Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Getting down to 1 bike - what would you pick
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Anton Berlin
Jan 20, 2012, 10:21:44 AM1/20/12
to
I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
of disc wheels and H3s etc.
I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
multiple through Europe)
The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
your thoughts and input.
custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
of disc wheels and H3s etc.
I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
multiple through Europe)
The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
your thoughts and input.
Kerry Montgomery
Jan 20, 2012, 11:19:28 AM1/20/12
to
"Anton Berlin" <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:808b1344-1837-4868...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I was very happy with a (aluminum) cyclocross bike with one set of wheels
with cyclocross tires, and another set with road tires. Derailleurs. Don't
know about discs - if they don't slow wheel trading, I'd try them.
Otherwise, cantilevers.
Kerry
AMuzi
Jan 20, 2012, 12:33:39 PM1/20/12
to
bastard, can't manage with only one bicycle.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
DirtRoadie
Jan 20, 2012, 1:00:56 PM1/20/12
to
Speaking only for myself, I can mostly get by with 2 but that's the
minimum - one for road, one for off-road. All of the questions asked
by the OP are specific to intended uses that fall squarely into the
YMMV category.
DR
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 1:16:47 PM1/20/12
to
Per Anton Berlin:
I don't have 10 machines, only five, including a hard tail, two
FS's, and a single speed. But I'm probably one of those nuts.
Since I built up my Salsa Fargo, it has been used for 90+ percent
of my riding. This would validate your cyclocross-style
predilection although I do not aspire to tours or touring.
My typical rides are 1.75-3.5 hours, 80% on paved surfaces.
I think I paid something like six-hundred bucks for my Fargo
frame. Maybe it's not up to a Ti custom, but it's durable,
comfortable, fits my weird-ass body well enough... and probably
has 80 percent of the function at 20 percent of the price.
I favor:
- 700C wheels bc, in narrower widths like 38's they roll
perceptibly better over rough ground/soft grass. With
55's, I can't say I can feel the diff although others
say they can.
- MTB Rims. Mine are Delgados. I can put 28's on them and
that's about as skinny as I ever want - and I don't even
use them very often because they beat me up too much. My
favored tires are 38's, but I *could* mount Big Apples some
day if/when I had too much money laying around.
- Cable-actuated disc brakes. Cable bc it's good enough and
do not require periodic bleeding. Disc bc they are more
fault-tolerant and predictable.
- Rohloff hub bc it's bombproof, quick to shift 3-4 gears,
and I don't have any extra brain cells to spare worrying about
which front chain wheel I am on. I would qualify that
with the observation that my initial attraction was the
"bombproof" aspect and, since I'm riding mostly on
paths now that's moot. It's also ungodly heavy and
expensive. That being said, I still wouldn't go back.
OTOH, if I just *had* to go back, it wouldn't be the end of
my world by any means. In fact, I kind of enjoy the light feel
of my one der-powered FS (the other one runs Rohloff)
- I like the sound of S&S couplings although I do not use
or need them. Had them on another frame that never worked
out for other reasons and found them tb fault-tolerant and
generally bombproof. i.e. they do not depend on tightnesss
to function and there are not small parts to fall into the
grass and become lost Also had the Ritchey system on still
another aborted frame. If you go with a breakdown system,
definitely go for the S&S and do *NOT* go with Ritchey.
- Flat, not drop bars - but with 6" extenders on them facing
forward and slightly down. Reason: in tight turns, they do
not get in the way of my legs, I have a greater range of
fore-aft hand positions, they support the Roholoff shifter,
getting on the forward-facing extensions out of the saddle
going up hills is really nice; and the hand positions/comfort
are good enough. The comfort is not as good as being
on the hoods of drop bars, but it's close enough.
- Those German ergo grips. They're super-easy to put on/take off
when it's time to move things around or make adjustments and
their shape prevents the hand numbness that used to plague me.
--
Pete Cresswell
FS's, and a single speed. But I'm probably one of those nuts.
Since I built up my Salsa Fargo, it has been used for 90+ percent
of my riding. This would validate your cyclocross-style
predilection although I do not aspire to tours or touring.
My typical rides are 1.75-3.5 hours, 80% on paved surfaces.
I think I paid something like six-hundred bucks for my Fargo
frame. Maybe it's not up to a Ti custom, but it's durable,
comfortable, fits my weird-ass body well enough... and probably
has 80 percent of the function at 20 percent of the price.
I favor:
- 700C wheels bc, in narrower widths like 38's they roll
perceptibly better over rough ground/soft grass. With
55's, I can't say I can feel the diff although others
say they can.
- MTB Rims. Mine are Delgados. I can put 28's on them and
that's about as skinny as I ever want - and I don't even
use them very often because they beat me up too much. My
favored tires are 38's, but I *could* mount Big Apples some
day if/when I had too much money laying around.
- Cable-actuated disc brakes. Cable bc it's good enough and
do not require periodic bleeding. Disc bc they are more
fault-tolerant and predictable.
- Rohloff hub bc it's bombproof, quick to shift 3-4 gears,
and I don't have any extra brain cells to spare worrying about
which front chain wheel I am on. I would qualify that
with the observation that my initial attraction was the
"bombproof" aspect and, since I'm riding mostly on
paths now that's moot. It's also ungodly heavy and
expensive. That being said, I still wouldn't go back.
OTOH, if I just *had* to go back, it wouldn't be the end of
my world by any means. In fact, I kind of enjoy the light feel
of my one der-powered FS (the other one runs Rohloff)
- I like the sound of S&S couplings although I do not use
or need them. Had them on another frame that never worked
out for other reasons and found them tb fault-tolerant and
generally bombproof. i.e. they do not depend on tightnesss
to function and there are not small parts to fall into the
grass and become lost Also had the Ritchey system on still
another aborted frame. If you go with a breakdown system,
definitely go for the S&S and do *NOT* go with Ritchey.
- Flat, not drop bars - but with 6" extenders on them facing
forward and slightly down. Reason: in tight turns, they do
not get in the way of my legs, I have a greater range of
fore-aft hand positions, they support the Roholoff shifter,
getting on the forward-facing extensions out of the saddle
going up hills is really nice; and the hand positions/comfort
are good enough. The comfort is not as good as being
on the hoods of drop bars, but it's close enough.
- Those German ergo grips. They're super-easy to put on/take off
when it's time to move things around or make adjustments and
their shape prevents the hand numbness that used to plague me.
--
Pete Cresswell
SMS
Jan 20, 2012, 1:57:02 PM1/20/12
to
on <http://www.sandsmachine.com/> as you can't retrofit these yourself.
The problem with MTB wheels is that there aren't a lot of good road
tires for MTB wheels.
Forget about internal gearing.
Postman Delivers
Jan 20, 2012, 2:02:04 PM1/20/12
to
AB,
I have 8 bicycles currently & several more two wheel projects, and I also
need to reduce the number, but can not seem to part with them. I know I
have to many downtube shift Aluminum bicycles, but each one has a
different story and memories. I must keep a fixey to work on my peddling
skills each week. A 1987 Novara XR, that I ride quite often with its 26x
1.25 tires absorbing a lot of the local pavement irregularities. I love
the Mercedes ride of the Jamis Ventura when spending 3 hours or more in
the pedals.
I have a Takara grocery getter with a steel frame I can chain without
worry of seeing a new scratch while shopping. I built the old frame to
carry groceries, and avoid using an Aluminum frame bicycle that attracts
scratches & dents. Also a light weight Aluminum/CF bicycle with decent
components lashed to a tree or bicycle rack/stand is to great of a
temptation for unsavory bicycle resellers of bicycles they do not own.
Yes, it will be quite difficult to reduce the number of bicycles, but it
would be a nice respite, until the next must have was found in a garage
sale needing a few parts and some TLC.
JR the postman
Chalo
Jan 20, 2012, 2:19:02 PM1/20/12
to
SMS wrote:
>
> Forget about internal gearing.
The opinion of someone who's never lived with a Rohloff.
It's a hassle to set up initially, it has handlebar compatibility
issues, it weighs four pounds, and it's very expensive. But it blows
away any other kind of gear changing mechanism, bar none. Derailleurs
are as smooth and sophisticated as pipe wrenches compared to this.
Chalo
>
> Forget about internal gearing.
The opinion of someone who's never lived with a Rohloff.
It's a hassle to set up initially, it has handlebar compatibility
issues, it weighs four pounds, and it's very expensive. But it blows
away any other kind of gear changing mechanism, bar none. Derailleurs
are as smooth and sophisticated as pipe wrenches compared to this.
Chalo
Jay Beattie
Jan 20, 2012, 3:11:33 PM1/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 3:37:52 PM1/20/12
to
Per Chalo:
Here's a review I wrote quite a few years back, but which
still holds for me:
========================================
Pros:
- Wide shifts:
Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean
inclines that I couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8,
then jump down to 4, then to 1 as needed.
Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle
which, for me, is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the
der I used to do it a lot less frequently that I really like and
in the spirit of "Gee, I sure hope I don't miss this shift and
take the saddle horn up my butt (again...)".
Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it.
Any time, any place.- I'm always in the right gear, since
shifting is essentially trivial; seems like shifts take less than
a fiftieth of a second.
- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small
branches/grass wrapped around the cog/der.
- It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was
spending more time than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a
cog wheel while riding was a PITA.
- Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not
"Zero" because there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into
gear 14 if you forget and shift under load.
It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes
off, but it's nothing you want to make a habit of doing. As I
write this little addendum, I cannot remember the last time that
happened to me... so, with a little experience, I'd say it
becomes a non-issue.
- Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my
share of unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear
wheel and rotate the cranks to get down to a starting gear.
Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and
it's nice to be able approach an object and slow way, way down
before negotiating it without worrying about getting stuck in too
high a gear to get over it.
- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on.
Sounds trivial, but I don't have any brain cells to spare.
- Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned
somewhere that 14 speeds are enough.
My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.
With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even,
uniform 13.8% increments. That's only one less gear and, since I
never used 104 it's a wash for me.
With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.
I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no
way I can hold that speed for very long anyhow.
I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs
next to nothing and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops
(you're supposed to have a front-der-like dingus up there to keep
it from doing that ....but I never go around to getting one) the
32 catches the chain. Also allows shifting down to a
usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get really bad....
Cons:
- It costs an arm and a leg.
If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear
wheel, she'll start to doubt my sanity.
- This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my
already-heavy bike - same rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge.
Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really,
*really* heavy cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0
with twist shifters.
- The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no
rocket scientist, and after studying them long enough I pulled it
off - but it could have been a *lot* easier.
- It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel?
- The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly
un-German (downright kludgy, I'd say...). Hose clamps!
Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis
pin that held it all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic
failure because the normal riding pressure pushes everything
together.... I probably installed the c-ring keeper wrong or
something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
marine shackle set in LocTite.
I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm
setup that Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake
mount and does not interfere with using a disk brake.
- Evenly-spaced shifts: From me, this is strictly a theoretical
"con", but if somebody were in good enough shape to be riding
in/having to keep up with a pace line, they would want closer
spacing in the upper gears. It's no problem for me, bco my
pathetic physical condition and riding style (or lack thereof),
but it's pretty sure tb an issue with a more competitive rider.
- It's heavy.
- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates
with age, but it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.
Late breaking news: After 5,000+ miles the noise has mitigated,
my hearing has deteriorated, or I've been drinking less coffee or
something bc the noise is no longer an issue with me.
- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.
There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a
Rohloff against one of the Shimanos and claims no loss in most
gears and 1-2% in the lower gears.
I would disagree with that web site's figures.
- Did I mention that it's heavy?
------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line:
This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing
bugged me until I got the more elegant replacement.
Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good
match.
I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I
want and never having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my
rear der that I can't imagine going back.
It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me...
You, on the other hand, might hate the thing.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
--
Pete Cresswell
still holds for me:
========================================
Pros:
- Wide shifts:
Probably a substitute for proper technique, but I can clean
inclines that I couldn't before. Hammer in to it in, say, gear 8,
then jump down to 4, then to 1 as needed.
Also, on long climbs I like to alternate in and out of the saddle
which, for me, is a 3 or 4 gear shift on each change. With the
der I used to do it a lot less frequently that I really like and
in the spirit of "Gee, I sure hope I don't miss this shift and
take the saddle horn up my butt (again...)".
Now I just snap those wide shifts without even thinking about it.
Any time, any place.- I'm always in the right gear, since
shifting is essentially trivial; seems like shifts take less than
a fiftieth of a second.
- No more rear cog problems: no taco'd cogs, no more vines/small
branches/grass wrapped around the cog/der.
- It *seems* pretty-much bombproof. Time will tell, but I was
spending more time than I cared to adjusting my der and bending a
cog wheel while riding was a PITA.
- Greatly-reduced frequency of missed shifts. "Reduced" and not
"Zero" because there is a 'gotcha' between 7 and 8 dumps you into
gear 14 if you forget and shift under load.
It pops back into the intended gear as soon as the load comes
off, but it's nothing you want to make a habit of doing. As I
write this little addendum, I cannot remember the last time that
happened to me... so, with a little experience, I'd say it
becomes a non-issue.
- Ability to shift down when stopped. I think I make more than my
share of unplanned stops and I used to have to lift up the rear
wheel and rotate the cranks to get down to a starting gear.
Also, my technique sucks and probably won't get any better and
it's nice to be able approach an object and slow way, way down
before negotiating it without worrying about getting stuck in too
high a gear to get over it.
- I don't have to keep mental track of which chain ring I'm on.
Sounds trivial, but I don't have any brain cells to spare.
- Maybe not so much of a strength, but it should be mentioned
somewhere that 14 speeds are enough.
My original 44-32-22 der setup took me from 18.5 to 104.
With the Rohloff on a 44 I get 19.9 to 104.9 in nice even,
uniform 13.8% increments. That's only one less gear and, since I
never used 104 it's a wash for me.
With the 38 that I've since gone over to it's 17.2 - 90.6.
I don't get spun out in 90.6 until about 25 mph - and there's no
way I can hold that speed for very long anyhow.
I left the old 32 in the middle position just because it weighs
next to nothing and, on a big bump sometimes the chain drops
(you're supposed to have a front-der-like dingus up there to keep
it from doing that ....but I never go around to getting one) the
32 catches the chain. Also allows shifting down to a
usually-ludicrous 14.something if things get really bad....
Cons:
- It costs an arm and a leg.
If my wife ever finds out I spent close to a grand on a rear
wheel, she'll start to doubt my sanity.
- This hub weighs a *lot*. It added 1.9 pounds to my
already-heavy bike - same rim/tube/tire/spoke gauge.
Anybody who says it only adds a pound must be using a really,
*really* heavy cog/hub/der/shifter setup. I was using SRAM 9.0
with twist shifters.
- The installation instructions could use a re-write. I'm no
rocket scientist, and after studying them long enough I pulled it
off - but it could have been a *lot* easier.
- It's heavy. Are you ready for an 8-pound rear wheel?
- The torque arm mounting that came with it was decidedly
un-German (downright kludgy, I'd say...). Hose clamps!
Also sometime during the first hundred miles the little clevis
pin that held it all together disappeared. Wasn't a catastrophic
failure because the normal riding pressure pushes everything
together.... I probably installed the c-ring keeper wrong or
something - but it seems like a weak point. Replaced it with a
marine shackle set in LocTite.
I have since discovered that there is a more elegant torque arm
setup that Rohloff calls the "SpeedBone". Uses the disk brake
mount and does not interfere with using a disk brake.
- Evenly-spaced shifts: From me, this is strictly a theoretical
"con", but if somebody were in good enough shape to be riding
in/having to keep up with a pace line, they would want closer
spacing in the upper gears. It's no problem for me, bco my
pathetic physical condition and riding style (or lack thereof),
but it's pretty sure tb an issue with a more competitive rider.
- It's heavy.
- It's noisy, especially in gears 1-7. Supposedly this mitigates
with age, but it is still an issue with me at 1,000 miles.
Late breaking news: After 5,000+ miles the noise has mitigated,
my hearing has deteriorated, or I've been drinking less coffee or
something bc the noise is no longer an issue with me.
- It's definitely less efficient in gears 1-8.
There's a web site somewhere (in German) that supposedly graphs a
Rohloff against one of the Shimanos and claims no loss in most
gears and 1-2% in the lower gears.
I would disagree with that web site's figures.
- Did I mention that it's heavy?
------------------------------------------------
Bottom Line:
This is definitely not for everybody and the torque arm thing
bugged me until I got the more elegant replacement.
Having said that, I find that me and the Rohloff are a good
match.
I've quickly gotten so used to getting any gear I want any time I
want and never having to stop and pull brush/branches out of my
rear der that I can't imagine going back.
It also appeals to the exhibitionist in me...
You, on the other hand, might hate the thing.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
--
Pete Cresswell
Jay Beattie
Jan 20, 2012, 3:17:46 PM1/20/12
to
On Jan 20, 9:33 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/retroraleighs/international.html
Fully serviceable in even the most remote locales, and if you need it
smaller for packing, you can hack through the top tube and down tube
and braze it back together later. Sew-ups for racing, fat tires for
touring, and ten (count 'em ten) different gears.
Now, I do own over forty bikes, all of them C-Record or better -- and
six with Super-Duper Record and two with Crotch of Doom -- many made
of exotic materials and with aerodynamic wheels. It is an impressive
stable of bikes. I even have valet parking. I have also ridden
around the solar system twice, and can state with certainty that the
only bike anyone needs is a 1975 Raliegh International.
-- Jay Beattie.
SMS
Jan 20, 2012, 7:31:19 PM1/20/12
to
On 1/20/2012 12:37 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
Besides the cost and weight, the issue is that you really still need a
> Oh yeah, I almost forgot: it's heavy.
front derailleur with at least two chain rings.
On one of my folders I have a Nexus Dual Drive 7 x 3 which works well
and is much lighter achieving a good gearing range with no front
derailleur and at low cost.
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 9:22:04 PM1/20/12
to
Per SMS:
is. I also climb some pretty steep hills.
14 gears is plenty for me and the range is more than adequate.
But it *is* heavy..... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
>Besides the cost and weight, the issue is that you really still need a
>front derailleur with at least two chain rings.
Not for me - and I'm about as un-fit a dedicated cyclist as there
>front derailleur with at least two chain rings.
is. I also climb some pretty steep hills.
14 gears is plenty for me and the range is more than adequate.
But it *is* heavy..... -)
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 9:23:53 PM1/20/12
to
Per kolldata:
I think I had one of those things for awhile when I was living in
Hawaii.
Some dealer got a bunch of them in from one of the UK countries.
I'm pretty sure they were police bikes. That one introduced me
to the meaning of "English rust proofing: oil seals".
--
Pete Cresswell
I think I had one of those things for awhile when I was living in
Hawaii.
Some dealer got a bunch of them in from one of the UK countries.
I'm pretty sure they were police bikes. That one introduced me
to the meaning of "English rust proofing: oil seals".
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 20, 2012, 9:28:21 PM1/20/12
to
Per (PeteCresswell):
is "Greeves". Mine was a "Matchless". Sure looked similar
though...
--
Pete Cresswell
>I think I had one of those things for awhile when I was living in
>Hawaii.
>
>Some dealer got a bunch of them in from one of the UK countries.
>I'm pretty sure they were police bikes. That one introduced me
>to the meaning of "English rust proofing: oil seals".
I retract my statement. Reading the web page, I see the brand
>Hawaii.
>
>Some dealer got a bunch of them in from one of the UK countries.
>I'm pretty sure they were police bikes. That one introduced me
>to the meaning of "English rust proofing: oil seals".
is "Greeves". Mine was a "Matchless". Sure looked similar
though...
--
Pete Cresswell
Message has been deleted
Joy Beeson
Jan 21, 2012, 1:59:14 AM1/21/12
to
The frame says "Fuji" on the seat tube and "Gran Tourer" on the down
tube. I hastily swapped my components onto one of my spouse's frames
when the brake bridge on my Raleigh Carleton failed, so I don't know
more than that.
Wheels 27" x 2 1/4". Good for roads and moderate off-road; anything
they can't handle I go around, or I get off and carry the bike. Easier
than hauling mountain-bike tires over miles of good road.
Full fenders.
I took the lights off about five years ago because an important part
fell off and I don't leave home after noon any more. An AA-powered
blinkie on the back just in case. (Just went out and checked:
batteries still good.) (Took a while to find the switch.)
A ToPeak rack supports folding wire panniers I bought at an anchor
store fifteen or twenty years ago; look a bit heavier than the pair I
wore out. Never fold 'em because I've bolted red reflectors through
the joints.
The panniers were designed to fit a standard paper grocery bag -- a
trait much less useful than it was thirty years ago. When I got the
first pair, I thought I'd swap them for nylon panniers on tours, but
wire panniers turned out so convenient that instead I checked into
hotels carrying paper grocery bags as luggage. (The bell boy carried
the bike.) At the time, plastic bags were the same size as paper
bags, so it was very easy: put the paper bag in a plastic bag to
protect against splashes and provide a handle, line with another bag,
put in tomorrow's clothing, fold top of bag over the clothes, line
with another bag, put in nightwear . . . top with bag of stuff that
might be needed during the ride, drape yet another bag over and tuck
in all around. I got caught in a downpour so severe that I couldn't
see to get off the road, and arrived at the hostel with dry luggage.
Pedals -- dunno what they call them. Bought a "serviceable" pair and
they never wore out. I may have had the bearings changed once. Wear
slot-cleat shoes in the country and walking shoes in town.
One of the times I trashed my derailleurs, the mechanic said something
about "beefy, wide-range mountain-bike derailleurs". I think those
are still on. The shift levers are on the down tube.
Freewheel hubs, six cogs, two chainwheels. By tooth-count, there
really ought to be a third chainwheel between those two, but I hardly
ever mis-shift or unship on that account. Took a little getting used
to at first, I think.
Centerpull rim brakes. Durable, reliable, condition obvious to the
glance.
Drop bars with thick foam padding. Had to switch to junior brake
levers when I switched from tape to padding; this required two
engineers and a Dremel.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
tube. I hastily swapped my components onto one of my spouse's frames
when the brake bridge on my Raleigh Carleton failed, so I don't know
more than that.
Wheels 27" x 2 1/4". Good for roads and moderate off-road; anything
they can't handle I go around, or I get off and carry the bike. Easier
than hauling mountain-bike tires over miles of good road.
Full fenders.
I took the lights off about five years ago because an important part
fell off and I don't leave home after noon any more. An AA-powered
blinkie on the back just in case. (Just went out and checked:
batteries still good.) (Took a while to find the switch.)
A ToPeak rack supports folding wire panniers I bought at an anchor
store fifteen or twenty years ago; look a bit heavier than the pair I
wore out. Never fold 'em because I've bolted red reflectors through
the joints.
The panniers were designed to fit a standard paper grocery bag -- a
trait much less useful than it was thirty years ago. When I got the
first pair, I thought I'd swap them for nylon panniers on tours, but
wire panniers turned out so convenient that instead I checked into
hotels carrying paper grocery bags as luggage. (The bell boy carried
the bike.) At the time, plastic bags were the same size as paper
bags, so it was very easy: put the paper bag in a plastic bag to
protect against splashes and provide a handle, line with another bag,
put in tomorrow's clothing, fold top of bag over the clothes, line
with another bag, put in nightwear . . . top with bag of stuff that
might be needed during the ride, drape yet another bag over and tuck
in all around. I got caught in a downpour so severe that I couldn't
see to get off the road, and arrived at the hostel with dry luggage.
Pedals -- dunno what they call them. Bought a "serviceable" pair and
they never wore out. I may have had the bearings changed once. Wear
slot-cleat shoes in the country and walking shoes in town.
One of the times I trashed my derailleurs, the mechanic said something
about "beefy, wide-range mountain-bike derailleurs". I think those
are still on. The shift levers are on the down tube.
Freewheel hubs, six cogs, two chainwheels. By tooth-count, there
really ought to be a third chainwheel between those two, but I hardly
ever mis-shift or unship on that account. Took a little getting used
to at first, I think.
Centerpull rim brakes. Durable, reliable, condition obvious to the
glance.
Drop bars with thick foam padding. Had to switch to junior brake
levers when I switched from tape to padding; this required two
engineers and a Dremel.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Dan O
Jan 21, 2012, 2:42:20 AM1/21/12
to
options) - for me, if I had to pare it down to one bike, I'd keep the
'87 Stumpjumper.
andre...@aol.com
Jan 21, 2012, 9:10:22 AM1/21/12
to
feel than carbon, it is very light. if well made is virtually
indestructible. it always looks new. if you buy from china, you can
get a custom made frame for less than $1000. If you get it from
habanero, custom goes for about 1000.
I have a 10 year old ti frame. it looks new. it rides great, and it is
very light. it was custom made in china for about 600.
andre...@aol.com
Jan 21, 2012, 9:15:59 AM1/21/12
to
cause i got tired of mtbing. The only reason i keep two bikes is
because just in case I have guests. the ti one has a 75,5 seat angle.
With that angle, I can ride it on the drops forever. Or, if I do a
tri, i'll just put aerobars. sometimes i consider getting rid of the
steel one, but then i remember visitors.
kolldata
Jan 21, 2012, 9:40:19 AM1/21/12
to
On Jan 20, 9:01 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> considered Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:28:21
> Same engine, so your statement is still applicable.
> I suspect the lubrication system on those was best described as
> "external splash" to borrow a term from LJK Setright.
ALSO 'TOTAL LOSS LUBRICATION'
is in that file
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> considered Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:28:21
> I suspect the lubrication system on those was best described as
> "external splash" to borrow a term from LJK Setright.
ALSO 'TOTAL LOSS LUBRICATION'
is in that file
Dan O
Jan 21, 2012, 12:47:05 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 20, 7:21 am, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
From inside my head, that sounds like you've lost interest (just a
> I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
sense from my own experience with other things - I could be wrong - no
offense).
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
compromise.
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
(full-rigid), that is a bike that I can commute on, tour on, whjeelie,
etc., on and off road.
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ?
while you pursue other interests.
> Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
be working on it.
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
specific purpose, and a humongous compromise.
If I'm wrong that you've lost interest, you might want to consider
paring it down to say two bikes - maybe three or four. That would
bring you close(r) to what you're proposing to do, with much less
compromise when you do ride.
Tom Ace
Jan 21, 2012, 5:16:27 PM1/21/12
to
there are mountains and my knees aren't up for abuse.
And I agree with Chalo that it works better than derailleurs.
And there's no dish.
And it is built to last.
In my case it adds about 0.5% to the total weight
of bike+rider compared to derailleur gearing.
Tom Ace
Dave Lehnen
Jan 21, 2012, 5:16:41 PM1/21/12
to
triple (53 - xx - 30) with a 12-34 cassette, which gives about a 5.01:1
range.
Dave Lehnen
thirty-six
Jan 21, 2012, 5:40:09 PM1/21/12
to
use, will run on just about anything resembling oil after rough
filtering.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 21, 2012, 7:06:26 PM1/21/12
to
Anton Berlin wrote:
> ... I want to simplify and feel that I could get
cycling.
Titanium is fine. So are several other metals. A benefit of steel is
that it's easier to modify later, if necessary - adding brackets,
changing spacing, etc. If you don't see that happening, titanium is fine.
Cyclocross frames may feature high bottom brackets. If your frame has a
horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
prefer touring geometry.
I've heard that mtb tires are more available, worldwide, than 700c. If
you plan on more super-remote riding, you may want to check out that
issue. For my riding, which is mostly on-road and more civilized (North
America & Europe), I like the greater selection in 700c road tires. You
can get them fat if you need to.
I'm not a disk brake fan. If I rode mostly off-road and/or did more
huge mountain descents, maybe I would be. But cantilevers are more
robust in that they are universally understood, parts are everywhere,
they work with any wheel, and they can be repaired on the road with your
multi-tool.
Rohloff vs. derailleurs? I like low-tech. I know Rohloffs "never"
break - but my derailleurs have almost never broken either. And I can
fix a derailleur.
I have friends with S&S couplers. They love them. Of course, they're
worthwhile only if you ship your bike often, e.g. as luggage. By
comparison, I've found packing a standard touring bike for air travel to
be a major hassle. For air travel, I prefer a folding bike, but I
probably wouldn't want it for an only bike.
--
- Frank Krygowski
> ... I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
It depends on your planned uses, of course. There are many styles of
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
cycling.
Titanium is fine. So are several other metals. A benefit of steel is
that it's easier to modify later, if necessary - adding brackets,
changing spacing, etc. If you don't see that happening, titanium is fine.
Cyclocross frames may feature high bottom brackets. If your frame has a
horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
prefer touring geometry.
I've heard that mtb tires are more available, worldwide, than 700c. If
you plan on more super-remote riding, you may want to check out that
issue. For my riding, which is mostly on-road and more civilized (North
America & Europe), I like the greater selection in 700c road tires. You
can get them fat if you need to.
I'm not a disk brake fan. If I rode mostly off-road and/or did more
huge mountain descents, maybe I would be. But cantilevers are more
robust in that they are universally understood, parts are everywhere,
they work with any wheel, and they can be repaired on the road with your
multi-tool.
Rohloff vs. derailleurs? I like low-tech. I know Rohloffs "never"
break - but my derailleurs have almost never broken either. And I can
fix a derailleur.
I have friends with S&S couplers. They love them. Of course, they're
worthwhile only if you ship your bike often, e.g. as luggage. By
comparison, I've found packing a standard touring bike for air travel to
be a major hassle. For air travel, I prefer a folding bike, but I
probably wouldn't want it for an only bike.
--
- Frank Krygowski
thirty-six
Jan 21, 2012, 7:43:32 PM1/21/12
to
On Jan 22, 12:06 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:
has a godd firestarter for damp tinder/
equivalent riding under the influence of drink or drugs,
gonna want a go every hopur now, is it?
fit, fat ones may be termed gold.
> huge mountain descents, maybe I would be. But cantilevers are more
> robust in that they are universally understood, parts are everywhere,
> they work with any wheel, and they can be repaired on the road with your
> multi-tool.
Well, I've heard it called some things!
wrote:
> Anton Berlin wrote:
> > ... I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> > practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> > My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> > wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> > panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> > I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> > extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> > multiple through Europe)
>
> > The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> > gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> > And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> > your thoughts and input.
>
> It depends on your planned uses, of course. There are many styles of
> cycling.
>
> Titanium is fine. So are several other metals. A benefit of steel is
> that it's easier to modify later, if necessary - adding brackets,
> changing spacing, etc. If you don't see that happening, titanium is fine.
A benefit of magnesium is that with n appropriate scraper, the rider
> > ... I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> > practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> > My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> > wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> > panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> > I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> > extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> > multiple through Europe)
>
> > The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> > gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> > And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> > your thoughts and input.
>
> It depends on your planned uses, of course. There are many styles of
> cycling.
>
> Titanium is fine. So are several other metals. A benefit of steel is
> that it's easier to modify later, if necessary - adding brackets,
> changing spacing, etc. If you don't see that happening, titanium is fine.
has a godd firestarter for damp tinder/
>
> Cyclocross frames may feature high bottom brackets.
They're mostly straight in UK I'm not sure though if there is an
> Cyclocross frames may feature high bottom brackets.
equivalent riding under the influence of drink or drugs,
.
> If your frame has a
> horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
> if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
> prefer touring geometry.
You could use a milestone o lift it a bit , it's not as if you're
> If your frame has a
> horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
> if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
> prefer touring geometry.
gonna want a go every hopur now, is it?
>
> I've heard that mtb tires are more available, worldwide, than 700c. If
> you plan on more super-remote riding, you may want to check out that
> issue. For my riding, which is mostly on-road and more civilized (North
> America & Europe), I like the greater selection in 700c road tires. You
> can get them fat if you need to.
I think I'm what's described as normal, t5he slimmer variety are snug
> I've heard that mtb tires are more available, worldwide, than 700c. If
> you plan on more super-remote riding, you may want to check out that
> issue. For my riding, which is mostly on-road and more civilized (North
> America & Europe), I like the greater selection in 700c road tires. You
> can get them fat if you need to.
fit, fat ones may be termed gold.
>
> I'm not a disk brake fan. If I rode mostly off-road and/or did more
Take a screen, everyman has a videocam these days.
> I'm not a disk brake fan. If I rode mostly off-road and/or did more
> huge mountain descents, maybe I would be. But cantilevers are more
> robust in that they are universally understood, parts are everywhere,
> they work with any wheel, and they can be repaired on the road with your
> multi-tool.
>
> Rohloff vs. derailleurs? I like low-tech. I know Rohloffs "never"
> break - but my derailleurs have almost never broken either. And I can
> fix a derailleur.
Yeah, stick with what you know.
> Rohloff vs. derailleurs? I like low-tech. I know Rohloffs "never"
> break - but my derailleurs have almost never broken either. And I can
> fix a derailleur.
>
> I have friends with S&S couplers. They love them. Of course, they're
Sounds kinky, whatever it is.
> I have friends with S&S couplers. They love them. Of course, they're
(PeteCresswell)
Jan 21, 2012, 8:29:23 PM1/21/12
to
Per Frank Krygowski:
On one hand, I like the lower bottom bracket for stopping at
lights.
On the other hand, I have to remember not to take full pedal
strokes when crossing roots, curbs, and such.
--
Pete Cresswell
>Cyclocross frames may feature high bottom brackets. If your frame has a
>horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
>if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
>prefer touring geometry.
That's a significant tradeoff on my Salsa Fargo.
>horizontal top tube, that may reduce standover height. You can decide
>if that's a problem, depending on your use. For my road cycling, I
>prefer touring geometry.
On one hand, I like the lower bottom bracket for stopping at
lights.
On the other hand, I have to remember not to take full pedal
strokes when crossing roots, curbs, and such.
--
Pete Cresswell
Message has been deleted
Lou Holtman
Jan 22, 2012, 11:56:20 AM1/22/12
to
Op 20-1-2012 16:21, Anton Berlin schreef:
styles of riding you make too much compromises. If someone held a gun to
my head and said that I only allowed one bike I have to think quickly:
- it should be suitable for fast road riding,
- it should have some off road capabilities,
- it should be able to carry some luggage,
- fenders would be nice,
- it should be nice to look at,
- it should be easy to maintain.
Dropbars are a must for me so a cyclecrossframe would be my choice. If
you are in touring than I a Rohloff hub is an option, but not for me. No
MTB wheels, 700c wheels for me. Mechanical disc brakes work with
brifters and gets rid of the rim wear.
Since I was very pleased with the result of my refurbishing project of
my 9 year old Ti roadbike, Ti would be my choice of frame material: no
paintjob, low maintenance and it stays like new forever:
<https://picasaweb.google.com/101076538433373858645/OpknapbeurtLitespeedClassic>
Hmm.... maybe a Ti version and with Campy brifters of my crossbike which
I picked up last week and fine tuned yesterday . It is ready to go:
<https://picasaweb.google.com/101076538433373858645/Misc#5700494834216624434>
but no way I limit myself to one bike. I would miss the montainbiking,
time trials and my low maintenance singlespeed winterriding.
Lou
> I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
>
I'm not a big fan of the 'one fits all' concept. If you like different
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
>
styles of riding you make too much compromises. If someone held a gun to
my head and said that I only allowed one bike I have to think quickly:
- it should be suitable for fast road riding,
- it should have some off road capabilities,
- it should be able to carry some luggage,
- fenders would be nice,
- it should be nice to look at,
- it should be easy to maintain.
Dropbars are a must for me so a cyclecrossframe would be my choice. If
you are in touring than I a Rohloff hub is an option, but not for me. No
MTB wheels, 700c wheels for me. Mechanical disc brakes work with
brifters and gets rid of the rim wear.
Since I was very pleased with the result of my refurbishing project of
my 9 year old Ti roadbike, Ti would be my choice of frame material: no
paintjob, low maintenance and it stays like new forever:
<https://picasaweb.google.com/101076538433373858645/OpknapbeurtLitespeedClassic>
Hmm.... maybe a Ti version and with Campy brifters of my crossbike which
I picked up last week and fine tuned yesterday . It is ready to go:
<https://picasaweb.google.com/101076538433373858645/Misc#5700494834216624434>
but no way I limit myself to one bike. I would miss the montainbiking,
time trials and my low maintenance singlespeed winterriding.
Lou
LF
Jan 22, 2012, 12:36:58 PM1/22/12
to
If you want to leave your options open for touring in remote locations, I suspect derailleurs and rim brakes are easier to fix/ replace/ repair when they break at just the wrong time. In my experience, no parts are completely "bullet proof." What's been your experience?
Larry
Larry
don Gabacho
Jan 23, 2012, 2:48:33 AM1/23/12
to
A, as I have, a twenty-year old Specialized Rockhopper modified
somewhat for urban (hilly) living with lightly treaded road tires and
collapsible rear baskets. I'd take it, and it would go, anywhere.
If I want to go cross-country, the baskets become panniers.
As it is, off-road, I can chug along.
If I want to go off-road more seriously, I can simply change the
tires.
somewhat for urban (hilly) living with lightly treaded road tires and
collapsible rear baskets. I'd take it, and it would go, anywhere.
If I want to go cross-country, the baskets become panniers.
As it is, off-road, I can chug along.
If I want to go off-road more seriously, I can simply change the
tires.
Michael Press
Jan 25, 2012, 7:28:58 PM1/25/12
to
In article
<808b1344-1837-4868...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
you are _fully_ prepared to see go away?
I have two bicycles, both drop bar, high pressure tires.
One is for errands, the other is not.
--
Michael Press
<808b1344-1837-4868...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Anton Berlin <truth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
Take it by easy stages. Is there _one_ bicycle
> I am one of those nuts that has 10 machines in the garage. From a
> custom made Columbus Max with SR an Aquila titanium with a brand new c-
> record large flange group, to several carbon frames and a collection
> of disc wheels and H3s etc.
>
> I am in the stage where I want to simplify and feel that I could get
> practical and get down to one bike and be content with that.
>
> My current idea is a titanium cyclocross style bike that uses mtb
> wheels, has a long wheelbase and is set up for touring (fenders,
> panniers, etc) would be the best compromise of all worlds.
>
> I want a bike that is flexible enough to ride everyday, tour
> extensively on (already have 2 cycling trips around the world and
> multiple through Europe)
>
> The open questions are rim brakes or discs ? Derailleurs or internal
> gearing (rohloff or sram) ?
>
> And the pros and cons of using s&s couplers. Thanks in advance for
> your thoughts and input.
you are _fully_ prepared to see go away?
I have two bicycles, both drop bar, high pressure tires.
One is for errands, the other is not.
--
Michael Press
JaxRhapsody
Feb 5, 2012, 2:11:16 AM2/5/12
to
This exact thread is on velospace. Word from word, post to post. The
only thong its missing is my post.
--
JaxRhapsody
0 new messages