Gooserider wrote:
> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Hank Wirtz wrote:
>>
>>>"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
>>>>LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!
>>>
>>>I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
>>>from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
>>>steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."
>>
>>ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?
>>
>>Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.
>>
>>
>>>The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
>>>of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
>>>chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
>>>last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
>>>one on the bike.
>>>
>>>This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
>>>bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
>>>give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.
>>
>>Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....
>>
>>
>>>It has
>>>clearance for fenders and wide tires.
>>
>>Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
>>enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
>>the comfort of fat tires for some speed.
>
>
> Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
> drivetrain cleaner.
You say. Depends on the environment. I've had it out with the folks on
IBOB about this. No one will believe me though. Where I live, and for
the style of riding in which I engage, fenders don't make enough
difference to be worth the hassle. My road bike goes everywhere, all
times of year. I have had fenders, and I've gone without them. I can
discern no notable difference in either rider or bike cleanliness. If
it's raining, fenders don't help (rain gear does). I noticed no
difference in drivetrain cleanliness. No difference in shoe dryness.
What I did notice is increased toe overlap (lots), maintenance headaches
(fenders really do get in the way), and a real off-road handicap. You
should try riding singletrack and jam a stick up behind your fender
(yes, 700x25-28mm road bike tires). It ain't pretty. If you come upon a
muddy road or trail, fenders clog up with mud much faster than without.
For cafe' bikes, they probably make perfect sense, when you wait for the
rain to stop and ride the wet roads to the local quafferie.
> Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
> necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
> Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.
They aren't slower unless they're lower quality casings, or with
excessive tread patterns. I struggle everyday in the business trying to
convince people of the real benefits/deficits of various tire
configurations.
>>Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
>>mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
>>(http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?
>
>
> Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
> change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
> penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.
MTB's don't make good commuters, IMHO. People want mtb's as commuters
since they think the upright position makes them more visible and
provides better view. I don't subscribe. You can achieve the same
thing with a drop-bar bike.
>
>>>And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
>>>than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
>>>287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
>>>this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
>>>tires and fenders.
>>
>>I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
>>stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.
>
>
> Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
> pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.
You are right. If you can easily raise the rear wheel with the front
brake, that's as good as braking can be. Cantilevers, properly setup,
provide this kind of braking power.
Most newbies don't understand that straight pull cantilevers were (re-)
developed to address a safety issue with cantilvers; that is, the
certainty of the straddle wire to stopping the front wheel on the
occasion of a front brake cable failure. Vee-brakes came around for the
same reason as "lawyers lips" on forks.
>
>>>Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
>>>frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
>>>about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
>>>too.
>>>
>>>It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
>>>and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
>>>anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.
>>
>>Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
>>make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
>>posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
>>the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
>>basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
>>pick-up-and-go affair.
>
>
> Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
> shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
> have on a road bike.
>
>
>>Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
>>different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
>>basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
>>seemingly "simple" things are!
>
>
> Not complicated, really.
>
>
>>>20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
>>>Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
>>>than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
>>>and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
>>>them after every ride.
>>
>>OMG...this is bad news....
>>
>>Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
>>24-spoke wheelset?
>
>
> Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
> wisest choice for a city bike.
The advice for running weaker wheels on race day has always confused me.
What greater stressful environment than racing? I would choose my
stronger wheels for race day.
>
>>>I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
>>>and more trollish to me.
>>
>>Trollish schmollish.
>>
>>I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
>>learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
>>asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
>>person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
>>and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
>>"attractive" to you for whatever reason.
>
>
> It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
> folks gave you sank in.
>
>
>>Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
>>dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
>>asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
>>won't be supporting my weight!
>>
>>What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>
>
>
> From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
> Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
> T.
>
>
Robin (time to start snipping, but I'm too lazy) Hubert