Ergo versus bar cons on touring bike

[Mike DeMicco]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> This is purely a matter of preference -- and a preference strong
> enough to take a chance on reliability (which seems to be getting
> covered in the Ergo fatigue thread). BTW, I have never done a
> long, loaded tour with STI/Ergo, but if I did, it would probably
> be with an Ergo lever -- at least for the FD. The Shimano triple
> lever has a poor trim feature, a fact which also favors
> barcons. -- Jay Beattie.

Somebody may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the lowest
gear Campy offers is 30x29. IMO, this is not low enough for a loaded
touring bike. Ergo, Ergo is unsuitable for a loaded touring bike because
it lacks sufficiently low enough gears.

I think you really want to use mountain bike gearing on a loaded touring
bike (e.g., Bruce Gordon uses a 22x32 low gear). I don't know how well an
STI front shifter indexes on a Shimano mountain bike crank and mountain
bike front derailler. As you mentioned, the trim feature is poor. If you
can live with a 30x34 low gear, then you can use a road crank and front
derailler and not worry if the front derailler will index properly. The
safe bet would be to use barcons and go for the lower gearing, which is
what Bruce Gordon does. Cost wise, you can outfit your touring bike with
barcons and a Shimano mountain bike drivetrain less expensively than a
road component alternative, since road components tend to be more
expensive. Shimano Deore LX should do just fine on a touring bike.

--
Mike DeMicco <[email protected]>

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:44:44 -0600, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:58:09 +1000, "Nick Payne"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Nonsense. I have friends who've done transcontinental tours several times
>>across Australia on fixed wheel. And these trips weren't on paved roads but
>>on tracks such as the Gunbarrel Highway, described in the literature as
>>"isolated and remote - for experienced desert travellers only". In addition
>>to full camping gear they had food for a week and 12 litres of water each on
>>their bikes.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>>"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news[email protected]...
>>> Lastly, touring in single speed mode with a fully self supported load
>>> is not really realistic, imo. The weight you have to overcome and
>>> balance at low speeds is too great to be managed with a single mid to
>>> high range gear (with the possible exception of pulling a trailer??).
>>> And a sufficiently low gear to deal with starts or hills of any kind
>>> will be intollerablly slow. Ugg. These problems would be much easier
>>> to deal with when carrying an ultra light load to some degree.
>
>Dear Nick,
>
>To be fair, the Gunbarrel Highway is an extremely flat,
>level stretch of Australia, much flatter than even western
>Kansas--no hills, no climbs, no discernable grade.
>
>Here's a map:
>
>http://www.exploroz.com/TrekNotes/WDeserts/Gunbarrel_Highway.asp
>
>In over 1400 km, the elevation drops only from 796 to 775
>meters--just 21 meters in 1,400,000 meters, a 0.0015% grade.
>
>That's as flat as a fairly good billiard table, so while
>starting out is arguably reasonable here on a single-speed,
>it's not as if there are any hills--the major elevation
>changes on Gunbarrel Highway involve rolling over ants.
>
>The ant comment is literally true.
>
>For fun, compare the 1400 km, 21-meter descent from Yalara
>to Wiluna to descending a staircase composed of ordinary
>typing paper, 11 inches long and 0.003 inches thick.
>
>There are about 5760 11-inch sheets per mile (12/11 x 5280).
>In a single mile, you'd drop all of 17.28 inches--not quite
>a foot and a half.
>
>At 1400 km, the Gunbarrel Highway runs about 870 miles.
>
>So with 5760 sheets per mile x 870 miles, we'd end up with
>50,112,000 steps between Yalara and Wiluna, each being 0.003
>inches deep.
>
>That's about 15,000 inches, or 1250 feet, or about 380
>meters--almost twenty times the 21-meter real-world descent.
>
>I'd hate to try to sell carpenter's levels out there.
>
>Carl Fogel

Aaargh!

Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
not elevations.

Now I have to look up the damned elevations.

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:03:43 -0600, [email protected]
wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:44:44 -0600, [email protected]
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:58:09 +1000, "Nick Payne"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Nonsense. I have friends who've done transcontinental tours several times
>>>across Australia on fixed wheel. And these trips weren't on paved roads but
>>>on tracks such as the Gunbarrel Highway, described in the literature as
>>>"isolated and remote - for experienced desert travellers only". In addition
>>>to full camping gear they had food for a week and 12 litres of water each on
>>>their bikes.
>>>
>>>Nick
>>>
>>>"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news[email protected]...
>>>> Lastly, touring in single speed mode with a fully self supported load
>>>> is not really realistic, imo. The weight you have to overcome and
>>>> balance at low speeds is too great to be managed with a single mid to
>>>> high range gear (with the possible exception of pulling a trailer??).
>>>> And a sufficiently low gear to deal with starts or hills of any kind
>>>> will be intollerablly slow. Ugg. These problems would be much easier
>>>> to deal with when carrying an ultra light load to some degree.
>>
>>Dear Nick,
>>
>>To be fair, the Gunbarrel Highway is an extremely flat,
>>level stretch of Australia, much flatter than even western
>>Kansas--no hills, no climbs, no discernable grade.
>>
>>Here's a map:
>>
>>http://www.exploroz.com/TrekNotes/WDeserts/Gunbarrel_Highway.asp
>>
>>In over 1400 km, the elevation drops only from 796 to 775
>>meters--just 21 meters in 1,400,000 meters, a 0.0015% grade.
>>
>>That's as flat as a fairly good billiard table, so while
>>starting out is arguably reasonable here on a single-speed,
>>it's not as if there are any hills--the major elevation
>>changes on Gunbarrel Highway involve rolling over ants.
>>
>>The ant comment is literally true.
>>
>>For fun, compare the 1400 km, 21-meter descent from Yalara
>>to Wiluna to descending a staircase composed of ordinary
>>typing paper, 11 inches long and 0.003 inches thick.
>>
>>There are about 5760 11-inch sheets per mile (12/11 x 5280).
>>In a single mile, you'd drop all of 17.28 inches--not quite
>>a foot and a half.
>>
>>At 1400 km, the Gunbarrel Highway runs about 870 miles.
>>
>>So with 5760 sheets per mile x 870 miles, we'd end up with
>>50,112,000 steps between Yalara and Wiluna, each being 0.003
>>inches deep.
>>
>>That's about 15,000 inches, or 1250 feet, or about 380
>>meters--almost twenty times the 21-meter real-world descent.
>>
>>I'd hate to try to sell carpenter's levels out there.
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>Aaargh!
>
>Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
>not elevations.
>
>Now I have to look up the damned elevations.
>
>Carl Fogel

Wiluna is 518 meters above sea level.

Yulara, 1410 km down the Gunbarrel Highway, is 492 meters
above sea leavel--a 26 meter drop.

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:03:43 -0600, [email protected]
> wrote:
>>Aaargh!
>>
>>Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
>>not elevations.
>>
>>Now I have to look up the damned elevations.
>>
>>Carl Fogel
>
>
> Wiluna is 518 meters above sea level.
>
> Yulara, 1410 km down the Gunbarrel Highway, is 492 meters
> above sea leavel--a 26 meter drop.

Using rather similar reasoning, couldn't we conclude that cycling down
the Pacific Coast Highway in California is almost totally flat since all
major cities on the route are near sea level?
Hint: that would be a false conclusion.

I'd suggest that you really need either a topographic map or an
elevation profile of the Gunbarrel Highway before you can draw any
reasonable conclusions.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:22:05 -0700, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:03:43 -0600, [email protected]
>> wrote:
>>>Aaargh!
>>>
>>>Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
>>>not elevations.
>>>
>>>Now I have to look up the damned elevations.
>>>
>>>Carl Fogel
>>
>>
>> Wiluna is 518 meters above sea level.
>>
>> Yulara, 1410 km down the Gunbarrel Highway, is 492 meters
>> above sea leavel--a 26 meter drop.
>
>Using rather similar reasoning, couldn't we conclude that cycling down
>the Pacific Coast Highway in California is almost totally flat since all
>major cities on the route are near sea level?
>Hint: that would be a false conclusion.
>
>I'd suggest that you really need either a topographic map or an
>elevation profile of the Gunbarrel Highway before you can draw any
>reasonable conclusions.

Dear Peter,

The area is so flat that there ain't no topo maps--the
average elevation change is only one foot in about ten
miles.

It is, however, quite scenic:

http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Gunbarrel.htm

http://community.webshots.com/album/73893345SMOuLT

Browse these lovely pictures, note the horizons, and you'll
see why I consider it flat, even compared to the Great
Plains east of Pueblo, home to a high-speed train test
track.

Note, for example, that "Mt. William Lambert" is an
undistinguished hillock rising to 514 meters amidst a plain
that's right around 500 meters above sea level.

Len Beadell built this dirt track starting in 1956, leading
the tiny construction crew primarily by using celestial
navigation, since it's so flat and there are rarely any
landmarks in sight.

Carl Fogel

 

[James Thomson]

"Mike DeMicco" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Somebody may have mentioned this earlier in the thread,
> but the lowest gear Campy offers is 30x29. IMO, this is not
> low enough for a loaded touring bike.

> Ergo, Ergo is unsuitable for a loaded touring bike because
> it lacks sufficiently low enough gears.

Ergopower shifters can be used in combination with many other components -
Campagnolo and otherwise - to give low touring gears. A Campag triple crank
will take a 24t granny ring. One of my bikes uses a Sugino microdrive crank
(20, 32, 44), XTR front and rear derailleurs, 11-32 9-speed Shimano
cassette, and Daytona Ergopower levers. With 26" wheels, that's a tiny low
gear of 16". A 34t sprocket would give 15".

> I think you really want to use mountain bike gearing on a loaded
> touring bike (e.g., Bruce Gordon uses a 22x32 low gear). I don't
> know how well an STI front shifter indexes on a Shimano mountain
> bike crank and mountain bike front derailler.

Not well, in my experience, but Ergo levers do much better.

James Thomson

 

[Peter]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:22:05 -0700, Peter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:03:43 -0600, [email protected]
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Aaargh!
>>>>
>>>>Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
>>>>not elevations.
>>>>
>>>>Now I have to look up the damned elevations.
>>>>
>>>>Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>
>>>Wiluna is 518 meters above sea level.
>>>
>>>Yulara, 1410 km down the Gunbarrel Highway, is 492 meters
>>>above sea leavel--a 26 meter drop.
>>
>>Using rather similar reasoning, couldn't we conclude that cycling down
>>the Pacific Coast Highway in California is almost totally flat since all
>>major cities on the route are near sea level?
>>Hint: that would be a false conclusion.
>>
>>I'd suggest that you really need either a topographic map or an
>>elevation profile of the Gunbarrel Highway before you can draw any
>>reasonable conclusions.
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> The area is so flat that there ain't no topo maps--the
> average elevation change is only one foot in about ten
> miles.

That seems surprising. The area where I grew up is about that flat but
there are certainly topo maps available. Contour lines are at 2.5'
intervals and are generally separated by quite a few miles.

Space-based radar has generated good elevation data of the entire
surface of the planet so the raw data should be available for a detailed
study.
This source:
http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/maps/100k.htm would at least allow
spotting any elevation changes of 20m or greater - not ideal, but
certainly better than picking particular waypoints that are 1000 km
apart with no assurance that there aren't intervening high or low spots.

>
> It is, however, quite scenic:
>
> http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Gunbarrel.htm
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/73893345SMOuLT
>
> Browse these lovely pictures, note the horizons, and you'll
> see why I consider it flat, even compared to the Great
> Plains east of Pueblo, home to a high-speed train test
> track.
>
> Note, for example, that "Mt. William Lambert" is an
> undistinguished hillock rising to 514 meters amidst a plain
> that's right around 500 meters above sea level.
>
> Len Beadell built this dirt track starting in 1956, leading
> the tiny construction crew primarily by using celestial
> navigation, since it's so flat and there are rarely any
> landmarks in sight.

I'm not disputing that it's pretty flat countryside. But you seem to be
intent on quantifying the gradients on the basis of widely separated
waypoints with the assumption that the intervening span of trail has a
steady monotonic variation in elevation. That assumption is likely to
be false and will therefore lead to an erroniously low estimate of the
gradients in the area.

For example, in contrast to your stated grade of 1' per 10 miles, the
picture of the creek crossing of Carnegie Rd. (in your first link) shows
a noticeable rise of at least a few feet in a distance of only some
hundreds of feet.

So if all you want to do is state that the area is pretty flat I'd have
no objection. But if you want to get quantitative about the gradients
to be expected along this trail then you need much more detailed data
than you're currently using.

 

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:34:17 -0700, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:22:05 -0700, Peter
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:03:43 -0600, [email protected]
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Aaargh!
>>>>>
>>>>>Fooled again by a map--those are waypoints, such as #775,
>>>>>not elevations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now I have to look up the damned elevations.
>>>>>
>>>>>Carl Fogel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wiluna is 518 meters above sea level.
>>>>
>>>>Yulara, 1410 km down the Gunbarrel Highway, is 492 meters
>>>>above sea leavel--a 26 meter drop.
>>>
>>>Using rather similar reasoning, couldn't we conclude that cycling down
>>>the Pacific Coast Highway in California is almost totally flat since all
>>>major cities on the route are near sea level?
>>>Hint: that would be a false conclusion.
>>>
>>>I'd suggest that you really need either a topographic map or an
>>>elevation profile of the Gunbarrel Highway before you can draw any
>>>reasonable conclusions.
>>
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> The area is so flat that there ain't no topo maps--the
>> average elevation change is only one foot in about ten
>> miles.
>
>That seems surprising. The area where I grew up is about that flat but
>there are certainly topo maps available. Contour lines are at 2.5'
>intervals and are generally separated by quite a few miles.
>
>Space-based radar has generated good elevation data of the entire
>surface of the planet so the raw data should be available for a detailed
>study.
>This source:
>http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/maps/100k.htm would at least allow
>spotting any elevation changes of 20m or greater - not ideal, but
>certainly better than picking particular waypoints that are 1000 km
>apart with no assurance that there aren't intervening high or low spots.
>
>>
>> It is, however, quite scenic:
>>
>> http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Gunbarrel.htm
>>
>> http://community.webshots.com/album/73893345SMOuLT
>>
>> Browse these lovely pictures, note the horizons, and you'll
>> see why I consider it flat, even compared to the Great
>> Plains east of Pueblo, home to a high-speed train test
>> track.
>>
>> Note, for example, that "Mt. William Lambert" is an
>> undistinguished hillock rising to 514 meters amidst a plain
>> that's right around 500 meters above sea level.
>>
>> Len Beadell built this dirt track starting in 1956, leading
>> the tiny construction crew primarily by using celestial
>> navigation, since it's so flat and there are rarely any
>> landmarks in sight.
>
>I'm not disputing that it's pretty flat countryside. But you seem to be
>intent on quantifying the gradients on the basis of widely separated
>waypoints with the assumption that the intervening span of trail has a
>steady monotonic variation in elevation. That assumption is likely to
>be false and will therefore lead to an erroniously low estimate of the
>gradients in the area.
>
>For example, in contrast to your stated grade of 1' per 10 miles, the
>picture of the creek crossing of Carnegie Rd. (in your first link) shows
>a noticeable rise of at least a few feet in a distance of only some
>hundreds of feet.
>
>So if all you want to do is state that the area is pretty flat I'd have
>no objection. But if you want to get quantitative about the gradients
>to be expected along this trail then you need much more detailed data
>than you're currently using.

Dear Peter,

Browse the pictures again--those are the most rugged spots
that the photographers could find. The road is godawful
flat, and detours around anything that rises even slightly.
True, the road dips into mudholes and across dry
watercourses, but it comes right back up again--you might as
well worry about the rain gutters on either side of the
street.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse....e=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=1000000&up.x=185&up.y=6

Note that the "rivers" begin and end without going anywhere
because there's nowhere to go.

This is the interior of Western Australia. If you want to
climb fifty feet, you can walk over to the occasional
outcrop, or even have fun at Ayers Rock. But Len Beadell
deliberately ran his road over the flattest route he could
find, from waterhole to waterhole, between the "ranges" of
insignificant hills, with a bulldozer chugging along behind
him.

That's why you'll see comments about problems with washboard
road forming and travellers just detouring around it and
making a new track--and then another--and then another. It's
so flat that you can do this.

Think about the name "Gunbarrel Highway" and the kind of
terrain that let Beadell scrape that track disappearing
again and again arrow-straight into the distance.

Carl Fogel

 

[Peter]

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:34:17 -0700, Peter
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>The area is so flat that there ain't no topo maps--the
>>>average elevation change is only one foot in about ten
>>>miles.
>>
>>That seems surprising. The area where I grew up is about that flat but
>>there are certainly topo maps available. Contour lines are at 2.5'
>>intervals and are generally separated by quite a few miles.
>>
>>Space-based radar has generated good elevation data of the entire
>>surface of the planet so the raw data should be available for a detailed
>>study.
>>This source:
>>http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/maps/100k.htm would at least allow
>>spotting any elevation changes of 20m or greater - not ideal, but
>>certainly better than picking particular waypoints that are 1000 km
>>apart with no assurance that there aren't intervening high or low spots.
>>
>>
>>>It is, however, quite scenic:
>>>
>>>http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Gunbarrel.htm
>>>
>>>http://community.webshots.com/album/73893345SMOuLT
>>>
>>>Browse these lovely pictures, note the horizons, and you'll
>>>see why I consider it flat, even compared to the Great
>>>Plains east of Pueblo, home to a high-speed train test
>>>track.
>>>
>>>Note, for example, that "Mt. William Lambert" is an
>>>undistinguished hillock rising to 514 meters amidst a plain
>>>that's right around 500 meters above sea level.
>>>
>>>Len Beadell built this dirt track starting in 1956, leading
>>>the tiny construction crew primarily by using celestial
>>>navigation, since it's so flat and there are rarely any
>>>landmarks in sight.
>>
>>I'm not disputing that it's pretty flat countryside. But you seem to be
>>intent on quantifying the gradients on the basis of widely separated
>>waypoints with the assumption that the intervening span of trail has a
>>steady monotonic variation in elevation. That assumption is likely to
>>be false and will therefore lead to an erroniously low estimate of the
>>gradients in the area.
>>
>>For example, in contrast to your stated grade of 1' per 10 miles, the
>>picture of the creek crossing of Carnegie Rd. (in your first link) shows
>>a noticeable rise of at least a few feet in a distance of only some
>>hundreds of feet.
>>
>>So if all you want to do is state that the area is pretty flat I'd have
>>no objection. But if you want to get quantitative about the gradients
>>to be expected along this trail then you need much more detailed data
>>than you're currently using.
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Browse the pictures again--those are the most rugged spots
> that the photographers could find.

And they certainly don't contradict anything that I've said. They do
however contradict some of the statements you made that you emphasized
were "literally true."

As I said before, it looks like topography rather similar to where I
grew up (eastern ND), just somewhat hillier. And again, as I said
before, if you just want to characterize it as rather flat terrain I
have no objection. But getting waypoints of places separated by almost
1000 miles and concluding on that basis that the gradients on the trail
will only be 1' of elevation gain every 10 miles (0.002%) is still
absurd. There appear to be some spots on the trail where you get more
than a 1' rise in 100' (i.e. a gradient of 1%), and there may well be
places where a cyclist can coast downhill for a little while - in fact
some of the pictures appear to show such spots.
I'm certainly not claiming that a 1% grade is much of an obstacle to a
cyclist, but it is 500 times the grade that you're calculating based on
your widely separated waypoints.

> The road is godawful
> flat, and detours around anything that rises even slightly.
> True, the road dips into mudholes and across dry
> watercourses, but it comes right back up again--you might as
> well worry about the rain gutters on either side of the
> street.

And I would worry about them if I were tempted to make a claim (as you
did earlier) that the trail is as flat as a "good billiard table."
>
> http://www.multimap.com/map/browse....e=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=1000000&up.x=185&up.y=6
>
> Note that the "rivers" begin and end without going anywhere
> because there's nowhere to go.

Except downhill. In truly flat country you don't have rivers - you just
have cracked soil that turns to mud when it rains and then gradually
dries out. And the reason the rivers end without reaching a lake or
ocean has much more to do with the fact that the area gets little
rainfall and has a low water table than with the relatively flat topography.
>
> This is the interior of Western Australia. If you want to
> climb fifty feet, you can walk over to the occasional
> outcrop, or even have fun at Ayers Rock. But Len Beadell
> deliberately ran his road over the flattest route he could
> find, from waterhole to waterhole, between the "ranges" of
> insignificant hills, with a bulldozer chugging along behind
> him.
>
> That's why you'll see comments about problems with washboard
> road forming and travellers just detouring around it and
> making a new track--and then another--and then another.

And each of those washboard bumps is a couple orders of magnitude
greater than your previous claim of the road's flatness: "the major
elevation changes on Gunbarrel Highway involve rolling over ants. The
ant comment is literally true." The pictures you cite clearly show that
it is not literally true.

 

[pinnah]

>"pinnah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> Lastly, touring in single speed mode with a fully self supported load
>> is not really realistic, imo.

"Nick Payne" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Nonsense. I have friends who've done transcontinental tours several times
>across Australia on fixed wheel. And these trips weren't on paved roads but
>on tracks such as the Gunbarrel Highway, described in the literature as
>"isolated and remote - for experienced desert travellers only".

I don't think it is non-sense at all when you take my comments in the
context of the OP's initial question, which was about Ergo vs barcons.
The discussion at this point is about how to deal with shifter
failure. It is *not* about the feasibility of fixed gear touring in
certain situations.

The issue *is* about the feasability of converting a deraileur drive
train to a fixed gear as a planned response to shifter failure. Given
a) the normally large loads associated with self supported travel, b)
the normally wide range of surface (dirt to pavement) that touriists
confront and c) the normally wide range of hills and flats, I stand by
my assertion that converting to fixed gear is not really a feasible
option as a response. In particular, I think it would be a mistake
for a tourist to think that this option is good enough to warrant
using a more unreliable shifter mechanism.

To take my comments and extend them to a blanket indictment of all
fixed gear touring requires that you take them out of context. I'll
need to go back and reread the charter.... I'm beginning to think that
taking people's posts and constructing false strawman arguements out
them is required to be on-topic. Certainly makes for good usenet fun!
;^)

BTW, given the description you give of the Aus outback, I reckon that
the super reliability of fixed gear may needed as a life/death sort of
issue? Also, am I correct in infering the that road surface on that
trip is fairly consistent (dirt) and fairly flat? If so, that would
make single speed more feasible than, say, crossing the American
Rockies?

 

[Sheldon Brown]

Mike DeMicco wrote:

> Somebody may have mentioned this earlier in the thread, but the lowest
> gear Campy offers is 30x29. IMO, this is not low enough for a loaded
> touring bike. Ergo, Ergo is unsuitable for a loaded touring bike because
> it lacks sufficiently low enough gears.

That's a "straw man" argument.

It's a trivial matter to replace the silly 30 tooth chainring on a "road
triple" crank with something more suitable for touring, say a 26 or 24.
>
> I think you really want to use mountain bike gearing on a loaded touring
> bike (e.g., Bruce Gordon uses a 22x32 low gear). I don't know how well an
> STI front shifter indexes on a Shimano mountain bike crank and mountain
> bike front derailler.

Not so well, but Ergo has no such problem.

> As you mentioned, the trim feature is poor.

Not an issue with Ergo.

> If you
> can live with a 30x34 low gear, then you can use a road crank and front
> derailler and not worry if the front derailler will index properly. The
> safe bet would be to use barcons and go for the lower gearing, which is
> what Bruce Gordon does. Cost wise, you can outfit your touring bike with
> barcons and a Shimano mountain bike drivetrain less expensively than a
> road component alternative, since road components tend to be more
> expensive. Shimano Deore LX should do just fine on a touring bike.

Ergos with Shimano rear hub and cassette are also a good choice.

I'm running Ergos with an LX rear derailer, 11-32 cassette, works dandy
with the Jtek ShiftMate

52-42-28 Biopace in front.

http://harriscyclery.com/jtek

Sheldon "Shimagnolo" Brown
+------------------------------------+
| Immigrants are not our burden, |
| They are our wealth --Jane Adams |
+------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Sheldon Brown]

The mysterious "pinnah" wrote:
>>
>>>Lastly, touring in single speed mode with a fully self supported load
>>>is not really realistic, imo.

I demurred:

>>That flies in the face of history. Lots of folks have toured on
>>single-speeds.
>>
>>Indeed, my own nephew did a tour from Chicago to New
>>Hampster and then down to Providence on a singlespeed, had a great time
>>and no mechanical problems at all.

> More fundementally (a bit more seriously), I think you've taken what I
> said a bit out of context. Mistaken as it could be to make such
> assumptions on usenet, I thought that by saying "fully self supported
> load" would be read as meaning a 40+ lb load with front and rear
> bags. I even went on to note (and you cut out) that my opinion would
> be mitigated by light loads and possibly by using a trailer.

I snipped those clauses because I didn't see them as relevant.

My nephew had front and rear bags, tent, sleeping bags, probably 40 lbs
if not more.

I can't imagnine any reason why the use of a trailer would reduce the
utility of multi-speed gearing.

Sheldon "Gears Are Sometimes Nice, But Never A Necessity" Brown
+----------------------------------+
| Good health is nothing but the |
| slowest way to die. -Les Barker |
+----------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:58:22 -0700, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:34:17 -0700, Peter
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>The area is so flat that there ain't no topo maps--the
>>>>average elevation change is only one foot in about ten
>>>>miles.
>>>
>>>That seems surprising. The area where I grew up is about that flat but
>>>there are certainly topo maps available. Contour lines are at 2.5'
>>>intervals and are generally separated by quite a few miles.
>>>
>>>Space-based radar has generated good elevation data of the entire
>>>surface of the planet so the raw data should be available for a detailed
>>>study.
>>>This source:
>>>http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/maps/100k.htm would at least allow
>>>spotting any elevation changes of 20m or greater - not ideal, but
>>>certainly better than picking particular waypoints that are 1000 km
>>>apart with no assurance that there aren't intervening high or low spots.
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is, however, quite scenic:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.landroverclub.net/Club/HTML/Australia_Gunbarrel.htm
>>>>
>>>>http://community.webshots.com/album/73893345SMOuLT
>>>>
>>>>Browse these lovely pictures, note the horizons, and you'll
>>>>see why I consider it flat, even compared to the Great
>>>>Plains east of Pueblo, home to a high-speed train test
>>>>track.
>>>>
>>>>Note, for example, that "Mt. William Lambert" is an
>>>>undistinguished hillock rising to 514 meters amidst a plain
>>>>that's right around 500 meters above sea level.
>>>>
>>>>Len Beadell built this dirt track starting in 1956, leading
>>>>the tiny construction crew primarily by using celestial
>>>>navigation, since it's so flat and there are rarely any
>>>>landmarks in sight.
>>>
>>>I'm not disputing that it's pretty flat countryside. But you seem to be
>>>intent on quantifying the gradients on the basis of widely separated
>>>waypoints with the assumption that the intervening span of trail has a
>>>steady monotonic variation in elevation. That assumption is likely to
>>>be false and will therefore lead to an erroniously low estimate of the
>>>gradients in the area.
>>>
>>>For example, in contrast to your stated grade of 1' per 10 miles, the
>>>picture of the creek crossing of Carnegie Rd. (in your first link) shows
>>>a noticeable rise of at least a few feet in a distance of only some
>>>hundreds of feet.
>>>
>>>So if all you want to do is state that the area is pretty flat I'd have
>>>no objection. But if you want to get quantitative about the gradients
>>>to be expected along this trail then you need much more detailed data
>>>than you're currently using.
>>
>>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> Browse the pictures again--those are the most rugged spots
>> that the photographers could find.
>
>And they certainly don't contradict anything that I've said. They do
>however contradict some of the statements you made that you emphasized
>were "literally true."
>
>As I said before, it looks like topography rather similar to where I
>grew up (eastern ND), just somewhat hillier. And again, as I said
>before, if you just want to characterize it as rather flat terrain I
>have no objection. But getting waypoints of places separated by almost
>1000 miles and concluding on that basis that the gradients on the trail
>will only be 1' of elevation gain every 10 miles (0.002%) is still
>absurd. There appear to be some spots on the trail where you get more
>than a 1' rise in 100' (i.e. a gradient of 1%), and there may well be
>places where a cyclist can coast downhill for a little while - in fact
>some of the pictures appear to show such spots.
>I'm certainly not claiming that a 1% grade is much of an obstacle to a
>cyclist, but it is 500 times the grade that you're calculating based on
>your widely separated waypoints.
>
>> The road is godawful
>> flat, and detours around anything that rises even slightly.
>> True, the road dips into mudholes and across dry
>> watercourses, but it comes right back up again--you might as
>> well worry about the rain gutters on either side of the
>> street.
>
>And I would worry about them if I were tempted to make a claim (as you
>did earlier) that the trail is as flat as a "good billiard table."
>>
>> http://www.multimap.com/map/browse....e=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=1000000&up.x=185&up.y=6
>>
>> Note that the "rivers" begin and end without going anywhere
>> because there's nowhere to go.
>
>Except downhill. In truly flat country you don't have rivers - you just
>have cracked soil that turns to mud when it rains and then gradually
>dries out. And the reason the rivers end without reaching a lake or
>ocean has much more to do with the fact that the area gets little
>rainfall and has a low water table than with the relatively flat topography.
>>
>> This is the interior of Western Australia. If you want to
>> climb fifty feet, you can walk over to the occasional
>> outcrop, or even have fun at Ayers Rock. But Len Beadell
>> deliberately ran his road over the flattest route he could
>> find, from waterhole to waterhole, between the "ranges" of
>> insignificant hills, with a bulldozer chugging along behind
>> him.
>>
>> That's why you'll see comments about problems with washboard
>> road forming and travellers just detouring around it and
>> making a new track--and then another--and then another.
>
>And each of those washboard bumps is a couple orders of magnitude
>greater than your previous claim of the road's flatness: "the major
>elevation changes on Gunbarrel Highway involve rolling over ants. The
>ant comment is literally true." The pictures you cite clearly show that
>it is not literally true.

Dear Peter,

When quotation marks enclose "rivers" like this, it's a clue
that they're just elongated mud puddles that drain dozens of
square miles in an area where the wells are require 150-foot
ropes.

Similarly, the same quotation marks around "Mount Beadell"
hint that the "mountain" rises about fifty feet above the
flat plain off to one side of the road.

http://www.landroverclub.net/Gunbarrel/gt_central_road.jpg

The picture above is typical of hundreds of miles of the
road--out of sight, the road detours around the "giant" rise
dead ahead on the horizon.

If it will make you feel better, feel free to point out that
no road is flat when we consider the curve of the earth.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:23:54 -0400, pinnah
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>BTW, given the description you give of the Aus outback, I reckon that
>the super reliability of fixed gear may needed as a life/death sort of
>issue? Also, am I correct in infering the that road surface on that
>trip is fairly consistent (dirt) and fairly flat? If so, that would
>make single speed more feasible than, say, crossing the American
>Rockies?

Dear Dave,

Here's a typical section of the Gun Barrel Highway:

http://www.landroverclub.net/Gunbarrel/gt_central_road.jpg

Carl Fogel

 

[dvt]

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Sheldon "Gears Are Sometimes Nice, But Never A Necessity" Brown

I can get where I want to go on a single speed bike, but after a while,
my knees start to hurt. So I guess multiple gears aren't necessary,
since I can walk or drive to relieve the knees. But multiple gears *are*
necessary to keep me on my bike.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[pinnah]

pinnah wrote:
>> More fundementally (a bit more seriously), I think you've taken what I
>> said a bit out of context. Mistaken as it could be to make such
>> assumptions on usenet, I thought that by saying "fully self supported
>> load" would be read as meaning a 40+ lb load with front and rear
>> bags. I even went on to note (and you cut out) that my opinion would
>> be mitigated by light loads and possibly by using a trailer.


Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>I snipped those clauses because I didn't see them as relevant.

My point, exactly. If I had been making a blanket statement about the use
of fixed gears for touring in all situations, those statements would be
irrelevant.

>My nephew had front and rear bags, tent, sleeping bags, probably 40 lbs
>if not more.

Interesting and impressive. Do you know what he was using for gearing?

>I can't imagnine any reason why the use of a trailer would reduce the
>utility of multi-speed gearing.

That's not what I was attempting to say. My apologies if I've been unclear.
What I'm saying is that the use of a trailer might mitigate some of the
problems of using a fixed gear. Specifically, ime, one place I really rely
on low gearing when fully loaded with front & rear racks is for slow speed
starts on dirt roads (commonly near camping spots). This is one place where
I find it hard to control the bike when standing on the pedals. I much
prefer staying in the saddle and using low gears for forward progress.
That is, while I feel very comfortable coming out of the saddle when
climbiing hills on good pavement, I really want low gears on dirt.

However, the few times I've used trailors I've been struck by how easy it
is to handle the bike when out of the saddle. You don't need to manage all
that weight balancing back and forth. For this reason, it *may* be the case
that one could get away using a higher gear on a fixed set up when pulling
a trailor. I would be much more likely to get up out of the saddle, even
on dirt.