.


Yep, I had a look at those and they seem like a good idea, though I'm
not sure how big they are (and thus if they'd actually fit on my bars) -
I have narrow bars on them (on account of being narrow at the shoulders
etc) and a fair amount of stuff on the bars (bell, computer, airzound,
light switch etc) which means very little spare space around my hand
before the corner angle starts.

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> Yep - my core body strength still isn't what it should be, and I have
> visions of instead of having hands on the sides, hands rapidly heading
> downwards past the bars after an unforeseen bump in the road and me
> ending up lying on the top tube with fetching indent of stem in my
> forehead ;-)


The only point where you're not able to grip the bars individually by
wrapping digits about them is as you slide off the hoods. If you jerk
downwards at that point then it'll just dump your hands straight onto
the drops, which is what you wanted to do in the first place! If you
think about it then letting go and moving straight to the lower bar is
your ultimate goal, so if the sliding around is short-circuited then it
isn't really a problem!
Core body strength required for this maneuver is rather less than that
required to bend down to pick something off the floor. It's not a long
operation you're sustaining, not more than about a second.

> Yep, I had a look at those and they seem like a good idea, though I'm
> not sure how big they are (and thus if they'd actually fit on my bars) -
> I have narrow bars on them (on account of being narrow at the shoulders
> etc) and a fair amount of stuff on the bars (bell, computer, airzound,
> light switch etc) which means very little spare space around my hand
> before the corner angle starts.


Only way to be sure is take the bike into a shop and look at them on it,
but the levers sit in front of the bars while most of the rest of your
gubbins sits on top, so I'd think a very good chance they'd go. Well
worth checking out, I'd say.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Velvet wrote:
> Yep - my core body strength still isn't what it should be, and I have
> visions of instead of having hands on the sides, hands rapidly heading
> downwards past the bars after an unforeseen bump in the road and me
> ending up lying on the top tube with fetching indent of stem in my
> forehead ;-)


You don't have to use much body strength if you press hard on the
pedal(s), it helps balance and control. This is a key point!!

Re angle of bars: bar ends pointing down a bit from horizontal is a good
starting point. Exact angle is down to personal preference.

Of course it's good to be able to use the drops properly but don't worry
about that postion toooo much. Personally, I have my bars and stem
optimised for the top positions because that's what I prefer to use for
over 95% of the time.

I suggest setting the tilt of the bars for what feels comfortable from the
drops, then adjusting position of levers for the tops. A decent
compromise should result.

~PB
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, cd667
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>
>>What a cool first bike! Bet you're having a whale of a time.

>
>
> Whatwhatwhat?
>
> What are you refering to? Who are you relpying to?
>
> I really do wish there was a way of banning cyclingforums from carrying
> this group - it's not just sneaky and dishonest, it's also feindishly
> confusing!
>


My original post, I suspect, where I mentioned my bike was a Dawes Audax :)

--


Velvet
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Velvet wrote:


[ on cyclo-cross second brake levers ]
>> Yep, I had a look at those and they seem like a good idea, though I'm
>> not sure how big they are (and thus if they'd actually fit on my
>> bars) - I have narrow bars on them (on account of being narrow at
>> the shoulders etc) and a fair amount of stuff on the bars (bell,
>> computer, airzound, light switch etc) which means very little spare
>> space around my hand before the corner angle starts.

>
> Only way to be sure is take the bike into a shop and look at them on
> it, but the levers sit in front of the bars while most of the rest of
> your gubbins sits on top,



Use side-ways thinking to solve space problems on handlebars.....

My computer is mounted on an aero-bar computer mount fitted to the vertical
part of the steering stem. The computer sits alongside the horizontal part
of the stem, behind the bars. (leaves lots of room for my bar-bag mount
which is quite chunky). Some computer designs are suitable for mounting on
the horizontal part of the stem.

Or there is the Minuoura (spelling?) Space Grip attachment, which sticks a
little extra bar out from the handlebars, designed for computers, lights,
etc. which don't need instant access.

Those, or other "non standard" ideas should get everything you have within
easy reach.


- Nigel


--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.
 
> I suspect you're right that it would be safer on the downhills if I
> was down on the drops, but so far I work around it by walking down a
> hill I deem to be too steep.


Assuming you walk 'cos you can't switch to the drops, what about stopping
the bike, switching your hands to the drops, then starting off again?
 
NC wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>Velvet wrote:

>
>
> [ on cyclo-cross second brake levers ]
>
>>>Yep, I had a look at those and they seem like a good idea, though I'm
>>>not sure how big they are (and thus if they'd actually fit on my
>>>bars) - I have narrow bars on them (on account of being narrow at
>>>the shoulders etc) and a fair amount of stuff on the bars (bell,
>>>computer, airzound, light switch etc) which means very little spare
>>>space around my hand before the corner angle starts.

>>
>>Only way to be sure is take the bike into a shop and look at them on
>>it, but the levers sit in front of the bars while most of the rest of
>>your gubbins sits on top,

>
>
>
> Use side-ways thinking to solve space problems on handlebars.....
>
> My computer is mounted on an aero-bar computer mount fitted to the vertical
> part of the steering stem. The computer sits alongside the horizontal part
> of the stem, behind the bars. (leaves lots of room for my bar-bag mount
> which is quite chunky). Some computer designs are suitable for mounting on
> the horizontal part of the stem.
>
> Or there is the Minuoura (spelling?) Space Grip attachment, which sticks a
> little extra bar out from the handlebars, designed for computers, lights,
> etc. which don't need instant access.
>
> Those, or other "non standard" ideas should get everything you have within
> easy reach.
>
>
> - Nigel
>
>


I omitted to explain the full extent of my handlebar-crammed-ness ;-)

The computer's a flightdeck, can't see any way of fitting it to the
vertical part (which is part quill adapter, part ahead) without said
computer ending up vertical itself. There's no appreciable distance
forward on the horizontal bit of the stem - it's a very very short one
to take care of the excessive reach of the top tube.

I already have the big minoura spacegrip, which carries my lights (pair
of) and HRM (which is too chunky to be worn on my delicate girly wrist
without interfering with hand on bars position).

I should take a photo...

I'm still interested in these extra levers, but:

1, I'm loathe to add anything else onto an already cluttered bike, it
weighs enough already!

2, I'll never learn to use the drops if I do it

3, I can brake well enough (especially in an emergency when the
adrenaline kicks in) and hills steep enough to give me problems give me
additional worries that are a big enough incentive not to find out about
the brakes on :)

4, I have a feeling I might end up having to re-tape the bars - one of
either the brake cables or the gear cables is hidden underneath the
taping, not quite sure which it is.

--


Velvet
 
Mark Thompson wrote:

>>I suspect you're right that it would be safer on the downhills if I
>>was down on the drops, but so far I work around it by walking down a
>>hill I deem to be too steep.

>
>
> Assuming you walk 'cos you can't switch to the drops, what about stopping
> the bike, switching your hands to the drops, then starting off again?


Nope, it's not that :)

I walk primarily because I'm not happy about stopping whilst pointed
down quite a big downhill. It's hard to stop in a co-ordinated way -
it's getting better with practice (and I'm really enjoying swooshing
down some hills) but I just really don't enjoy the fact that a steep
hill means all my weight is on my hands/arms, despite being well back on
the saddle - and because of this, I'm tense, and because I'm tense, the
bike reacts badly to bumps, which leads to a vicious circle, and me
going down a steep hill VERY slowly and cautiously.

Now, long swooshing downhills with good visibility aren't a problem
unless they're still a bit on the steep side. I'll quite happily do
26-28mph down the right sort of hill, but am very leery of ones that end
in junctions/sharp bends/railway lines/have junctions *on*/traffic
lights etc because stopping in a controlled manner is hard when you're
overly tense and worried (rather than cos the brakes don't work!).

Ergo, I walk the ones I don't like the look of (not so many these days,
but there's several close to where I live) while cycling the ones that
are ok or borderline. Each time I survive a borderline one, it makes it
easier the next time ;-)

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> I walk primarily because I'm not happy about stopping whilst pointed
> down quite a big downhill. It's hard to stop in a co-ordinated way -
> it's getting better with practice (and I'm really enjoying swooshing
> down some hills) but I just really don't enjoy the fact that a steep
> hill means all my weight is on my hands/arms


This is just getting silly... sure, it's a very nice bike /if/ that's
what happens to suit, but it increasingly appears it really /doesn't/
suit you. You're too stretched out so you can't take a hand off the
bars safely or reliably, the gears aren't low enough to get you up your
local hills and the optimum braking position can't be used so you can't
always even get back /down/ them.
The bike's geometry and equipment is optimised for fast long rides which
you're not doing, so you're just not getting the best from it by a wide
margin because it's too awkward a design to let you at the present moment.

If you either sell it on or mothball it for a while and get a decent
road oriented hybrid with a WSD frame it'll be more comfortable for you,
a lot easier to use and will have the brakes and riding position to get
you down big hills with sudden stops and the gears to get up them. And
the riding downsides will be... not quite as aero because you haven't
got drops, but since you can't use those anyway even that's a non-issue.

I know you say you love the bike, but your posts are an ongoing stream
of things you're not happy to do on it, but which are pretty basic
things. Seems to me that the bike is actually holding you back a lot,
because it really is more awkward to get the use out of this sort of
bike without more experience. That's why not many people start on them!

I really think you should consider getting a bike you can really /ride/
in places other than on top of a turbo trainer. I don't ride serious
sports machinery because I can't get the best from it with my riding
style, even though I drool at it and I've plenty of cycling experience.
Probably best to drool over it but actually /ride/ something better
suited to you and your needs.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

(and I snipped almost all of it)


Yes, it IS getting silly.

I asked for advice on brake pads, and ended up getting a lecture.
Again. To be honest, I'm fed up with it, and seriously thought about
just not replying when questions were asked.

I really enjoy this bike - I'm making progress on signalling at last
thanks very much, and can get a hand off the bars if the tarmac's not
**** well enough to brush flies off etc.

My local hills are killers. Short of mountainbike gearing that won't be
solved till I get decent leg muscles, and lose a lot of weight.
However, going out cycling round my local area isn't nice because of
traffic as well as hills.

As for not doing long fast rides - well, mine might not be all that
fast, but I spend the majority of my time in the middle chainring, and
last weekend you might recall I cycled 58 miles - and have done a number
of 40-50 mile rides working up to that one too. I now manage 15-16mph
(not a true average, just what I see the majority of the time on the
speedo) along the flatter parts for long stretches, and sometimes up to
18mph. When I worked it out, I think the London to Cambridge worked out
at an average of about 11-12mph for the hillier sections, which is a
personal best for me, and 13-14mph for other stretches, which again, as
an *average* is pretty good in my books.

If that's not a long ride then you obviously have a very different idea
of them to me.

Quite honestly, yes, I could go get a 200 quid bike from halfords, with
lower gearing, and potter about on it for short rides, but I doubt it
would be comfortable for a 50 mile ride, and I honestly doubt it would
get me up hills any better.

Yes I perhaps should have been more clued up when I got the bike, but
it's the first one I've ever bought, first drop-barred bike I've ever
had, and yes I did go round bike shops but bugger all of them that I
found had ANY interest in the sort of bike I was after - it was either
out and out racing with alu frames, or exclusively mountain bikes.

Neither of which were what I wanted.

I'm having a really good time with this bike - I've made a lot of
changes, yes, and in hindsight it probably would have been cheaper to
get something custom built, but at the time I couldn't afford that
outlay in one chunk.

Perhaps you'd like to find a bike that'd fulfill my requirements, both
on weight, rack fitting ability, etc, for 800 quid? I know I looked and
sure as hell couldn't.

I don't have the spare cash to mothball my bike - nor do I want to. I'm
making steady progress - I can get up hills I couldn't before, much of
my problem was utter lack of fitness - at a rate I'm happy with. I
really don't give a monkeys that I don't want to ride down some hills
locally - that's not where I do most of my cycling, so it's not an
issue. Why should I want to go and ride up and down steep hills all
day? I'm happy that I can brake well enough on the hills I *do* ride -
this really isn't the problem you seem to think it is!

I can get down low (not as low as some, but that doesn't matter) when I
want aerodynamic stuff into a headwind or downhill if I really want the
speed, but one of the advantages (the only one) of being 5'4 and 11st+
is that I plummet like a lead weight down hills - I don't NEED to be on
the drops to get speed out of the bike, as it is I end up braking to
avoid rear-ending my taller lighter other half on a downhill.

I'd like to say again, I was after finding out what people thought were
good brake pads, for when mine eventually need replacing - not because I
view braking as a problem at this moment in time!

>
> I really think you should consider getting a bike you can really /ride/
> in places other than on top of a turbo trainer. I don't ride serious
> sports machinery because I can't get the best from it with my riding
> style, even though I drool at it and I've plenty of cycling experience.
> Probably best to drool over it but actually /ride/ something better
> suited to you and your needs.


My bike gets ridden a lot around cambridgeshire etc. Just because I
choose not to ride it locally doesn't mean it only gets stuck on the
turbo. I'd rather ride in company around the pretty lanes of
cambridgeshire than alone around hilly traffic-filled streets here.

Since you seem to be an expert on my needs, I'd be interested to see
what bike you'd suggest.

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm getting a pissy, but - well - I am. I'm
really pleased that I got *this* bike, even though I do recognise that I
would have done better by getting a different frame built up now, with
hindsignt. I've made huge strides in my ability to ride it, and my
confidence in it. When I got it, I'd never ridden on the roads before,
only on the pavement as a kid, so I knew it was probably going to be
hard work to get the confidence up, but that was my choice.

Given that, I don't think I'm doing too badly, to be honest. I'm
getting a lot of enjoyment out of it - and whether you think I would get
more from a different bike or not is beside the point. If I got a
flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever going to do
what I want to do on this one? The answer is probably no.


--


Velvet
 
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:24:56 GMT, Velvet wrote:

> If I got a flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever
> going to do what I want to do on this one? The answer is probably no.


Why not? Have you thought about having your current bike converted to flat
bars? You wouldn't have to reach as far and the brakes should be more
effective. The gear changers would also be more accessible.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter
saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:24:56 GMT, Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>If I got a flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever
>>going to do what I want to do on this one? The answer is probably no.

>
>
> Why not? Have you thought about having your current bike converted to flat
> bars? You wouldn't have to reach as far and the brakes should be more
> effective. The gear changers would also be more accessible.
>


Beeecaaaause, I use the bars I have to move around a lot on a 50 mile
ride, and I won't be able to do that with flats.

It's also yet more expense, and I don't see the need to do it, frankly...

Reading that last bit of mine, what I meant to say (and perhaps didn't
manage) was that if I got a different bike, yes I'd learn to be happy
and confident on that one, but if I was ever to use my audax bike, then
I'd just have to do what I'm doing now, and go through the confidence
and learning process for the bits that are different, and it seems a bit
pointless to just put that off - I might as well do it now and get it
over and done with!

--


Velvet
 
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:50:03 GMT, Velvet wrote:

> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:24:56 GMT, Velvet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If I got a flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever
>>>going to do what I want to do on this one? The answer is probably no.

>>
>>
>> Why not? Have you thought about having your current bike converted to flat
>> bars? You wouldn't have to reach as far and the brakes should be more
>> effective. The gear changers would also be more accessible.
>>

>
> Beeecaaaause, I use the bars I have to move around a lot on a 50 mile
> ride, and I won't be able to do that with flats.


That appears to be a minor inconvenience compared to the problems you have
using drops.

>
> It's also yet more expense, and I don't see the need to do it, frankly...
>


.... even if it meant you could cycle down hills?

Why do you think drops are so important? Do you think people won't take
you seriously as a cyclist if you don't have them?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:50:03 GMT, Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>Michael MacClancy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:24:56 GMT, Velvet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I got a flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever
>>>>going to do what I want to do on this one? The answer is probably no.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why not? Have you thought about having your current bike converted to flat
>>>bars? You wouldn't have to reach as far and the brakes should be more
>>>effective. The gear changers would also be more accessible.
>>>

>>
>>Beeecaaaause, I use the bars I have to move around a lot on a 50 mile
>>ride, and I won't be able to do that with flats.

>
>
> That appears to be a minor inconvenience compared to the problems you have
> using drops.


For the last time, I don't have problems using drops!

Yes the fingers have to stretch a bit, but I've done enough miles to
know it's not a dire problem.

Just because I don't currently get down onto the drops, why exactly is
this a problem? No I'm not using the bars to 100% of their
capabilities, but why should I either?

If I was seriously unhappy with drops, I would have changed them last
year, when I was still changing other bits on the bike. I didn't -
because they are Not A Problem.


>
>
>>It's also yet more expense, and I don't see the need to do it, frankly...
>>

>
>
> ... even if it meant you could cycle down hills?


I can cycle down sodding hills, I just choose not to cycle down really
steep ones at the moment.

Both times I fell off my bike as a kid were on down hills. One ended up
with me in a rosebush with heavy bike on top of me. Half an hour later
my mother was still pulling thorns out my ****.

Second time, I got a sharp painful lesson in camber when I stopped, put
foot down, discovered ground was much lower there, toppled sideways
hopping further down the hill and doing the splits with bike still
wedged between me and the ground.

Both very painful, and both left their mark on my confidence, even 20
years later.

I would rather persevere and continue building my skills and confidence
with the bike I have than go start all over again with a different one,
and effectively abandon the idea of riding this one.

>
> Why do you think drops are so important? Do you think people won't take
> you seriously as a cyclist if you don't have them?
>


I don't give a monkeys if other people take me seriously as a cyclist,
in fact I doubt many of them do, to be honest - I'm enjoying it just
fine thanks very much - I much prefer drops to straight bars, based on
having straight bars as a kid.

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> I really enjoy this bike=20


But you say you're not happy doing basic stuff on it. I really enjoy my =

unicycle, but that's not the same as thinking it's the ideal transport=20
solution for my typical cycling needs.

> My local hills are killers. Short of mountainbike gearing that won't b=

e=20
> solved till I get decent leg muscles, and lose a lot of weight.


But you've fast road gearing, so you're making life difficult for=20
yourself. On our Tour du Nord I used my granny a lot (I've got the same =

triple chainwheel, but 11-34 at the back and a 26" drive wheel): I=20
couldn't have done it with a set of gears like yours and I /have/ got=20
the strength for cycling. There are more riding venues than Surrey and=20
Cambridge and you don't have a wide gear range that will cope with them=20
all without a great deal more experience, the sort of experience you'd=20
want for doing Audax rides.

<snip>

> If that's not a long ride then you obviously have a very different idea=

=20
> of them to me.


No, that's a long ride to me. But it is /not/ a long ride to people who =

do Audax events, and that is the sort of ride your bike is targeted at.

> Quite honestly, yes, I could go get a 200 quid bike from halfords, with=

=20
> lower gearing, and potter about on it for short rides, but I doubt it=20
> would be comfortable for a 50 mile ride, and I honestly doubt it would =


> get me up hills any better.


Why shouldn't it be comfortable at 50 miles? If it has the right saddle =

it'll probably be more comfortable: you've said you don't like the=20
weight on your arms and a more upright position with a shorter tube will =

have far less weight on your arms. And who said anything about a =A3200 =

bike from Halfords? I suggested a good road oriented hybrid with a WSD=20
frame. The chances of that being more comfortable are very, very good=20
because you'll be less stretched out and get weight off your arms, which =

you have specifically pointed out as something you're not so keen on.

> Yes I perhaps should have been more clued up when I got the bike


I'm not trying to lay any blame anywhere, just pointing out that for the =

all the love you express for the bike you are having far more trouble on =

it than you probably would on something less sporting.

> I'm having a really good time with this bike


Though you seem to be "not happy" with quite a few things when you're=20
out on it. And that information comes from /your/ posts.

> Perhaps you'd like to find a bike that'd fulfill my requirements, both =


> on weight, rack fitting ability, etc, for 800 quid? I know I looked an=

d=20
> sure as hell couldn't.


What do you feel, say, the Marin Muirwoods Compact Womens wouldn't=20
manage for your basic criteria? That's =A3415 though you'll need to spen=
d=20
extra on rack and mudguards. That's a quick look through the EBC=20
catalogue rather than an exhaustive search, btw.

> Since you seem to be an expert on my needs, I'd be interested to see=20
> what bike you'd suggest.


I'm not an expert since all I'm saying is a vague "what you've got seems =

to give you a lot of problems, perhaps you'd be better elsewhere".=20
Though a /guess/ off the top of my head would be something with 26"=20
wheels so the frame isn't unnecessarily stretched, and a WSD shorter top =

tube quite possibly a Good Thing. Flat bars with bar ends, because=20
there's no point in having drops if you're not happy using them and the=20
bar ends will give you alternative hand positions (though if you're not=20
stretched out with weight on your arms so much there's be less need of=20
these in any case.

> I'm sorry if I sound like I'm getting a pissy, but - well - I am.


Which is fair enough: you put a lot of effort into finding the Right=20
Bike and someone saying it looks like you got the wrong one is a slap in =

the face. But considerable effort looking for bikes doesn't guarantee=20
you got the right one. I wanted a "racer" as a kid. Dreamed of one for =

years, finally got just what I /thought/ I wanted... but it wasn't=20
actually the right bike for me, though I never admitted it all the while =

I rode it.

> really pleased that I got *this* bike, even though I do recognise that =

I=20
> would have done better by getting a different frame built up now


If you had something specified for sports riding then there's a good=20
chance it would /still/ be the wrong thing, even custom built. Read=20
Myra's bike articles on why 26" wheels would probably be better for you=20
than 700c. Getting a frame built up requires a good chunk of experience =

to decide what is really right. Myra had a custom frame built based on=20
lots of experience and IIRC she never used it 'cause it turned out it=20
was all wrong when push came to shove.

> hindsignt. I've made huge strides in my ability to ride it, and my=20
> confidence in it.


Though you still keep coming up with things you're not happy to do on=20
it. These include being able to use the brakes at maximum=20
effectiveness, and if you stop and think about that then that is a=20
*Really Bad Thing* not to be able to do. I keep on harping about things =

like braking and signalling because they are *fundamental safety=20
issues*, and riding a bike that compromises your ability to do either=20
strikes me as tempting fate. It's all very well saying you can walk=20
around the nasty bits, but that could be much more than you bargain for=20
on a 50 mile ride.

> only on the pavement as a kid, so I knew it was probably going to be=20
> hard work to get the confidence up, but that was my choice.


But choosing a tricky bike to start on doesn't make it the right choice=20
just because you thought about it before you chose. People can be wrong =

about things.

> Given that, I don't think I'm doing too badly, to be honest.


I think you're doing amazingly well given the problems you encounter. I =

think there's a good possibility you'd do far /better/ than you already=20
are if you had a more user friendly bike that doesn't force you into a=20
riding position that makes controlling the bike more of a problem for=20
you than it needs to be.

> getting a lot of enjoyment out of it - and whether you think I would ge=

t=20
> more from a different bike or not is beside the point. If I got a=20
> flat-barred hybrid, yes it might be easier, but am I ever going to do=20
> what I want to do on this one? =20


Why on earth not? There's nothing intrinsic to a flat barred hybrid=20
design with 26" wheels that requires them to be heavy or incapable of=20
speed or distances. A =A3200 from Halfwits, no, but why on earth would=20
you think I meant something like that? My local CTC ride organiser has=20
a Thorn 26" flat bar hybrid, and she doesn't complain about the weight=20
and doesn't seem to have trouble doing distances at a reasonable rate.=20
It's a lovely bike and it's right for what she does. Which seems to be=20
pretty much the sort of thing you want to do...

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Velvet <[email protected]> wrote:
: this a problem? No I'm not using the bars to 100% of their
: capabilities, but why should I either?

I think this has all got a little out of hand. Lets be honest, most
non-racers don't use the drop portion of their drops much so Velvet
is just the same as the rest there.

I was the one that originally asked about braking on the drops though
and I'll stand by that. The difference between different brake pads
is really, really small compared to the difference between braking
on the hoods while going down a steep hill and braking on the drops.

However, please don't take this as a dig. It's been really good to
see the progress you are making with your cycling and it's good
to have you on urc.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
On 30 Jul 2004 10:57:12 GMT, Arthur Clune wrote:


>
> However, please don't take this as a dig. It's been really good to
> see the progress you are making with your cycling and it's good
> to have you on urc.
>
> Arthur


I think this is a widespread sentiment among the people who have been
contributing to this discussion.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "They never open their mouths without subtracting from
the sum of human knowledge." - Thomas Brackett Reed
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk