Touring tyre - 35 or 38



On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:51:13 -0400, Paul Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:39:47 -0400, Paul Hobson
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Kinky Cowboy wrote:
>>>> On 30 Sep 2006 08:44:26 -0700, "john" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So if I were to follow this link
>>>>> (http://www.schwalbe.com/gbl/en/tech_info/rollwiderstand/) to it's
>>>>> logical conclusion, I'd be riding a 6" wide tire. Some tiny hint of
>>>>> intuition says: 'I don't think so!'
>>>> And we all know intuition beats science any day.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming you could get a 6" tyre with a more or less round cross
>>>> section with the same case/tread construction, and inflate it to the
>>>> same pressure, as the 35mm tyres under discussion, the change in
>>>> curvature of the tread/casing required to form a flat 2sq. in. contact
>>>> patch would be very small indeed, and the hysteresis would be
>>>> correspondingly tiny.
>>> But here's where I'm confused: Is Schwalbe claiming that their fat
>>> tires are *faster*, or just have lower rolling resistance?
>>>
>>> Since aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the relative
>>> velocity, I imagine there's an RR-AD break even point. That's why the
>>> fat tires are good for the average bloke (who rides well below that
>>> point) and racers ride skinny tires (above the break even point). Am I
>>> thinking about this correctly?
>>>
>>> Reason I ask: My commute through Atlanta's stop/start downtown traffic
>>> averages about 21 km/hr (13 mph). The new bike I'm looking at comes
>>> with 38 mm tires, but I'm accustomed to my "fast" 25 mm tires. Based on
>>> this thread, I'm inclined to say the 38 mm tires would be better for
>>> several reasons. Right?
>>> \\paul

>>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> A $5,000 bicycle has no speed advantage over an armchair when they're
>> both sitting at a stop light.
>>
>> The random variation in how long you wait at the traffic lights is
>> much larger more than any small gains or losses available from
>> fiddling with tires and aerodynamics.
>>
>> Over a ridiculously long period, you might eventually notice a tiny
>> speed improvement, but in general delivery trucks keep up quite nicely
>> with sports cars in stop-and-go traffic.
>>
>> In fact, bicycles often keep up or even pass sports cars in heavy
>> downtown traffic, whether they're rattling old rust-buckets or snazzy
>> new carbon-fiber racing bikes.

>
>Right, but here's my point: my cruising speed on flat ground w/ no
>traffic is about 20 mph with my current set-up (48x17, 25 mm tires).
>The reason why my stop-n-go *average* is so high is b/c I can sprint
>quickly up to my cruising speed to catch green lights instead of
>stopping at each and every one. Also, the first half of my commute[1]
>is considerably less dense with stop lights, though much hillier.
>
>The article and portions of this thread seem to suggest that 35 mm or 38
>mm tires would be better suited for my practical need for speed and of
>course, comfort. Care to comment on where you feel my sweet spot might be?
>
>[1]
>http://toporoute.com/cgi-bin/getSavedRoute.cgi?routeKey=AYFVODGCJOEIPNC
>(I don't know what that huge spike is between 5 and 6 miles - ignore it.
> But you get the idea)
>Thanks,
>\\paul


Dear Paul,

Sorry, but I doubt that the tires will much speed difference.

If you averaged 20 mph for 9 miles with no stopping, it would take you
27 minutes.

You mention that you're averaging about 13 mph, so it takes you about
41 to 42 minutes (9/13 x 60).

So you're spending about a third of your time braking for lights,
sitting at lights, and pedaling back up to speed from lights.

Here's a calculator:

http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

Choose hands-on-tops, blank out the default 160 watts, put in 20 mph,
page down, and put in 9 miles.

I get 172 watts, 20.0 mph, and 27:00.0.

Change to the worst possible tires, off-road mtb, blank the speed, and
recalculate, using the 172 watts that gave us 20.0 mph with the
default narrow tires.

I get 18.3 mph and 29:30.5. That's two-and-a-half minutes slower from
the very best to the very worst tires that can be reasonably expected.

With a two-way commute, you'd save 5 minutes per idealized day

But that's a flying start and finish, no traffic lights, no hills, no
wind, no sensible slowing down for safety near pretty girls.

In terms of acceleration, it's mostly the mass, not the wind drag or
rolling resistance, that matters. You can test this by flipping your
bike upside-down and cranking the rear wheel up to 20 mph in about
three seconds with a few turns of one arm--very little mass, very high
acceleration, just as you can easily flip a small rock 20 to 30 mph
with a casual toss of your hand, but a bowling ball would scarcely
move.

In practical terms, remember that--sorry--your uncouth 25 mm tires are
not narrow racing tires. They're hog-fat, compared to narrow 23 and 21
mm tires. Nor are the 38 mm modern touring tires that you're looking
at likely to be as awful as the calculator's generalized knobby mtb
tires. So you probably wouldn't even suffer the full 2.5 minute daily
loss that the calculator predicts for generalized default tires.

Comfort might improve with wider tires and lower pressures, but I
can't say that my daily 15-mile ride on 26 mm tires is uncomfortable
on a touring bike at a similar 20 mph speed, with only one stoplight
and about 6 miles of bike trail that some have been unkind enough to
call badly weathered.

Flats probably aren't going to be much of a problem with either kind
of tire. Any improved flat resistance from thicker casings is likely
to be offset by the 50% increase in width--the wider tire sweeps a
broader path that will obviously hit more of those pesky little pieces
of glass, nails, chips, thorns, and so forth.

That astonishing elevation spike in your route could be just a sign of
a topological typo, where data from two old maps was combined and one
disagreed with the other.

Or it could be that the route includes passing a skyscraper.
Basically, that graph shows you in free fall for 300 feet.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:39:47 -0400, Paul Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Kinky Cowboy wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2006 08:44:26 -0700, "john" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> So if I were to follow this link
>>> (http://www.schwalbe.com/gbl/en/tech_info/rollwiderstand/) to it's
>>> logical conclusion, I'd be riding a 6" wide tire. Some tiny hint of
>>> intuition says: 'I don't think so!'

>>
>> And we all know intuition beats science any day.
>>
>> Assuming you could get a 6" tyre with a more or less round cross
>> section with the same case/tread construction, and inflate it to the
>> same pressure, as the 35mm tyres under discussion, the change in
>> curvature of the tread/casing required to form a flat 2sq. in. contact
>> patch would be very small indeed, and the hysteresis would be
>> correspondingly tiny.

>
>But here's where I'm confused: Is Schwalbe claiming that their fat
>tires are *faster*, or just have lower rolling resistance?


Just lower rolling resistance, which may mean faster if your riding
style and speed make this a bigger factor than the extra aero drag and
mass. What they also seem to be saying is that a 60c Big Apple at 3bar
has about the same rolling resistance as a similar construction 20c at
9bar, and even those of you who haven't experienced the Big Apple tyre
can probably guess which of those two choices will be more comfortable
on our rutted and potholed city streets.

>Since aerodynamic drag is proportional to the square of the relative
>velocity, I imagine there's an RR-AD break even point. That's why the
>fat tires are good for the average bloke (who rides well below that
>point) and racers ride skinny tires (above the break even point). Am I
>thinking about this correctly?


More or less; for any given tyre, there will be a speed threshold
above which swapping to a narrower but otherwise identical tyre will
require less total power. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that
the rim is always the same width as the tyre, and that junction of the
tyre to the rim is a nice tangent to the tyre profile without the
inconvenient ridge and furrow which so exercises the designers of
truly "aero" rims.

>Reason I ask: My commute through Atlanta's stop/start downtown traffic
>averages about 21 km/hr (13 mph). The new bike I'm looking at comes
>with 38 mm tires, but I'm accustomed to my "fast" 25 mm tires. Based on
>this thread, I'm inclined to say the 38 mm tires would be better for
>several reasons. Right?
>\\paul


There are several reasons why I would go with the wider tyre, but
speed may not be one of them if there is a lot of stopping and
starting; the lower mass of the skinny tyre becomes a factor as soon
as any acceleration is added in to the equation. Also, on a relatively
short commute the lack of suspension may not be an issue, so you can
run skinny tyres at a high enough pressure to equalise the rolling
resistance versus the wide tyre at its (lower) maximum inflation.
That's going to depend on the surface and your own response to getting
jarred by every bump, but on a half hour ride the effect is unlikely
to cause enough fatigue to affect your output because most of the
extra work is being done by muscle groups other than the main
propulsion groups. Since your perceived effort will be based on how
hard you're hitting the pedals, the extra energy consumption won't be
noticed on such a short ride unless you commute at your aerobic
threshold.

All of which is moot if you choose, or get lumbered with, a
particularly bad tyre, as the differences between the best and worst
of a particular size are of the same order as the difference between
the best skinny tyre and the best wide one.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:15:27 +0100, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What they also seem to be saying is that a 60c Big Apple at 3bar
>has about the same rolling resistance as a similar construction 20c at
>9bar,

Does such a tire exist? Is there a 20c tire and a 60c tire with the
same casing and tread?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Back to the original question. Obviously, a lot of folks are having fun
with this topic - that's good. Perhaps my personal experience
comes a little closer to your situation. Here's a living,
side-by-side comparison of extremely different widths on otherwise very
similar tires and bikes:

I recently installed two different sets of Continental Top Touring 2000
tires- 700c by 47mm, the other is 700c by 32mm -- on my two hybrid
bikes. Prior to this change, these bikes had the same tires 700c by
38mm - and they rode about the same.

The changes were dramatic afterwards, and I found opposing aspects that
I really like with each choice. Two similar bikes were transformed
into two quite different - and useful - bikes.

Hybrid #1 with the 32mm rides more like a road bike - faster, bumpier;
less stable on tar and chip pavement. I have had no desire to take
this bike on gravel yet. I like the increased ease and speed, although
the occasionally tenuous grip on the pavement can be nerve-wracking.

Hybrid #2 with 47mm rides more like a mountain bike- requires more
effort to push the bike, much smoother ride, absorbs a lot of bumps
-those fatter tires will also help protect the rims and spokes from
the potholes and other big bumps. I like the sense of stability, the
smooth ride. I also get more of a workout, but no one is ever
impressed by my speed.

As for the discussion that a fatter tire having a lower rolling
resistance than thin tire - that's very interesting. BUT, when all
things are considered (to be distinguished from all things being
"equal"), I regard fatter tire = slower bike. Other factors -
wind resistance, additional rotating weight of the tire, the
requirement to inflate at a lower pressure - come in to play when you
actually pedal your bike. My bike with the 47mm certainly has slowed
down.

You are asking about the relative merits between 35 and 38 - that's
not much of a difference. My LBS guy said it plainly and firmly to me
years ago, when I asked that almost identical question: "Oh, it
really doesn't matter."

But here's my vote: I would opt for the slightly larger 38mm version
for "touring" over rough streets (as opposed to "racing" over flats) ,
as it implies
1) a teeny bit more stability on skittish road surfaces,
2) a teeny bit more comfort in shock absorption
3) a teeny bit more protection for your rims

Happy riding!

Dayton Capri
 
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:54:14 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:15:27 +0100, Kinky Cowboy <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>What they also seem to be saying is that a 60c Big Apple at 3bar
>>has about the same rolling resistance as a similar construction 20c at
>>9bar,

>Does such a tire exist? Is there a 20c tire and a 60c tire with the
>same casing and tread?


I doubt it; from any particular manufacturer, casings with similar
thread count are likely to be essentially the same fabric regardless
of section width, but additional plies of rubber or fabric under the
tread, tread compound and tread pattern will all have some effect, and
I suspect that the actual thickness of the tread ply will have the
greatest effect on the amount of hysteresis loss for a given amount of
deformation.

Top of the line 20c tyres are sold on light weight and low RR to users
who don't mind having to replace them every 1000 miles, leading to
very thin tread plies; balloon tyre marketing includes puncture
resistance and long life in the pitch, both of which can be achieved
cheaply by simply making the tread ply thicker.

While there is no substitute for rigorous testing, subjective factors
will probably play a greater role for most users; once you've gone
fat, you don't go back.

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary
 
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:37:05 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:49:17 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:39:53 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:34:56 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But man, taking a chance
>>>>like this to shave 10lbs on a big tour.
>>>
>>>10 lbs is a lot of weight. You seem to have no ability to quantify or
>>>even estimate the "chance" other than to say it exists.

>>
>>In other countries, 36 and 40 spoked wheels are the "NORM". 32 spoke
>>wheels or even hubs for that matter do not exist in some countries. 36
>>spoke wheels(I ride a pair of Mavic A719 with a hub dynamo in the
>>front) on my touring bike are not exactly feather light. But they had
>>never failed me either.
>>Why tour with 36 spoke wheels? Why not with a pair of boutique
>>wheels? I mean, is the chance of these wheels breaking greater or
>>lesser than carbon matrix frame failing hauling 50lbs of camping gear
>>on a long tour?

>
>More.
>
>So you sort of defend a comment that 10lbs is a lot of weight to pedal
>by saying 36 spoke wheels are stronger than boutique wheels designed
>for racing. Good logic.
>
>>I met a lot of serious tourers over the years and none of them ride
>>expensive carbon matrix bikes on long tours. Not yet at least. Maybe,
>>I just haven't met the right person yet. But, most of their bikes
>>are simple but heavy. They don't even run 9 speed cogs, preferring 7
>>or 8. To them, 9 speed cassettes are not even durable enough.

>
>I don't see what 7 vs 8 vs 9 has to do with saving 10 pounds that one
>has to pedal around, but your comment that 9 speed are not durable
>enough is baloney -- there is probably no difference in durability
>between 7, 8 and 9 cogs. In fact, a 9 speed cassette may last longer
>than a 7 speed cassette -- the wear is distributed over more cogs.


John,

You obviously don't tour much do you?

I trust the wisdom of people who had done more than 100,000 km of
cycling rather than someone who spent so much time keystroking keys on
the net.

http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text...older_id=2534374302881789&bmUID=1159882085166

Have you cycled more than 100,000 km to give yourself an expert advise
on 9 speed cogs?

Again, I never had much luck with 9 speed either on my 8000 miles
cycling around the Western USA states and that's speaking from
experiences and not from virtual touring or calculator sites.

Besides, 9 speed cogs are MORE expensive than 8 or 7 speeds!

I see people tour with 9 speed XTR cog to complement their carbon
matrix bikes. After all, a frame's weight is not 100% bike weight.
Component weight are also important. People would go full out and
equipped themselves with the lightest components to get the lightest
touring bike. My point is, the most durable components are usually
heavy and unsexy.
The couple that I featured (I know them personally) carry on the
upwards of 100lbs of luggage weight and use heavy and unsexy
components.

David.
 
On the topic of tires.

On longer distances, higher rolling distance can contribute to slower
speeds. The terrain and the roads you're riding on all contribute to
the resistance and not simply the tires alone.

I think that when people tour, they already carry way too much gear
anyways to really make a dent in touring speed, so I don't see any
further point of discussing if skinnier tires help. They don't.

Comfort.. It's okay to be touring for just a few days with skinny
tires. After all, supported tours come with their "OWN" massage
wagon. So, it is not really funny to see people lining up for
massages after a long ride. The massage people are making good money
I can tell you that.

So why beat yourself up riding with high pressure skinnier tires?

I'll tell you why. It's an ego thing. When you see your fellow rider
friends speeding away from you and your rig seemed to impose a limit
on keeping up with the peloton, sure you want to go faster. And you
know you can go faster or at least keep up with them on your race
bike. But today, you ride your hybrid with fat tires because it's
such a nice day and also is a Sunday.

I sometimes ride with people who ride expensive racing bikes (Seven
Axiom or Specialized Sworks) and when I ride my hybrid with 35c tires,
I just can't keep up with them. When I ride my Madone however, it's a
piece of cake. But with my hybrid, the ride is smoother than my
carbon Madone eventhough the hybrid is aluminium! Go figure.

But that was a Sunday, a gorgeous day indeed, so I decided to slow
down and smell the roses rather than look at somebody's ass for the
whole 100km ride!

David.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> With a two-way commute, you'd save 5 minutes per idealized day
>
> But that's a flying start and finish, no traffic lights, no hills, no
> wind, no sensible slowing down for safety near pretty girls.
>
> In terms of acceleration, it's mostly the mass, not the wind drag or
> rolling resistance, that matters. You can test this by flipping your
> bike upside-down and cranking the rear wheel up to 20 mph in about
> three seconds with a few turns of one arm--very little mass, very high
> acceleration, just as you can easily flip a small rock 20 to 30 mph
> with a casual toss of your hand, but a bowling ball would scarcely
> move.
>
> In practical terms, remember that--sorry--your uncouth 25 mm tires are
> not narrow racing tires. They're hog-fat, compared to narrow 23 and 21
> mm tires. Nor are the 38 mm modern touring tires that you're looking
> at likely to be as awful as the calculator's generalized knobby mtb
> tires. So you probably wouldn't even suffer the full 2.5 minute daily
> loss that the calculator predicts for generalized default tires.
>
> Comfort might improve with wider tires and lower pressures, but I
> can't say that my daily 15-mile ride on 26 mm tires is uncomfortable
> on a touring bike at a similar 20 mph speed, with only one stoplight
> and about 6 miles of bike trail that some have been unkind enough to
> call badly weathered.
>
> Flats probably aren't going to be much of a problem with either kind
> of tire. Any improved flat resistance from thicker casings is likely
> to be offset by the 50% increase in width--the wider tire sweeps a
> broader path that will obviously hit more of those pesky little pieces
> of glass, nails, chips, thorns, and so forth.


Dear Carl and Mr. Kinks,

What I'm getting out of this is that I should try the 38 mm tires (even
my old 32's seemed so huge!) and see if I like them. Chances are, I will.

Thanks,
\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
 

>>I suppose carbon can handle it? I mean, the bike is a lot lighter
>>than my touring rig, say about 10lbs less. But man, taking a chance
>>like this to shave 10lbs on a big tour.

>
>10 pounds is a huge difference - normally you'd have to go from a very
>svelte all-out racing bike to a really overbuilt touring frame to make
>THAT much difference. Heck, my tandem (which is set up to handle
>plenty of weight on the rack) only weighs about 13 pounds over the
>USCF minimum racing bike weight.
>
>Mark Hickey
>Habanero Cycles
>http://www.habcycles.com
>Home of the $795 ti frame


My whole touring bike weighs in at 38.5 lbs with the racks, lights,
Dynamo hub and an oversized rear hub with a reinforced axle (I bent
one with a lighter duty hub). So, it's heavy. His is about 27.5 lbs
with racks and a similar setup as mine, except no oversized rear. He's
got carbon seatpost, carbon handle bar and what not. Barely any steel
or titanium except the front triangle.

The reason for my concern is that, he plans to join us on a tour next
year, and I don't want to end up baby sitting him with his rather
questionable gear.

David.
 
> The reason for my concern is that, he plans to join us on a tour next
> year, and I don't want to end up baby sitting him with his rather
> questionable gear.
>
> David.


I agree with you strongly

Lightweight (and perhaps fragile) components are very questionable
indeed for long-distance touring.. I yearn for the opportunity to
cover great distances like yours. Your weblink take us to a killer
sight. My respects.

I can certainly emphasize with you. Earlier this summer, when I was 55
miles from home, a spoke broke on a brand-new rim. I was completley
uprepared and there was no one to help me. Such was my first-day with
this new, lightly-constructed product. That recent incident jolted me
into looking at everything I do on a bike with new eyes. Live and
learn.

BTW. I don't want to be too hard on the folks who use proxies for
personal knowledge or experience.
1) by relying too much on the web,
2) by leaning too heavy on the LBS guy as if he is a high-priest with
secret knowledge,
3) by getting caught up in some cultish thinking (particularly the
light-weight fetish) when it comes to componentry design

Those folks remind me too much of myself.

Dayton Capri
 
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:38:01 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:

>You obviously don't tour much do you?


No.

>I trust the wisdom of people who had done more than 100,000 km of
>cycling rather than someone who spent so much time keystroking keys on
>the net.
>
>http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text...older_id=2534374302881789&bmUID=1159882085166
>
>Have you cycled more than 100,000 km to give yourself an expert advise
>on 9 speed cogs?


I asked you some simple questions and your response seems to indicate
you don't have answers. And I contened that 10lbs is a lot on a bike,
even a touring bike, but you seem to have ignored that.

So question my bona fides all you want. If you can answer my
questions (or the contention about 10 pounds being a lot of weight or
that 9 cogs won't wear out faster than 7 or 8) with facts, that would
be far stronger.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
On 3 Oct 2006 12:08:37 -0700, "daytoncapri" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>BTW. I don't want to be too hard on the folks who use proxies for
>personal knowledge or experience.
>1) by relying too much on the web,
>2) by leaning too heavy on the LBS guy as if he is a high-priest with
>secret knowledge,
>3) by getting caught up in some cultish thinking (particularly the
>light-weight fetish) when it comes to componentry design


I hope you and the person to whom you respond recognize that you are
rather cultish too.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
David <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>I suppose carbon can handle it? I mean, the bike is a lot lighter
>>>than my touring rig, say about 10lbs less. But man, taking a chance
>>>like this to shave 10lbs on a big tour.

>>
>>10 pounds is a huge difference - normally you'd have to go from a very
>>svelte all-out racing bike to a really overbuilt touring frame to make
>>THAT much difference. Heck, my tandem (which is set up to handle
>>plenty of weight on the rack) only weighs about 13 pounds over the
>>USCF minimum racing bike weight.

>
>My whole touring bike weighs in at 38.5 lbs with the racks, lights,
>Dynamo hub and an oversized rear hub with a reinforced axle (I bent
>one with a lighter duty hub). So, it's heavy. His is about 27.5 lbs
>with racks and a similar setup as mine, except no oversized rear. He's
>got carbon seatpost, carbon handle bar and what not. Barely any steel
>or titanium except the front triangle.


I think that's a rather extreme example, and I agree with you - carbon
fiber handlebars on a touring bike sounds like a bad idea. But FWIW,
the frame itself wouldn't have to be a lot heavier to deal with
touring duties (ask me how I know). ;-)

OTOH, I wasn't suggesting that a touring bike should weigh less than
30 pounds with all the accessories... comparison of the basic unloaded
bike was my intention. And that said, I'd say that it would be quite
possible to build a very reliable 21-22 pound loaded touring bike
(sans racks, lights, etc.).

>The reason for my concern is that, he plans to join us on a tour next
>year, and I don't want to end up baby sitting him with his rather
>questionable gear.


I agree here as well - shaving a few grams on a 50 pound (loaded)
package at the cost of reliability is pure folly.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2006 12:08:37 -0700, "daytoncapri" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >BTW. I don't want to be too hard on the folks who use proxies for
> >personal knowledge or experience.
> >1) by relying too much on the web,
> >2) by leaning too heavy on the LBS guy as if he is a high-priest with
> >secret knowledge,
> >3) by getting caught up in some cultish thinking (particularly the
> >light-weight fetish) when it comes to componentry design

>
> I hope you and the person to whom you respond recognize that you are
> rather cultish too.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2006 12:08:37 -0700, "daytoncapri" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> I hope you and the person to whom you respond recognize that you are
> rather cultish too.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visit http://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************


Gosh John - lighten up. In my last sentence ("It reminds me too much
of my self") - which you omitted - I overtly confessed to being caught
up in cultish bicycle thinking - it's one of my weaknesses - and
downfalls. I plead guilty to your charge..

Thee message was actually addressed to the other person - not you. I
was hinting to that writer a gentle touch (particularly with respect to
you) would be more appropriate in this forum.

Dummy me - I stepped into the cross-fire between the two of you.

Wouldn't it be refreshing if people could disagree without being
disagreeable?

Dayton Capri
 
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:27:49 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:38:01 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You obviously don't tour much do you?

>
>No.
>
>>I trust the wisdom of people who had done more than 100,000 km of
>>cycling rather than someone who spent so much time keystroking keys on
>>the net.
>>
>>http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text...older_id=2534374302881789&bmUID=1159882085166
>>
>>Have you cycled more than 100,000 km to give yourself an expert advise
>>on 9 speed cogs?

>
>I asked you some simple questions and your response seems to indicate
>you don't have answers. And I contened that 10lbs is a lot on a bike,
>even a touring bike, but you seem to have ignored that.
>


The reason I ignored the 10lbs weight is because, you are touring with
panniers and camping gear. Most people I know have mediocre camping
and touring gear. They spent all their money on the lightest touring
bikes, which then left nothing else to spend on light weight camping
equipment. The end result is always, their total camping gear weight
"MORE" than mine, a lot of more than the 10lbs weight that they had
initially tried shaving compared to my bike.

Also, it's a question of what to carry to. Most people with light
bikes don't bother to carry spare parts and tools. Parts and tools to
be carried along especially on a long tour is weight. And they also
like to carry the whole kitchen sink as well, but not spare parts.
Certain creature comforts can't be left at home you know.

Unfortunately, these people want to own just 1 bike. 1 bike to tour
seriously with heavy camping equipment and using the same bike to ride
with a fast peloton that ride Madones and Specialized S-works on RSVP
or STP.

You really can't have a cake and eat it too can you?

>So question my bona fides all you want. If you can answer my
>questions (or the contention about 10 pounds being a lot of weight or
>that 9 cogs won't wear out faster than 7 or 8) with facts, that would
>be far stronger.


9 cogs is not stronger than 7 or 8. Wear is dictated by, not the
cogs, but rather on the length of the chainstays. Hence, that is why
tri bikes (with their rather short chainstays) wear faster drivetrain
wise than say a touring bike with longer chain stays. This is due to
the length of the chain that distribute the load on the teeth more
evenly. Longer on long chainstays, shorter or short chainstays.

The tourers in question had toured with 7, 8 and 9 speeds and various
chainstays length -- I know as I used to work for the company that
sponsored them. This is * fact * not fiction as what you implied.

David.
 
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:03:52 GMT, David <[email protected]> wrote:

>9 cogs is not stronger than 7 or 8. Wear is dictated by, not the
>cogs, but rather on the length of the chainstays. Hence, that is why
>tri bikes (with their rather short chainstays) wear faster drivetrain
>wise than say a touring bike with longer chain stays. This is due to
>the length of the chain that distribute the load on the teeth more
>evenly. Longer on long chainstays, shorter or short chainstays.


>The tourers in question had toured with 7, 8 and 9 speeds and various
>chainstays length -- I know as I used to work for the company that
>sponsored them. This is * fact * not fiction as what you implied.


Sorry, I never disputed whether or not you worked at some company so I
will take that as fact. Congratulations

On the same frame, a 9-speed cassette will last at least as long as an
8-speed cassette, and probably longer as wear is distributed over more
cogs.

This is not a complex concept. I know it doesn't fit with your
apparent bias in favor of older stuff.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> Sorry, I never disputed whether or not you worked at some company so I
> will take that as fact. Congratulations

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


Hey John - After reading your congratulatory "company" statement, I am
retracting my earlier "lighten up" statement about you - on the third
line I wrote:

"Dummy me - I stepped into the cross-fire between the two of you."

It should have instead read

"How about that - I stepped in front of you and your flame-thrower."

The other party was acting as a gentleman in all his posts. You were
the only one behaving crudely.

You should still lighten up.

I've read enough of you posts to see that you use sarcasm - far too
much, and launching personal attacks comes easy for you. You will also
repeat what you have already written. Repeat. Repeat.

Sad to say, I tend to agree with your political views in other threads
- that fact makes me feel kind of sick. Your posts antagonize the very
people that could be persuaded in a "civil society". But fostering a
civil society requires civility. Civility is an ethical behavior that
is a choice - you have chosen its opposite in faceless forums. The
result: people are persuaded away from your views. (Maybe you are
dirty-tricks guy from the other side?)

There: I've done it: I've lectured a troll as if there was some hope.
Rather pointless and stupid exercise. Sorry everyone.

John - how about a challenge for you? Let's see if you can go a full
week without flaming someone. And do not - I repeat - do NOT - think
of the Barney Song, or let that tune repeat in your head over and over
and over again, day after day Repeat. Repeat. .....

DC
 
daytoncapri wrote:
> ...
> Sad to say, I tend to agree with your political views in other threads
> - that fact makes me feel kind of sick. Your posts antagonize the very
> people that could be persuaded in a "civil society". But fostering a
> civil society requires civility. Civility is an ethical behavior that
> is a choice - you have chosen its opposite in faceless forums. The
> result: people are persuaded away from your views. (Maybe you are
> dirty-tricks guy from the other side?)


This is Usenet - flaming is part of the overall fun.

> There: I've done it: I've lectured a troll as if there was some hope.
> Rather pointless and stupid exercise. Sorry everyone.
>
> John - how about a challenge for you? Let's see if you can go a full
> week without flaming someone. And do not - I repeat - do NOT - think
> of the Barney Song...


I hate you,
You hate me,
We're a dysfunctional family!

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.
 
On 7 Oct 2006 21:04:52 -0700, "daytoncapri" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The other party was acting as a gentleman in all his posts. You were
>the only one behaving crudely.


If by crude you mean blunt and frank, thank you very much.

If you take blunt and frank comments as flames, well that's too bad
for you.


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