HED Ardennes SL

[Duane]

Anyone riding these:

http://store.thecyclinghouse.com/HED_Ardennes_SL_2012_Wheelset_Road_and_Cyclocross_p/hedardsl.htm

I'm particularly interested in the the claims made about benefits
derived from the 23mm width.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 26, 6:12 am, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
> Anyone riding these:
>
> http://store.thecyclinghouse.com/HED_Ardennes_SL_2012_Wheelset_Road_a...

>
> I'm particularly interested in the the claims made about benefits
> derived from the 23mm width.

I built a set of wheels using Velocity A23's -very similar 23 mm rims.
Although they will fit my road bike they have, to date, served (very
well) only on a rim-brake 29er.

So while I have no direct feedback about the potential benefit of the
width, I was playing with tire/rim calculations a while back. I
learned that if you were to take a tire with a cross-sectional width
of 23 mm when measured on a 18mm rim, its width would measure almost
exactly 25 mm on a 23mm rim.
Interestingly, despite the 2mm increase in width, the height above the
rim (or maximum diameter) would only increase by 1/10 of that - about .
2 mm.
It looks as if for those specific rim widths a 2mm increase in tire
width can be expected for "road" sized tires from 23-28 mm.

If you'd like me to plug in some different numbers I can do that
easily.

DR

[Duane]

I'm concerned with a 23mm tire on these rims. Their claim of lower
rolling resistance is interesting but the better cornering as well.

[DirtRoadie]

I can only speculate, but I would guess the claims of lower rolling
resistance and better cornering are both the result of ending up with
what is effectively a slightly fatter tire. Not entirely implausible.
Of course pressures come into play somewhere.
DR

[Duane]

They say that you use less pressure which makes sense. It looks like I
will be demoing a pair from my LBS and I know the exact s-curve downhill
where I can test this out at 65kph or so.

[James]

The claims sound a bit far fetched. I didn't think there was much drag
available to be shaving *huge* amounts off. Sounds like the ceramic
bearings hype.

Durability perhaps, as the wide rim cross section may show that the
structure is stronger.

The spokes are expensive. $2.70 ea. inc. nipples.

Al nipples may be less durable, and may suffer when a little corrosion
makes it difficult to turn them - if and when they need truing.

$1100 sounds quite expensive for a pair of wheels, though I know there's
plenty more expensive, and in that weight range for COTS wheels, it's in
the ball park.

Are you under 190 lbs?

1474g is fairly light for clinchers, but not uber light.

--
JS.

[Duane Hebert]

I'm under 190 and will probably be more under once I run away from
the wife when she finds out what these cost.

I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
generally rely on
marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
23mm tires) and that they
have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
rolling resistance yet but these guys should
know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
being honest. But they still work at the LBS.

Anyway, I got a pair to try for a couple of
weeks. They're definitely lighter than my Mavics. We'll see how they go.

Thanks for the feedback.

[datakoll]

WHICH CORNERS BETTER, RUNS FASTER WITH NLESS ENERGY ?

[Duane Hebert]

On 7/27/2012 12:54 AM, datakoll wrote:
> WHICH CORNERS BETTER, RUNS FASTER WITH NLESS ENERGY ?

Thanks for the input.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
> generally rely on
> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
> 23mm tires) and that they
> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.

By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Dave]

Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?

Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.

Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.

[Duane]

Don't know how they measure it. I "measure" it by going down a steep
twisty decent that I know well and seeing that I can hold it at a higher
speed. I also feel better when leaning harder into it. No data.
Just my impressions. At the end of the day, my metric is whether I
notice a difference and am willing to pay for it.

I imagine it has to do with the contact patch being wider. I'm a
software engineer though, not a mechanical engineer or physicist. What
do you think makes it better? Or do you think that these wheels aren't
better at cornering? How would you test them other than by trying them?

[Duane]

On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>>
>>> generally rely on
>>
>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>>
>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>>
>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>>
>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>>
>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>>
>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>>
>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>>
>>
>>
>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>>
>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>

>> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>>
>> Post Free or Die!
>
> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>
> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.

Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.

>
> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.

Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
there something else?

[Dave]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:44:34 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>
> >> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>
> >>
>
> >>> generally rely on
>
> >>
>
> >>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>
> >>
>
> >>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>
> >>
>
> >>> 23mm tires) and that they
>
> >>
>
> >>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>
> >>
>
> >>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>
> >>
>
> >>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>
> >>
>
> >>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>
> >>
>
> >> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> --
>
> >>
>

> >> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>
> >>
>
> >> Post Free or Die!
>
> >
>
> > Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>
> >
>
> > Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>
>
>
> Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.
>
>
>
> Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
>
> psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
>
> comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
>
> there something else?

90 vs 120 psi is simply plain more enjoyable (combination of comfort, cornering, sometimes rolling resistance) for everything but straightish, flattish TTs on smooth roads, and track obviously.

Leisure cyclists feel compelled to imitate the pros, and wider rims give them the psychological validation to run the pressures they should have been running all along.

When the Angliru climb was added to the Vuelta, we saw compact cranksets used in competition for the first time. Thereafter, I kid you not, I heard people justify their switch to compacts by saying that such and such pro uses one in the Vuelta.

[Duane]

On 07/31/2012 11:42 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:44:34 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>>
>>>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> generally rely on
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
>>
>> psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
>>
>> comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
>>
>> there something else?
>
> 90 vs 120 psi is simply plain more enjoyable (combination of comfort, cornering, sometimes rolling resistance) for everything but straightish, flattish TTs on smooth roads, and track obviously.
>
> Leisure cyclists feel compelled to imitate the pros, and wider rims give them the psychological validation to run the pressures they should have been running all along.

Not sure what you mean by Leisure cyclists exactly. My legs are pretty
sore today from so much leisurely activity the last couple of days <g>
For me, it's more an issue of which wheels fit on my bike, not so much
anything that "the racers" are doing.

>
> When the Angliru climb was added to the Vuelta, we saw compact cranksets used in competition for the first time. Thereafter, I kid you not, I heard people justify their switch to compacts by saying that such and such pro uses one in the Vuelta.
>

You may not like it then when I tell you that I don't have nor do I want
a compact crank set. I don't climb enough to warrant it and I prefer
the standard double. Of course I have a triple on the other bike that I
can use if I go to Lake Placid or Vermont.

[DirtRoadie]

On Jul 31, 7:36 am, Dave <dben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
> > On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> > > I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>
> > > generally rely on
>
> > > marketing specs.  The guys at the LBS that ride them
>
> > > claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>
> > > 23mm tires) and that they
>
> > > have less rolling resistance and corner better.  Not sure about the
>
> > > rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>
> > > know about cornering.   I know these guys and trust that they're
>
> > > being honest.  But they still work at the LBS.
>
> > By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>
> > improved?  And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>
> > --
>
> > Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
>
> > Post Free or Die!
>
> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>
> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile

Roundness is undoubtedly the same (round is round), what changes is
the "fatness."

> plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>
> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.

"Saner" is relative. Many factors come into play. But in this example
it is essentially the same as going from a 23 to a 25 with ostensibly
the very same results.
DR

[Dave]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:36:55 PM UTC-4, DirtRoadie wrote:
> Roundness is undoubtedly the same (round is round), what changes is
>
> the "fatness."

Road tires usually have more rubber on the crown of the tire than the shoulders and sidewalls, so wider rims do make such tires rounder, since the transition from crown to shoulder has a greater radius.

Agree with the larger point that the fatness is what matters.

[Dave]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:35:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 11:42 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:44:34 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>
> >> On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> generally rely on
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> --
>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>

> >>>> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>
> >>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> Post Free or Die!
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
>
> >>
>
> >> psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
>
> >>
>
> >> comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
>
> >>
>
> >> there something else?
>
> >
>
> > 90 vs 120 psi is simply plain more enjoyable (combination of comfort, cornering, sometimes rolling resistance) for everything but straightish, flattish TTs on smooth roads, and track obviously.
>
> >
>
> > Leisure cyclists feel compelled to imitate the pros, and wider rims give them the psychological validation to run the pressures they should have been running all along.
>
>
>
> Not sure what you mean by Leisure cyclists exactly. My legs are pretty
>
> sore today from so much leisurely activity the last couple of days <g>
>
> For me, it's more an issue of which wheels fit on my bike, not so much
>
> anything that "the racers" are doing.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > When the Angliru climb was added to the Vuelta, we saw compact cranksets used in competition for the first time. Thereafter, I kid you not, I heard people justify their switch to compacts by saying that such and such pro uses one in the Vuelta.
>
> >
>
>
>
> You may not like it then when I tell you that I don't have nor do I want
>
> a compact crank set. I don't climb enough to warrant it and I prefer
>
> the standard double. Of course I have a triple on the other bike that I
>
> can use if I go to Lake Placid or Vermont.

I was making the larger point that leisure (i.e. unpaid) cyclists generally, not you personally, slavishly imitate racing equipment to the detriment of their own cycling. Wide rims with lower tire pressures is an exception.

[Duane]

On 07/31/2012 03:48 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 12:35:33 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 11:42 AM, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 10:44:34 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
>>
>>>> On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> generally rely on
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> --
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>> T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731�N, 83.985007�W

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Post Free or Die!
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> there something else?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 90 vs 120 psi is simply plain more enjoyable (combination of comfort, cornering, sometimes rolling resistance) for everything but straightish, flattish TTs on smooth roads, and track obviously.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Leisure cyclists feel compelled to imitate the pros, and wider rims give them the psychological validation to run the pressures they should have been running all along.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you mean by Leisure cyclists exactly. My legs are pretty
>>
>> sore today from so much leisurely activity the last couple of days <g>
>>
>> For me, it's more an issue of which wheels fit on my bike, not so much
>>
>> anything that "the racers" are doing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> When the Angliru climb was added to the Vuelta, we saw compact cranksets used in competition for the first time. Thereafter, I kid you not, I heard people justify their switch to compacts by saying that such and such pro uses one in the Vuelta.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You may not like it then when I tell you that I don't have nor do I want
>>
>> a compact crank set. I don't climb enough to warrant it and I prefer
>>
>> the standard double. Of course I have a triple on the other bike that I
>>
>> can use if I go to Lake Placid or Vermont.
>
> I was making the larger point that leisure (i.e. unpaid) cyclists generally, not you personally, slavishly imitate racing equipment to the detriment of their own cycling. Wide rims with lower tire pressures is an exception.

I know and don't disagree. I've had people tell me that I should dump
my SPDs because they're too heavy. Some people buy into all of that but
it doesn't bother me nor affect me that much. I switched from SPDs but
not because of weight. I figure that if they have the money to waste,
better to waste it on cycling stuff. And maybe with enough riding they
can get to the point where the reduced weight will be noticed.

The thing is that around here "leisure cyclists" can mean the ones that
don't ride their bike as vehicles with penny loafers and tweed coats.
Sorry to be over sensitive.

[DirtRoadie]

Another point - assuming the same effective tire width there is
actually a slight difference between narrower/rim wider tire and the
converse.
The wider rim lets the tire sit lower (envision a tubular sitting on
the rim beads) so actually decreases the tire height and outside
diameter of the tire.

DR

[Duane]

HED says that this reduces drag. I don't think that I've noticed this.
Last night in the 40k head winds it felt just as bad as with my old
tires <g>

I will say that my experience with these tires so far has been very
good. The most noticeable thing is the comfort. The 90 psi is
extremely comfortable compared to my old 120 psi setup. The next thing
is the cornering. My Specialized Turbo tires are already rounded to
achieve better cornering but with these wheels it is more noticeable.
And the tires stick better to the ground, even when wet. You get a
feeling of more stability especially in climbs and descents.

Those are the pros. They are also nice looking well made wheels. They
roll quietly where my Mavics sometime have some spring noise. They're
reflective so you're more visible. They're 1.66 lbs lighter than my
Mavic CXP 22 wheels which are already pretty light.

The cons are that the wheels are expensive at 1200 CDN. Another con is
that the cheap brakes that Specialized puts on a Tarmac won't open wide
enough to support the extra rim width. It's ok now with my pads a bit
worn but I will have to replace the brakes. I don't see any other
problems yet.

I don't have any data to support this as it's just my analysis based on
my feelings after a couple hundred kilometers of use.

[Dan Becker]

In article <jvb7tg$tmq$1...@dont-email.me>, Duane

<duane....@group-upc.com> wrote:

> On 07/31/2012 07:17 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
> > Another point - assuming the same effective tire width there is
> > actually a slight difference between narrower/rim wider tire and the
> > converse.
> > The wider rim lets the tire sit lower (envision a tubular sitting on
> > the rim beads) so actually decreases the tire height and outside
> > diameter of the tire.
>
> HED says that this reduces drag. I don't think that I've noticed this.
> Last night in the 40k head winds it felt just as bad as with my old
> tires <g>

I recall reading test reports on the Zipp website sometime ago that
purported that having the tire width match the rim width was more
aerodynamic. I don't know if the reports are still there. But there may
be a similar effect to what HED is describing, but for different
reasons?

[Duane]

Or maybe a combination of both. I don't know. This is not easily
discernible from simply riding them. The comfort, better cornering and
better adhesion to the road are fairly obvious. The reduced weight as
well but any reduced drag is not so noticeable to me.

[James]

And it's not likely to be noticeable. The results of independent
testing <http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html> shows a
difference of about 15 W between the most and least aero wheels tested
(N ~= 60) @ 50 km/h.

Not that I'm saying the difference will "disappear into the noise", as
some would say. Any advantage is still an advantage AFAICT, but not
enough for you to *feel* in this case.

At regular training ride speeds of 30 - 35 km/h, I have trouble
detecting the drag introduced by flicking my dynamo on. It is
supposedly one of the least efficient, and is likely consuming around 6
W of mechanical power whist only providing 3 W of electrical power.

--
JS.

[Duane]

Well the Ardennes SL are not aero wheels exactly. The rims are pretty
much the usual profile, only 23mm instead of the usual. But HED claims
some aero benefit due to the different shape of the tires.

> Not that I'm saying the difference will "disappear into the noise", as
> some would say. Any advantage is still an advantage AFAICT, but not
> enough for you to *feel* in this case.

The people that I know that use aero wheels are mostly racers. Some
have TT wheels and regular road wheels that they swap depending on the
occasion.

> At regular training ride speeds of 30 - 35 km/h, I have trouble
> detecting the drag introduced by flicking my dynamo on. It is
> supposedly one of the least efficient, and is likely consuming around 6
> W of mechanical power whist only providing 3 W of electrical power.

The training rides that I do are generally still group rides so any aero
advantage would be lost in drafting except when pulling. When the rider
in front of you rotates back it's like a slap in the face anyway at 35k
so it's hard to tell if a slight aero benefit exists. It may exist and
as you say, in a racing situation it may be beneficial. For most of my
rides though a rim with a high profile causes trouble dealing with cross
winds than the benefit that it offers in pack riding.

One other benefit of the wider rims that I noticed last night (and Dan
should appreciate this) is that I can ride with no hands on the bars for
pretty much as long as I like. Even with my crummy balance. <g>

[Frank Krygowski]

Duane wrote:
>
> The training rides that I do are generally still group rides so any aero
> advantage would be lost in drafting except when pulling.

Well, son of a gun! Who was saying that earlier?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 3, 12:08 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Geeze, how much earlier are you referring to?
Since it is common knowledge.
Especially well known to anyone who is familiar with the benefits of
riding in a group.
(*Factoid- In a group you can go as fast as, but not faster than, the
person in front of you anyhow!)

http://sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/index.htm
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/aerodynamics2.html
http://suite101.com/article/the-importance-of-drafting-in-a-bicycle-race-a98273
http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Wisdom/content/19/437/Group-Riding-Skills
http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/10_Secrets_for_Riding_in_a_Peloton.htm

So I give up. Was it one of the authors linked above were you thinking
of?
Or did one of your club members tell you about this?
Maybe you read an article in Buycycling?
DR

[Duane]

Well there goes another fucking thread hijacked by what's his fucking
name. It really is getting to be impossible to carry on a topic without
our local Troll grabbing it.

[John B.]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:28:33 -0400, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

From reading rbt I was given to understand that taking one's
hand/hands off the handlebars, even momentarily to shift gears, was
extremely dangerous :-?
Cheers,
John B.

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 3, 6:42 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:28:33 -0400, Duane <duane.heb...@group-upc.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 08/02/2012 06:08 PM, James wrote:
> >> On 02/08/12 22:05, Duane wrote:
> >>> On 08/01/2012 11:12 PM, Dan Becker wrote:

> >>>> In article <jvb7tg$tm...@dont-email.me>, Duane

Opinions vary somewhat. Frank, for instance, regularly does double
centuries with long out-of-the-saddle climbs and twisty descents
without ever touching his bars or securing his toe straps.
DR

[Duane Hebert]

The only person saying that anyone said taking your hands off the bars
is EXTREMELY dangerous is the guy that finds it difficult to argue
against anything but the most outrageous statements. But I guess you
already know that. <g>

[Duane Hebert]

On a fully equiped touring bike with front and rear paniers loaded.
Leading by example.

[John B.]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:43:53 -0400, Duane Hebert <sp...@flarn2.com>
wrote:

I blush to say, I really didn't spend much time perusing the thread I
believe you are referring to but since I have bar end shifters on the
bike I use for long rides I did sit up and take notice of the "don't
take you hands off the bars" posts. I never realized what a daredevil
I must have been riding with down tube shifters :-)
Cheers,
John B.

[Duane Hebert]

That's just one of Frank's straw men. He's apparently against any new
tech so he doesn't like brifters. Someone said they're handy because
you don't have to take your hands off the bar to shift. He interpreted
that as being afraid to remove your hands from the bars. I try to
ignore him and advise the same.

[Duane Hebert]

This is not very scientific but I was out today with just one other
rider. I was pulling half the time and I can't say that there was any
noticeable difference in drag. I'm pretty happy actually that it seems
about the same. Wheels are more comfortable and grip better but the
drag is not worse. I guess that's one way of looking at it.

The thing is that it was pretty windy today and we rarely have days
without some wind. In the wind, I'm such a larger profile, even tucked
with pedals parallel to the ground, that I'm not sure how the reduced
height of these tires can make much difference. That's not to say that
I don't think fully aero wheels don't help on TTs. Because I do. I
mean wrt these wheels versus my other wheels.

[Frank Krygowski]

Correction: The young racer in the "old bike vs. new bike" magazine
comparison test said that down tube shifters seemed dangerous, probably
because he'd never used them.

http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf

"Other unnerving factors on the descent include the tricky issue of
having gear shifters on the downtube. 'It was very dangerous.' "

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Duane Hebert wrote:
>
>>
> This is not very scientific but I was out today with just one other
> rider. I was pulling half the time and I can't say that there was any
> noticeable difference in drag. I'm pretty happy actually that it seems
> about the same. Wheels are more comfortable and grip better but the drag
> is not worse. I guess that's one way of looking at it.
>
> The thing is that it was pretty windy today and we rarely have days
> without some wind. In the wind, I'm such a larger profile, even tucked
> with pedals parallel to the ground, that I'm not sure how the reduced
> height of these tires can make much difference. That's not to say that I
> don't think fully aero wheels don't help on TTs. Because I do. I mean
> wrt these wheels versus my other wheels.

Reasonable!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 4, 1:07 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> Duane Hebert wrote:
> > On 8/4/2012 8:20 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> >> I blush to say, I really didn't spend much time perusing the thread I
> >> believe you are referring to but since I have bar end shifters on the
> >> bike I use for long rides I did sit up and take notice of the "don't
> >> take you hands off the bars" posts. I never realized what a daredevil
> >> I must have been riding with down tube shifters :-)
> >> Cheers,
>
> > That's just one of Frank's straw men. He's apparently against any new
> > tech so he doesn't like brifters. Someone said they're handy because you
> > don't have to take your hands off the bar to shift. He interpreted that
> > as being afraid to remove your hands from the bars.
>
> Correction: The young racer in the "old bike vs. new bike" magazine
> comparison test said that down tube shifters seemed dangerous, probably
> because he'd never used them.

Or maybe, just maybe for, the reason he actually stated:
"I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change into the big ring
because the bike was jumping all over the place. "

> http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf
>
> "Other unnerving factors on the descent include the tricky issue of
> having gear shifters on the downtube. 'It was very dangerous.' "
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Full quote:

"Other unnerving factors on the descent include the tricky issue of
having gear shifters on the downtube.

'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change
into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "

Frank, you view the world through a selectively tiny peephole. The
real world does not match your view point.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 4, 1:07 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:

Nice omission, Frank.

"Other unnerving factors on the descent include the tricky issue of
having gear shifters on the downtube.

'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change
into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "

Your dishonesty is noteworthy.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

> 'It was very dangerous. I couldn�t let go of the handlebars to change

> into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "
>
> Your dishonesty is noteworthy.
> DR

??

So riding an '80s bike is supposedly very dangerous, because one has to
actually move a hand to shift downtube levers, and the bike supposedly
jumps all over the place.

I suppose you may be young enough and inexperienced enough to believe
all that. However, your quoting one more sentence does not disprove
what I quoted.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[DirtRoadie]

> > 'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change

> > into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "
>
> > Your dishonesty is noteworthy.
> > DR
>
> ??
>
> So riding an '80s bike is supposedly very dangerous, because one has to
> actually move a hand to shift downtube levers, and the bike supposedly
> jumps all over the place.



> I suppose you may be young enough and inexperienced enough to believe
> all that.  However, your quoting one more sentence does not disprove
> what I quoted.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Frank from what you have said, apparently there is a concept on your
planet about proving "what is quoted."
Those of us here on earth have no similar concept, we interpret what
we read using the meaning of the words AND the context.
In fact we generally frown on those who argue to interpret quoted
phrases or sentences out of context.

So, no, I am not to trying to "disprove what [you] quoted" as you
suggest it would be interpreted on your planet.
But I do ask that you allow me to take advantage of the same
Krygowskian logic.
You argue that "the bike *supposedly* jumps all over the place"
suggesting that this has not occurred or is an exaggeration .
To the contrary, there was no "supposedly" about it. The reviewer said
(quote) "I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change
into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place."
That is a direct quote which follows the language you quoted. So that
stands proven as well, since in your words, you did "not disprove
what I quoted."
We don't even disagree on what the reviewer said!
Conveniently, that resolves the issue on your planet, and provides the
context that resolves the issue here as well!
Thank you
DR

PS When was your accident? Permanent damage? Any likelihood of
recovery?

[DirtRoadie]

> > 'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change

> > into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "
>
> > Your dishonesty is noteworthy.
> > DR
>
> ??
>
> So riding an '80s bike is supposedly very dangerous, because one has to
> actually move a hand to shift downtube levers, and the bike supposedly
> jumps all over the place.
>
> I suppose you may be young enough and inexperienced enough to believe
> all that.  However, your quoting one more sentence does not disprove
> what I quoted.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

So Frank - TECH question.
How do YOU shift down tube shifters without removing your hand from
the bars? That's the question.
I've never heard of such a thing Obviously you know how to overcome
this issue.
And, I'll take the reviewer (a PRO rider) at his word, that he was
not comfortable removing his hands from the bars while descending on a
sketchy bike.
I've BTDT- didn't even require a sketchy bike. Most in the group
have.
You haven't? You can ride hands free (or single handed) anywhere, any
time? Fast descent? Tight twisty road? Criterium racing? Extremely
gusty wind? Crossing RR tracks?
I think the group will find great entertainment value in your
response
And no, Frank we're not talking about the ability to peel a banana
while riding when conditions allow. We've all BTDT, too.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

Frank-Do you also listen to CD's of symphonies while waving a baton
and pretending you're the conductor?
Just asking.
DR

[John B.]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:40:11 -0400, Duane Hebert <sp...@flarn2.com>

Don't blame Frank for everything. The idea that downtube, or even bar
end shifters, are not entirely safe seems to be rather common these
days. Thorn Cycles, for example, in one of their brochures points out
that while they can fit down tube shifters it is better to be holding
the handle bars (they don't seem to mention that since the brifters
are more expensive it increases the cost of the machine :-)
Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

I hesitate to get between Frank and his entourage of admirers but I
can't remember anyone even mentioning the difficulties of shifting
back in the days of down tube shifters. In fact the only thing I
remember reading about shifting, at all, was Eddie Merckx's reply to a
reporter that asked him if the new brifters meant he didn't miss a
shift, when he commented that "I haven't missed a shift since I was 8
years old".

But more to the point, I see a thread here that seems to imply that
new age riders may actually be slower then the old guys, but if the
old guys WERE faster it seems likely that they must not have a problem
with shifting to the big ring which in turn seems to imply that the
remark from the new age racers was due to a lack of expertise rather
then an inherent problem with the shifter.

I might add that in 2001 the bike that Lance Armstrong's in the
mountains was fitted with a down tube front shifter
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bikes-34375/

I never heard that Armstrong had problems with getting into the big
ring.
Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

I suggest that you are missing the point. How fast would a rider be
going when he shifts to the big ring? I'm not a racer, by any means,
but from what the article seemed to describe - climbing and then going
over the top into a fast decent the story doesn't sound right.

From the description of the bike bound/bouncing all over the place it
sounds like the speed must have been pretty high, say 35 MPH or maybe
more? According to my calcs, with a compact gear set a 34-11 would
give a speed of 39 KPH (24 MPH) at a cadence of 100 RPM. Wouldn't the
rider already have shifted to the big ring.
Cheers,
John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

And I very much doubt that the bike was "sketchy," to use DR's term.
Pro or not, I'm astonished at the 21-year-old who made the comment, and
even more astonished that anyone who had ridden in the 1980s would
accept it at face value.

It's certainly true that with downtube shifters, I'd avoid shifting if I
were having great trouble controlling the bike. But that would delay my
shift only for a moment. Controlling the bike has never been difficult
for me.

Good grief, I rode over mountain passes in the Scottish Highlands with
full camping gear in 1976, on a Raleigh with downtube shifters. My son
did the same on a Huffy, and my wife on a lady's Raleigh with stem
shifters! Gusty winds, twisty roads - gosh, how did we survive?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/31/2012 9:44 AM, Duane wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 09:36 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Monday, July 30, 2012 12:41:03 AM UTC-4, Tom $herman (-_-) wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>>>
>>>> generally rely on
>>>
>>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>>>
>>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>>>
>>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>>>
>>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>>>
>>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>>>
>>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>>>
>>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>>>
>>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>>>
>> Isn't grip a combination of contact patch plus compound?
>>
>> Armchair engineering says rounder tire profile plus lower pressure
>> means better grip, ceteris paribus.
>
> Sounds right. Pretty much what the LBS guy said.
>
>>
>> Whatever the merits of wider rims, if they get people to run saner
>> tire pressures (90 vs 120 psi), I'm all for them.
>
> Ok but why do you think 90 psi is saner than 120 psi? Used to be 135
> psi when tires were 20s instead of 23s. I know they're harder and less
> comfortable and can tell you that the HEDs are very comfortable. But is
> there something else?
>
Over-inflation will reduce traction on all but near perfect surfaces.

About the only place you will find near perfect surfaces when cycling
are certain velodromes - and these velodromes are the only places where
you will find very high (>10 bar) tire pressures being used.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 8/4/2012 11:40 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> That's just one of Frank's straw men. He's apparently against any new
> tech so he doesn't like brifters. Someone said they're handy because
> you don't have to take your hands off the bar to shift. He interpreted
> that as being afraid to remove your hands from the bars. I try to
> ignore him and advise the same.

You seen to mention F.K. a lot, for trying to ignore him.

[Tom $herman (-_-)]

On 7/31/2012 9:41 AM, Duane wrote:

> On 07/30/2012 12:41 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>> On 7/26/2012 6:36 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>> I think the claims are a bit far fetched as well but that's why I don't
>>> generally rely on
>>> marketing specs. The guys at the LBS that ride them
>>> claim that they're more comfortable (~90psi versus the usual 120 for
>>> 23mm tires) and that they
>>> have less rolling resistance and corner better. Not sure about the
>>> rolling resistance yet but these guys should
>>> know about cornering. I know these guys and trust that they're
>>> being honest. But they still work at the LBS.
>>
>> By that do they mean cornering feels more confident, or is grip actually
>> improved? And if the latter, how did they measure it?
>

> Don't know how they measure it. I "measure" it by going down a steep
> twisty decent that I know well and seeing that I can hold it at a higher
> speed. I also feel better when leaning harder into it. No data.
> Just my impressions. At the end of the day, my metric is whether I
> notice a difference and am willing to pay for it.
>
> I imagine it has to do with the contact patch being wider. I'm a
> software engineer though, not a mechanical engineer or physicist. What
> do you think makes it better? Or do you think that these wheels aren't
> better at cornering? How would you test them other than by trying them?
>
>
Back in the day (when consulting for Avocet), J. Brandt had a tilting
table covered with asphaltic cement built to test the grip of tires -
loss of grip occurred at about 45° tilt.

The practical limit of traction attainable on two wheels is about 60° on
dry pavement (MotoGP).

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 4, 7:32 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 12:40:11 -0400, Duane Hebert <s...@flarn2.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 8/4/2012 8:20 AM, John B. wrote:

> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:43:53 -0400, Duane Hebert<s...@flarn2.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/3/2012 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:

> >>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:28:33 -0400, Duane<duane.heb...@group-upc.com>

> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 08/02/2012 06:08 PM, James wrote:
> >>>>>> On 02/08/12 22:05, Duane wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 11:12 PM, Dan Becker wrote:

> >>>>>>>> In article<jvb7tg$tm...@dont-email.me>, Duane

When the ProCycling article was mentioned within this group, it was
Frank and ONLY Frank, who, in his usual smarmy way, began
mischaracterizing what was stated in the article by suggesting that
there should NEVER be any concerns about taking hands off the
handlebars.
He apparently suckered you in.

> Thorn Cycles, for example, in one of their brochures points out
> that while they can fit down tube shifters it is better to be holding
> the handle bars (they don't seem to mention that since the brifters
> are more expensive it increases the cost of the machine :-)
> Cheers,
> John B.

So is it illegal or immoral to point out potential advantages?
And is it now the standard (or just YOUR standard) that if something
is more expensive it CANNOT be "better?"
DR

[DirtRoadie]

As are you. The point is that shifting with downtube shifters ALWAYS
require removing a hand from the bars. Which means one cannot shift at
any time when removing hands from the handlebars is undesirable. Read
the article again "But another theme also emerged from our test – that
with their more awkward bikes, cyclists of the past had to be
technically more skilled. Riders had to use their arms more and be
better at anticipating gear changes and braking. They had much less
room for error on descents."

> How fast would a rider be
> going when he shifts to the big ring? I'm not a racer,
> by any means,

Yes we know
Find Jays comment about criterium racing with downtubvs integrated
shifters fo a little insight.

> but from what the article seemed to describe - climbing and then going
> over the top into a fast decent the story doesn't sound right.
>
> From the description of the bike bound/bouncing all over the place it
> sounds like the speed must have been pretty high, say 35 MPH or maybe
> more?  According to my calcs, with a compact gear set a 34-11 would
> give a speed of 39 KPH (24 MPH) at a cadence of 100 RPM.  Wouldn't the
> rider already have shifted to the big ring.
> Cheers,
> John B.

I think you are intentionally ignoring that we are talking about
inherent characteristics of the bike, not about how a rider might
compensate for a bike that is more demanding.

DR

[Lou Holtman]

Op 5-8-2012 16:18, DirtRoadie schreef:

> the article again "But another theme also emerged from our test � that

> with their more awkward bikes, cyclists of the past had to be
> technically more skilled. Riders had to use their arms more and be
> better at anticipating gear changes and braking. They had much less
> room for error on descents."
>
>> How fast would a rider be
>> going when he shifts to the big ring? I'm not a racer,
>> by any means,
>
> Yes we know
> Find Jays comment about criterium racing with downtubvs integrated
> shifters fo a little insight.
>
>> but from what the article seemed to describe - climbing and then going
>> over the top into a fast decent the story doesn't sound right.
>>
>> From the description of the bike bound/bouncing all over the place it
>> sounds like the speed must have been pretty high, say 35 MPH or maybe
>> more? According to my calcs, with a compact gear set a 34-11 would
>> give a speed of 39 KPH (24 MPH) at a cadence of 100 RPM. Wouldn't the
>> rider already have shifted to the big ring.
>> Cheers,
>> John B.
>
> I think you are intentionally ignoring that we are talking about
> inherent characteristics of the bike, not about how a rider might
> compensate for a bike that is more demanding.
>
> DR
>

As I stated earlier, when brifters came along people shifted more often.
Why is that? When I recall my situation before a descent with DT
shifters I shifted once just over the top, front and back. No problem.
No way I was shifting before and after a sharp hairpin where the speed
dropped from 70 km/hr to 20-30 km/hr which meant I have to push a 52/13
gear after the hairpin. Today it is clicker di clack all the way down.

Lou

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 4, 9:09 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:22:20 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

> > <DirtRoa...@aol.com>  wrote:

Whatever, dude.
The PRO rider stated "I couldn’t let go of the handlebars ..."
I suppose your faith dictates how you interpret the bike's behavior. I
used the word "sketchy." "Iffy" would also fit.
On the other hand "precise", "stable" , "solid", "secure" or even
"comfortable" are not words that fit with the PRO's comments.

> Pro or not, I'm astonished at the 21-year-old who made the comment, and
> even more astonished that anyone who had ridden in the 1980s would
> accept it at face value.

Your faith based opinion kicking in again. I'm astonished at how you
regularly have only half the experience (i.e.only with the old stuff)
of the person making the comment, yet feel qualified to critique their
"hands-on" head-to-head comparisons.

There is little that is funnier and/or sadder than an old "has been"
or "never was," still stuck in the last century ranting about how much
they know from the good old days while being dead set against trying
anything new. Frank, use what you want, but don't comment or compare
to that which you have no experience with. What you are happy with
tells us little about the "tech" of the equipment. It just tells us
about you. But I suppose that's your whole goal isn't it? "LOOK AT ME!
LOOK AT ME!" Frank, we don't care.

> It's certainly true that with downtube shifters, I'd avoid shifting if I
> were having great trouble controlling the bike.

Thanks Frank -
That's the point. Now was that so hard?
And it has been established that there are many situations where
having both hands on the handlebars is desirable.
Or do you "teach" that one hand is ALWAYS sufficient?

[Gratuitous data free, self serving anecdotal rant snipped]

DR

[Duane Hebert]

It's not over-inflation to put 120 psi into tires that are rated at 115
- 125 psi.

[Duane Hebert]

On 8/5/2012 12:35 AM, Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 11:40 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>
>> That's just one of Frank's straw men. He's apparently against any new
>> tech so he doesn't like brifters. Someone said they're handy because
>> you don't have to take your hands off the bar to shift. He interpreted
>> that as being afraid to remove your hands from the bars. I try to
>> ignore him and advise the same.
>
> You seen to mention F.K. a lot, for trying to ignore him.
>

I didn't say that I succeed. He seems to have successfully hijacked
another thread. I find it hard to ignore him but if others would ignore
him when he's off topic, his attempts at trolling would be less successful.

[Jay Beattie]

On Wednesday, August 1, 2012 5:38:24 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 07:17 PM, DirtRoadie wrote:
>

> > On Jul 31, 1:42 pm, Dave <dben...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:36:55 PM UTC-4, DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> >>> Roundness is undoubtedly the same (round is round), what changes is
>
> >>
>
> >>> the "fatness."



> >>
>
> >> Road tires usually have more rubber on the crown of the tire than the shoulders and sidewalls, so wider rims do make such tires rounder, since the transition from crown to shoulder has a greater radius.
>
> >>
>
> >> Agree with the larger point that the fatness is what matters.

>
> >
>
> > Another point - assuming the same effective tire width there is
>
> > actually a slight difference between narrower/rim wider tire and the
>
> > converse.
>
> > The wider rim lets the tire sit lower (envision a tubular sitting on
>
> > the rim beads) so actually decreases the tire height and outside
>
> > diameter of the tire.
>
>
>
> HED says that this reduces drag. I don't think that I've noticed this.
>
> Last night in the 40k head winds it felt just as bad as with my old
>
> tires <g>
>
>
>

> I will say that my experience with these tires so far has been very
>
> good. The most noticeable thing is the comfort. The 90 psi is
>
> extremely comfortable compared to my old 120 psi setup. The next thing
>
> is the cornering. My Specialized Turbo tires are already rounded to
>
> achieve better cornering but with these wheels it is more noticeable.
>
> And the tires stick better to the ground, even when wet. You get a
>
> feeling of more stability especially in climbs and descents.
>
>
>
> Those are the pros. They are also nice looking well made wheels. They
>
> roll quietly where my Mavics sometime have some spring noise. They're
>
> reflective so you're more visible. They're 1.66 lbs lighter than my
>
> Mavic CXP 22 wheels which are already pretty light.
>
>
>
> The cons are that the wheels are expensive at 1200 CDN. Another con is
>
> that the cheap brakes that Specialized puts on a Tarmac won't open wide
>
> enough to support the extra rim width. It's ok now with my pads a bit
>
> worn but I will have to replace the brakes. I don't see any other
>
> problems yet.
>
>
>
> I don't have any data to support this as it's just my analysis based on
>
> my feelings after a couple hundred kilometers of use.

I ride regularly with a guy who has these rims -- although hand built on to some Chris king hubs. They are 24mm front and 26mm rear. http://www.enve.com/wheels/road/3.4clincher.aspx

These rims with some Schwalbe slicks on a Cevelo S5 look pretty stealthy, and they're light, too and not ungodly expense when hand built (just expensive). What I have noticed lately is that he gets more flats than me -- whatever that means, but when it comes time to change the flat, he can just peel the tire off, almost like a sew-up -- no tire irons. He has to use stem extenders or ridiculously long-stemmed tubes, which are SOP these days anyway.

Thread hijack: I rode with this guy yesterday. 75 miles with lots of climbing in peak temperature of 102F. I felt like an earthworm on a hot sidewalk. This kind of weather is totally un-Portland and saps my strength (what little I have). http://www.kptv.com/story/19195653/portland-breaks-single-day-heat-record-with-102-degrees

I was riding my new Cannondale warranty replacement frame (CAAD 9) and not feeling magical at all. I was about to run out and buy some Lyotard 23s and Weinmann concaves just to see if I could get a few more watts.

When you get a warming like this, the wind kicks up and howls down the Columbia River Gorge. My friend was getting blown sideways a bit on the descents with those deep rims.

One last story, the deal with PDX and its environs is that there are tons of "serious" cyclists -- people who dress up and ride expensive bikes. I mean entire packs, particularly since racing teams are as popular as bowling teams around here. My buddy and I were in the middle of nowhere a couple weekends ago and ran in to some "racers," and it turned in to a ten minute discussion of Chris King hubs, being that one racer-guy was Chris King's technical director. Yesterday, while on a long climb, I took off to see if I could hang with this old fast guy, who was clearly feeling more fresh than me. That was miserable. Meanwhile, my friend hung back and talked to some guy out test riding a Specialized Venge. As it turns out, Specialized and its local flag-ship store had set up a demo trailer, tent, etc., etc. at the top of one of the climbs. It was like this tiny bike country fair at the intersection of these suburban mountain roads. Right here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theoelliot/5488455526/

Except in f****** hot sun and not snow. Really, how often do you run in to a huge Specialized demo when you're out riding hills.

-- Jay Beattie

[DirtRoadie]

Isn't that the point? That WAS "state of the art." Thought to be, in
its day, as good as it gets.
But when compared head-to-head with modern equipment its shortcomings
emerge plain as day.

> In fact the only thing I
> remember reading about shifting, at all, was Eddie Merckx's reply to a
> reporter that asked him if the new brifters meant he didn't miss a
> shift, when he commented that "I haven't missed a shift since I was 8
> years old".

Sure, Frank says the same sort of thing. In either case it not an
objective comment on equipment, it's ego and/or ignorance, plain and
simple.

>
> But more to the point, I see a thread here that seems to imply that
> new age riders may actually be slower then the old guys, but if the
> old guys WERE faster it seems likely that they must not have a problem
> with shifting to the big ring which in turn seems to imply that the
> remark from the new age racers was due to a lack of expertise rather
> then an inherent problem with the shifter.

Again, refer to the article:
"While she initially suspects that it’s a case of mastering the
awkward gear shifters, her verdict after riding both bikes varies
little from the others."

By analogy I'm sure a current elite ski racer who uses now-standard
165cm slalom skis would flounder on the 207cm slalom skis once used.
But strangely, even old fogies who once raced on 207's commonly sing
the praises of the modern skis as being better tools. So, "lack of
expertise" is an untenable straw argument.
"Better" is a more objective quality than you or Frank are willing to
acknowledge. And we were talking about "better" for racing.

> I might add that in 2001 the bike that Lance Armstrong's in the

> mountains was fitted with a down tube front shifterhttp://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bik...

> I never heard that Armstrong had problems with getting into the big
> ring.
> Cheers,
> John B.

And this "proves" what? Even the Procycling article did not suggest
that the shifting itself was the issue - the problem described there
was the need to remove a hand from the bars to shift.
And, yes, LA only used that front-downtube setup in the mountains. As
did Pantani as mentioned in the article. Hampsten and Virenque did
too.
http://perlbal.hi-pi.com/blog-images/204641/gd/1237755412/Richard-Virenque.jpg

But (and I can speak from experience since I still use that setup) on
a long mountain ride the front ring might only be shifted a handful
of times in comparison to hundreds of rear shifts.
But also note that, while obviously having the option, LA (and
Pantani, Hampsten and Virenque) did NOT use a downtube shifter for the
rear even if it might have saved a tad more weight.
The only implication is that a downtube shifter, once state of the
art, is inherently inferior. But those who have used integrated levers
know that already.

DR

[Lou Holtman]

Op 5-8-2012 18:57, DirtRoadie schreef:

Wow , wow don't get so upset. The issue Frank and others have is that
they think brifters are complicated, unreliable and expensive.

Lou

[DirtRoadie]

Nobody's getting upset. I'm just calling things as I see them.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>
> Over-inflation will reduce traction on all but near perfect surfaces.
>
> About the only place you will find near perfect surfaces when cycling
> are certain velodromes - and these velodromes are the only places where
> you will find very high (>10 bar) tire pressures being used.

Well, those may be the only places you _should_ find those very high
pressures used. But I've got one friend who uses those on his
ultralight road bike. Or at least, he did last time he mentioned that
bike's tire pressure.

Same guy who drilled out his seat bolt, BTW.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
>
> When the ProCycling article was mentioned within this group, it was
> Frank and ONLY Frank, who, in his usual smarmy way, began
> mischaracterizing what was stated in the article by suggesting that
> there should NEVER be any concerns about taking hands off the
> handlebars.

That's a lie, of course. I said no such thing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

DirtRoadie wrote:
> On Aug 4, 9:09 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> From the description of the bike bound/bouncing all over the place it
>>> sounds like the speed must have been pretty high, say 35 MPH or maybe
>>> more? According to my calcs, with a compact gear set a 34-11 would
>>> give a speed of 39 KPH (24 MPH) at a cadence of 100 RPM. Wouldn't the
>>> rider already have shifted to the big ring.
>>
>> And I very much doubt that the bike was "sketchy," to use DR's term.
>
> Whatever, dude.
> The PRO rider stated "I couldn’t let go of the handlebars ..."

How frequently are you afraid to let go of one handlebar, DR? Were you
riding back in the early 1980s? Did you really fear shifting to the big
ring?

Or did you avoid riding at all until you could say "Whew! STI has
finally been invented! Now if I start bicycling, I'll be safe!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>
> Wow , wow don't get so upset. The issue Frank and others have is that
> they think brifters are complicated, unreliable and expensive.

A detail correction: It's mostly that I think they're often
unrepairable by most bike mechanics (myself included), especially on tour.

Yes, they're somewhat less reliable than (say) other index shifters, but
if one could open them with a hex key and quickly fix what goes wrong,
that wouldn't be so troublesome. And yes, that's partly (but not
entirely) due to their complication.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane Hebert]

Thanks for the input. One of the questions I had about running softer
tires was whether they would catch more flats. Not pinch flats but
flats that would have been avoided by a harder tire kicking away glass
or other crap. The Turbo Pros that I have been using for a couple of
year have been great. I've had one flat and that was recently with
about 4000km on the tires. But I'm still thinking that this may be an
issue. The ease of changing the tire is an added benefit. They go on
and off by hand with no problem.

My wheels don't require the long stemmed tubes but I carry a couple
spare tubes with longer stems anyway. They would work for me or for
friends with their aero wheels when they need help.

> Thread hijack: I rode with this guy yesterday. 75 miles with lots of climbing in peak temperature of 102F. I felt like an earthworm on a hot sidewalk. This kind of weather is totally un-Portland and saps my strength (what little I have). http://www.kptv.com/story/19195653/portland-breaks-single-day-heat-record-with-102-degrees

Been 30 -34C here the last few days with a humidex at 40. I feel your
pain.

> I was riding my new Cannondale warranty replacement frame (CAAD 9) and not feeling magical at all. I was about to run out and buy some Lyotard 23s and Weinmann concaves just to see if I could get a few more watts.
>
> When you get a warming like this, the wind kicks up and howls down the Columbia River Gorge. My friend was getting blown sideways a bit on the descents with those deep rims.

Windy here too and lots of thunderstorms. No issue with the HEDs. I
don't have the aero wheels. They're pretty much normal profile.

>
> One last story, the deal with PDX and its environs is that there are tons of "serious" cyclists -- people who dress up and ride expensive bikes. I mean entire packs, particularly since racing teams are as popular as bowling teams around here. My buddy and I were in the middle of nowhere a couple weekends ago and ran in to some "racers," and it turned in to a ten minute discussion of Chris King hubs, being that one racer-guy was Chris King's technical director. Yesterday, while on a long climb, I took off to see if I could hang with this old fast guy, who was clearly feeling more fresh than me. That was miserable. Meanwhile, my friend hung back and talked to some guy out test riding a Specialized Venge. As it turns out, Specialized and its local flag-ship store had set up a demo trailer, tent, etc., etc. at the top of one of the climbs. It was like this tiny bike country fair at the intersection of these suburban mountain roads. Right here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theoelliot/5488455526/
>
> Except in f****** hot sun and not snow. Really, how often do you run in to a huge Specialized demo when you're out riding hills.
>
>

LOL. Guy at the shop let me borrow a Venge when he was working on my
bike. Really nice bike. Way out of my price range though. Specialized
comes to his shop a couple of times a year for demo days. But we don't
see the demo setups on the road around here.

[Jay Beattie]

How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?

I've never had traction issues on dry pavement with any decent high pressure tire, and some of the newer tires ride exceptionally well at high pressures. They have supple casings and softer compounds that give them excellent dry grip and even reasonable shock absorption. But yes, a narrow tire is going to have less shock absorption than a Big Apple. That's just the price you pay for a tire that is light and climbs well. I ride with many, many big strong riders who are running pressures higher than 110 psi, and riding with them on very rough roads. None of them have crashed due to loss of traction -- at least not while riding with me. The lighter riders tend to get rattled to death on rough pavement with that kind of pressure and generally run their tires at slightly lower pressure.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 05/08/12 07:45, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> DirtRoadie wrote:

>> 'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change

>> into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "
>>
>> Your dishonesty is noteworthy.
>> DR
>

> ??
>
> So riding an '80s bike is supposedly very dangerous, because one has to
> actually move a hand to shift downtube levers, and the bike supposedly
> jumps all over the place.

The simplest, most logical conclusion I came to was that the road wasn't
smooth. It often happens - and you would know had you more experience -
that on mountain roads where it gets hot in summer, the tar softens and
the road surface can get corrugations near corners.

I know several corners on my local mountain where this can happen, and
indeed the bike will jump all over the place if you are unfortunate
enough to pick the wrong speed and line. I imagine that with your hands
off the bars it would be unnerving. In the old days of downtube
shifters, you had to be more careful where you chose to change gear.

I suppose you may never have tried brifters, therefore inexperienced
enough to not understand all that.

> I suppose you may be young enough and inexperienced enough to believe
> all that. However, your quoting one more sentence does not disprove what
> I quoted.

Ha ha ha. LOL. Frank made a joke. (That was supposed to be funny,
wasn't it, Frank?)

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

"Suggested," Frank. Work on your reading skills.
So you agree that one hand on the bar is often insufficient.
Thank you
Kindly refrain from snide remarks about anyone being fearful to let go
of the bars.
DR

[James]

I rode steel in the 80's with downtube shifters. Racing, training and
touring.

Yes, I'd say you can be unlucky taking a hand off the bars at times.
Sure it doesn't happen often, and "we survived" doing it more often, but
why invite more problems when you don't need to anymore? That's just
stupid.

Oh wait, it's Frank I'm replying to.

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

Frank - Drop the "afraid" shtick!
Does the "Krygowski School of Fearless Cycling" teach that one hand
is ALWAYS sufficient?
If so, you aren't nearly as competent or experienced as you would have
us believe.
Not that we have ever believed it. There is far to much evidence to
the contrary.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 12:50:35 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Tom $herman (-_-)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Over-inflation will reduce traction on all but near perfect surfaces.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> About the only place you will find near perfect surfaces when cycling
>>
>>> are certain velodromes - and these velodromes are the only places where
>>
>>> you will find very high (>10 bar) tire pressures being used.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, those may be the only places you _should_ find those very high
>>
>> pressures used. But I've got one friend who uses those on his
>>
>> ultralight road bike. Or at least, he did last time he mentioned that
>>
>> bike's tire pressure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Same guy who drilled out his seat bolt, BTW.
>
> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?

I imagine he drilled it out using his drill press. He just sent a drill
right down the center axis of the bolt. I don't know if it was the
original bolt, how hard it was, what kind of drill he used, etc. In any
case, he jokingly bragged about it ahead of time ("I even drilled out
the seat bolt!") but not after it broke about 20 miles out into a ride.

Fortunately, we were only a couple miles from a club member's home. We
rode their (he rode standing) and he was able to get a replacement from
that friend.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

The issue was shifting to the big ring. Maybe it was different for you,
James, but on a double crank, that's a pretty quick operation. I never
got scared doing it with _any_ shifter.

I'm curious about when you make that particular shift (onto the big
ring) on your local mountain. Is it not when cresting the top? Are you
really that fast and unstable at that point? Because, IIRC, you're not
riding the high-zoot carbon frame they were pushing - um, praising.

> I suppose you may never have tried brifters, therefore inexperienced
> enough to not understand all that.

Read upthread. I have, indeed, ridden brifters. While I don't prefer
them, we have them in the family, and I ride those bikes from time to
time. Also, I'm the guy who does the bike work.

The question now is, have you ever tried downtube shifters? They're
really not as scary as that article pretended.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
> On 06/08/12 06:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> How frequently are you afraid to let go of one handlebar, DR? Were you
>> riding back in the early 1980s? Did you really fear shifting to the big
>> ring?
>>
>> Or did you avoid riding at all until you could say "Whew! STI has
>> finally been invented! Now if I start bicycling, I'll be safe!"
>>
>
> I rode steel in the 80's with downtube shifters. Racing, training and
> touring.
>
> Yes, I'd say you can be unlucky taking a hand off the bars at times.

For some value of "can," I guess.

> Sure it doesn't happen often, and "we survived" doing it more often...

Admit it, you survived doing it all the time.

> but
> why invite more problems when you don't need to anymore? That's just
> stupid.

Then I'm sure you'll move to electronic shifting this very week, right?
I mean, why invite the problem of having to move your hand all the way
from the tops to the brifters, if you can just install another
pushbutton? That would be exactly as stupid.

Because apparently, nothing is negligible. One must never examine
benefits vs. detriments, nor consider whether one's priorities might be
different from those of a pro racer.

Believe!! And Buy!! And oh, be sure to mock anyone who makes a
different choice.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

How so "suckered you in"? I've been using either down tube or bar end
shifters since I bought my first bike that had multiple gear ratios. I
think that I have a fairly good idea of the pros and cons of how they
work.

>> Thorn Cycles, for example, in one of their brochures points out
>> that while they can fit down tube shifters it is better to be holding
>> the handle bars (they don't seem to mention that since the brifters
>> are more expensive it increases the cost of the machine :-)
>> Cheers,
>> John B.
>
>So is it illegal or immoral to point out potential advantages?
>And is it now the standard (or just YOUR standard) that if something
>is more expensive it CANNOT be "better?"
>DR

You are singularly obtuse. My comment had nothing to do with being
better or worse, nor was I commenting on the morals of recommending
one brand versus another.. I was commenting that when there is a
choice between items Thorn seems to emphasize the more expensive
choice which increases the cost of the bike, which increases the
amount of profit that Thorn makes on the sale.
Cheers,
John B.

[James]

Big or small, makes no difference. Was the course profile shown? No.

Do you know there was no up hill part where the rider would not have
been in the small ring? Perhaps the rider started in the small ring,
shifted down to the smallest rear cog, and then decided to find the big
ring after gathering some speed. You really don't know, and are
clutching at straws.

> I never
> got scared doing it with _any_ shifter.

<sarcasm> Frank, you are my hero. </sarcasm>

> I'm curious about when you make that particular shift (onto the big
> ring) on your local mountain. Is it not when cresting the top?

No, not always.

> Are you
> really that fast and unstable at that point?

Stability generally increases with speed. It might be different on your
planet.

> Because, IIRC, you're not
> riding the high-zoot carbon frame they were pushing - um, praising.

Forks, geometry and stiffness are generally what affect handling. You
still haven't shown me your handling-o-meter, BTW.

My frame is stiff as a board, and I use carbon forks with a 1 1/8" Al
steerer.

I have ridden a high-zoot carbon frame bicycle. It was a little more
twitchy, but not unnerving.

As I said, the most likely cause of ".. the bike was jumping all over
the place" is that the road surface was not smooth. Nothing more.
Nothing less.

>> I suppose you may never have tried brifters, therefore inexperienced
>> enough to not understand all that.
>
> Read upthread. I have, indeed, ridden brifters. While I don't prefer
> them, we have them in the family, and I ride those bikes from time to
> time. Also, I'm the guy who does the bike work.
>
> The question now is, have you ever tried downtube shifters? They're
> really not as scary as that article pretended.

As I have stated, I have raced, trained and toured on a bike with DT
shifters.

I would not want to go back to that era given the choice - even on a
tour. Given the tens of thousands of kilometers I've used my Ergo
levers, and not once had them fail nor maintained them [1], I find them
quite reliable - and safer!

(Cue Frank's mantra "How did we survive before. DANGER! DANGER!").

[1] As an internal part wore out after about 5 years, my previous set
would sometimes double shift going down the cassette. This did not make
them unusable however, and I continued to use them for several months
before replacing both when I got my new frame. I also found them very
easy to dismantle, clean and reassemble, in my curiosity to find the
cause of the problem.

I used STI levers for many years before that, and never had one
catastrophically fail, nor did I maintain the internals. I don't like
the way they wear though, with the main lever rests ever further out.

--
JS.

[John B.]

Nope. I was commenting on whether the remark on it being difficult to
shift into the big chain ring because the bike was jumping around
sounded like a logical remark, and it doesn't.


Cheers,
John B.

[James]

On 06/08/12 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> James wrote:
>> On 06/08/12 06:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> How frequently are you afraid to let go of one handlebar, DR? Were you
>>> riding back in the early 1980s? Did you really fear shifting to the big
>>> ring?
>>>
>>> Or did you avoid riding at all until you could say "Whew! STI has
>>> finally been invented! Now if I start bicycling, I'll be safe!"
>>>
>>
>> I rode steel in the 80's with downtube shifters. Racing, training and
>> touring.
>>
>> Yes, I'd say you can be unlucky taking a hand off the bars at times.
>
> For some value of "can," I guess.

An experienced racer friend recently took a tumble and broke 2 ribs.
He'd taken a hand off the bars to grab a drink. Yes it *can* and *does*
sometimes happen, no matter how often you bleat that it is rare.

>> Sure it doesn't happen often, and "we survived" doing it more often...
>
> Admit it, you survived doing it all the time.

All the time? No, I'm not as good as you - riding your double centuries
without touching the bars.

>> but
>> why invite more problems when you don't need to anymore? That's just
>> stupid.
>
> Then I'm sure you'll move to electronic shifting this very week, right?

You have it arse about, Frank. I'm the guy who said I thought they
would invite more problems.

>
> Believe!! And Buy!! And oh, be sure to mock anyone who makes a different
> choice.
>

As usual, you've got it all arse about, Frank. I'm the guy saying I
_won't_ be rushing out to buy electronic shifters.

Really, Frank, your mantra simply isn't funny on this planet. I don't
know who you're trying to make laugh. Do you live with thirty-six?

--
JS.

[James]

So, you're riding down a hill holding the hoods, and you decide to
select a different gear. You take a hand off the bars and ride over
some uneven road surface. Isn't it possible that the bike would become
a little unsettled and make you feel uneasy about having a hand off the
bars?

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

Oh I see. They couldn't POSSIBLY be recommending the "better" choice.
You seem to be confirming what I asked.
Thank you.
DR

[DirtRoadie]

So you aren't the Frank Krygowski who suggested there should NEVER be

any concerns about taking hands off the

handlebars?
That Frank said:
"I am astonished, though, that someone can be afraid to take one hand
off the handlebars of any functional bike. Gosh, how did we
survive?"

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/0c8a2321cb09da75

That SOUNDS like your smarminess and certainly suggested that there
should NEVER be any concerns about taking a hand off the handlebars.

If you are not the same Frank Krygowski, then I was mistaken.
You might consider doing something so that the group members can tell
whether a post originates with him or you .

DR

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:18:36 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You apparently share Frank's "context" impairment.
DR

[John B.]

rOn Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:57:28 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie

You seem adapt at missing the point. The fact that Eddy Mercks was
making an arrogant remark - after all at the time he was the best bike
racer in the world - is not the point. The point is that I never read
about any difficulty in shifting down tube shifters. Not a one; never
read a comment like, "gee, I'd have won except I missed a shift on
that downhill stretch".

>>
>> But more to the point, I see a thread here that seems to imply that
>> new age riders may actually be slower then the old guys, but if the
>> old guys WERE faster it seems likely that they must not have a problem
>> with shifting to the big ring which in turn seems to imply that the
>> remark from the new age racers was due to a lack of expertise rather
>> then an inherent problem with the shifter.
>Again, refer to the article:
>"While she initially suspects that it’s a case of mastering the
>awkward gear shifters, her verdict after riding both bikes varies
>little from the others."
>
>By analogy I'm sure a current elite ski racer who uses now-standard
>165cm slalom skis would flounder on the 207cm slalom skis once used.
>But strangely, even old fogies who once raced on 207's commonly sing
>the praises of the modern skis as being better tools. So, "lack of
>expertise" is an untenable straw argument.
>"Better" is a more objective quality than you or Frank are willing to
>acknowledge. And we were talking about "better" for racing.
>

So what would you call it? The "old guys" with their flexible steel
frames didn't mention any difficulties in shifting; the "new kids on
the block" with their super carbon bikes appear to be afraid of the
old bikes. What can it be other then the "old Guys" had more
expertise.

But more to the point, there was a thread here about race speed
dropping due, it was alleged, to modern riders not being dopers.
However if the old Guys were actually faster, as the article claimed,
it implies that they were faster both going up hills and coming down
hills, but they didn't complain about the difficulties in shifting,
did they.

>> I might add that in 2001 the bike that Lance Armstrong's in the
>> mountains was fitted with a down tube front shifterhttp://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bik...
>
>> I never heard that Armstrong had problems with getting into the big
>> ring.
>> Cheers,
>> John B.
>
>And this "proves" what? Even the Procycling article did not suggest
>that the shifting itself was the issue - the problem described there
>was the need to remove a hand from the bars to shift.
>And, yes, LA only used that front-downtube setup in the mountains. As
>did Pantani as mentioned in the article. Hampsten and Virenque did
>too.
>http://perlbal.hi-pi.com/blog-images/204641/gd/1237755412/Richard-Virenque.jpg
>
>But (and I can speak from experience since I still use that setup) on
>a long mountain ride the front ring might only be shifted a handful
>of times in comparison to hundreds of rear shifts.
>But also note that, while obviously having the option, LA (and
>Pantani, Hampsten and Virenque) did NOT use a downtube shifter for the
>rear even if it might have saved a tad more weight.
>The only implication is that a downtube shifter, once state of the
>art, is inherently inferior. But those who have used integrated levers
>know that already.
>
>DR

You are still being obtuse. The quoted article referred to shifting
onto the big ring, something you say happens a few times in the hills.
and that was the point. But how fast are you going when you make these
shifts? Fast enough for the bike to be bounding around on the road? My
guess is that having finally made the top of the hill in the lowest
gear you have that you shifted onto the big ring vary soon after to
rolled over the top of the climb at a relatively slow speed. Not
waited until the bike is leaping about which certainly implies a
pretty fast speed, very likely more then you could reach using the
small chain ring on the level.

The point wasn't the inferiority/superiority of shifters it is the
veracity of the "Ohoooo, I couldn't take my hands off the bar"

Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 5, 2012 12:50:35 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Tom $herman (-_-) > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Over-inflation will reduce traction on all but near perfect surfaces.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > About the only place you will find near perfect surfaces when cycling
>>
>> > are certain velodromes - and these velodromes are the only places where
>>
>> > you will find very high (>10 bar) tire pressures being used.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, those may be the only places you _should_ find those very high
>>
>> pressures used. But I've got one friend who uses those on his
>>
>> ultralight road bike. Or at least, he did last time he mentioned that
>>
>> bike's tire pressure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Same guy who drilled out his seat bolt, BTW.
>
>How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?

(well, you asked :-)
You drill a hole lengthwise through the bolt and as for "hardened
steel" the strongest normal US bolt is a Grade 8 which has a tensile
strength of 150,000 PSI and a hardness of RC 32 which is approximately
the hardness of the steel tube from which the frame is built. Columbus
SL for example is about RC 40. Not difficult to drill at all.

>
>I've never had traction issues on dry pavement with any decent high pressure tire, and some of the newer tires ride exceptionally well at high pressures. They have supple casings and softer compounds that give them excellent dry grip and even reasonable shock absorption. But yes, a narrow tire is going to have less shock absorption than a Big Apple. That's just the price you pay for a tire that is light and climbs well. I ride with many, many big strong riders who are running pressures higher than 110 psi, and riding with them on very rough roads. None of them have crashed due to loss of traction -- at least not while riding with me. The lighter riders tend to get rattled to death on rough pavement with that kind of pressure and generally run their tires at slightly lower pressure.
>
>-- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>
>

Cheers,
John B.

[James]

On 06/08/12 12:36, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?
>
> (well, you asked :-)
> You drill a hole lengthwise through the bolt and as for "hardened
> steel" the strongest normal US bolt is a Grade 8 which has a tensile
> strength of 150,000 PSI and a hardness of RC 32 which is approximately
> the hardness of the steel tube from which the frame is built. Columbus
> SL for example is about RC 40. Not difficult to drill at all.

Some juvenile delinquent snapped the whip antenna off my jeep a while
back. I had quite a bit of difficulty trying to drill the SS whip out
of the threaded boss.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/230752602725

Hardness isn't everything, as I'm sure you know. SS can be a bitch for
the home tinkerer to work with.

--
JS.

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 5, 8:21 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rOn Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:57:28 -0700 (PDT), DirtRoadie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well at least we agreed that it was his ego speaking.
With Frank it could be ego OR ignorance.

> The point is that I never read
> about any difficulty in shifting down tube shifters. Not a one; never
> read a comment like, "gee, I'd have won except I missed a shift on
> that downhill stretch".

Whoooooooosh!
That is the point! Nobody thought or even had reason to suspect they
were marginal until something better came along.
Now that that has happened, only the fools are left thinking that
there is still nothing better. Yes you can still ride a bike with
them. You can probably even enjoy yourself.
But please don't turn all Frankie on us and ignore the things
integrated shifters do MUCH better. Including being able to shift
where it couldn't be reasonably done with DT antiques. The focus was
racing but even recreational cyclist can now benefit from being able
to shift while climbing (or sprinting) out of the saddle, while
braking hard, while cornering, or in adverse conditions such as very
rough surfaces or very gusty winds. If those are of no benefit to you,
go for a ride with Frank so you can chat about how everything was
just so perfect 20, 30 or 40 years ago and EVERYTHING since then is
just marketing.

>
>
> >> But more to the point, I see a thread here that seems to imply that
> >> new age riders may actually be slower then the old guys, but if the
> >> old guys WERE faster it seems likely that they must not have a problem
> >> with shifting to the big ring which in turn seems to imply that the
> >> remark from the new age racers was due to a lack of expertise rather
> >> then an inherent problem with the shifter.
> >Again, refer to the article:
> >"While she initially suspects that it s a case of mastering the
> >awkward gear shifters, her verdict after riding both bikes varies
> >little from the others."
>
> >By analogy I'm sure a current elite ski racer who uses now-standard
> >165cm slalom skis would flounder on the 207cm slalom skis once used.
> >But strangely, even old fogies who once raced on 207's commonly sing
> >the praises of the modern skis as being better tools.  So, "lack of
> >expertise" is an untenable straw argument.
> >"Better" is a more objective quality than you or Frank are willing to
> >acknowledge. And we were talking about "better" for racing.
>
> So what would you call it? The "old guys" with their flexible steel
> frames didn't mention any difficulties in shifting; the "new kids on
> the block" with their super carbon bikes appear to be afraid of the
> old bikes. What can it be other then the "old Guys" had more
> expertise.

Let me get very, very technical here - The old bikes "suck" -
comparatively speaking.
The new bikes are better "tools." They are more capable in virtually
every way. You seem to share Frank's proclivity for unjustifiably
alleging "fear."
That is a shame.

> But more to the point, there was a thread here about race speed
> dropping due, it was alleged, to modern riders not being dopers.
> However if the old Guys were actually faster, as the article claimed,
> it implies that they were faster both going up hills and coming down
> hills, but they didn't complain about the difficulties in shifting,
> did they.

See my point above. The whoosh part. Yes and before I got my Schwinn
varsity I thought my Sturmery Archer 3 speed was about as good as it
gets. Never complained once about it.
And contrary to your misunderstanding, the "racers slowing down"
article did not claim "the old guys were actually faster" it was
about how the speed of riders had appeared to be dropping from the
artificial high point that had been reached, arguably as a result of
decreasing "enhancement."

>
>
> >> I might add that in 2001 the bike that Lance Armstrong's in the
> >> mountains was fitted with a down tube front shifterhttp://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/tour-de-france-winning-bik...
>
> >> I never heard that Armstrong had problems with getting into the big
> >> ring.
> >> Cheers,
> >> John B.
>
> >And this "proves" what? Even the Procycling article did not suggest
> >that the shifting itself was the issue - the problem described there
> >was the need to remove a hand from the bars to shift.
> >And, yes, LA only used that front-downtube setup in the mountains. As
> >did Pantani as mentioned in the article. Hampsten and Virenque did
> >too.

> >http://perlbal.hi-pi.com/blog-images/204641/gd/1237755412/Richard-Vir...

>
> >But (and I can speak from experience since I still use that setup) on
> >a long mountain ride the front ring might only be shifted a handful
> >of  times in comparison to hundreds of rear shifts.
> >But also note that, while obviously having the option, LA (and
> >Pantani, Hampsten and Virenque) did NOT use a downtube shifter for the
> >rear even if it might have saved a tad more weight.
> >The only implication is that a downtube shifter, once state of the
> >art, is inherently inferior. But those who have used integrated levers
> >know that already.
>
> >DR
>
> You are still being obtuse.

To the contrary I'm quite acute.

> The quoted article referred to shifting
> onto the big ring, something you say happens a few times in the hills.
> and that was the point.

Hardly. That's your new spin.You ignore the bigger picture. Downtube
shifters front OR rear are not nearly as well suited to "racing" type
riding.
As mentioned a few riders (at one time) retained front DT shifters.
NONE retained a rear DT shifter when the better alternative appeared.
And let's skip the "well they have to ride what the component sponsor
sells." If that were true they wouldn't be using front DT shifters
either.

> But how fast are you going when you make these
> shifts? Fast enough for the bike to be bounding around on the road?

Depends on the surface. Depends on the flexibility of the bike too.
Speed is also relevant when cornering (i.e. leaning the bike over). I
do NOT do that one handed.
With integrated levers I can shift ANYTIME I want to. Fast, slow,
braking, cornering, rough road,smooth road, on the dirt, in the wind,
seated, out of the saddle.
On any given ride these days, I make MANY shifts that I would not/
could not be making with downtube shifters. Maybe where that is most
obvious is when I take a .3 mi. shortcut on rocky dirt on my way out
of town. With DT shifter I would be limited to pretty much "single
speeding" that section. Ever notice that mountain bikes have NEVER
used DT shifters- even though road bikes still had them when MTB's
appeared?

>My
> guess is that having finally made the top of the hill in the lowest
> gear you have that you shifted onto the big ring vary soon after to
> rolled over the top of the climb at a relatively slow speed. Not
> waited until the bike is leaping about which certainly implies a
> pretty fast speed, very likely more then you could reach using the
> small chain ring on the level.

Make up whatever scenario you want to. It really doesn't matter.
There are all sort of things one can (and must) do to accommodate a
bike that cannot be shifted at will.
But I'll take the bike that does NOT require those accommodations.
BTDT -ain't never going back for my primary riding. In fact I doubt
I'll ever own a bike with DT shifters again.
Barends are cheap and functional, and I have used them quite bit. But
they are still far behind and, given a choice, I won't do much of my
riding with them either.

> The point wasn't the inferiority/superiority of shifters it is the
> veracity of the "Ohoooo, I couldn't take my hands off the bar"

Ride much? I didn't think so. You'd rather make up straw scenarios.
Get Frank to teach you how to chant "DANGER, DANGER" too.
DR

[Jay Beattie]

To me, the story is unbelievable. Back in the drillium days, we bought SRP titanium bits -- or whoever was selling those things in the '70s-'80s. They were the rage by the early '80s, and Campy had even started incorporating them in to the SR derailleurs, pedals, etc.

-- Jay Beattie.

[James]

On 06/08/12 14:53, Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>>> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>>>> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?

> To me, the story is unbelievable. Back in the drillium days, we
> bought SRP titanium bits -- or whoever was selling those things in
> the '70s-'80s. They were the rage by the early '80s, and Campy had
> even started incorporating them in to the SR derailleurs, pedals,
> etc.
>

Indeed. I recall there was a fella back in my school days who would
come out with the most fantastic stories - supposed to be real life -
and as his surname was Harvey, we call his stories and all others too
good to be true, Harvey stories. It would seem Frank has a few Harvey
stories up his sleeve.

--
JS.

[Joe Riel]

Seems like some idiots still do this:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15086

That saved him 0.773 gram. Amazing.

--
Joe Riel

[James]

On 06/08/12 15:23, Joe Riel wrote:
> Jay Beattie<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> writes:
>
>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:53:03 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
>>> On 06/08/12 12:36, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>>>
>>>> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how
>>>>> do drill that hardened steel?

>> To me, the story is unbelievable. Back in the drillium days, we
>> bought SRP titanium bits -- or whoever was selling those things in
>> the '70s-'80s. They were the rage by the early '80s, and Campy had
>> even started incorporating them in to the SR derailleurs, pedals,
>> etc.
>>
>> -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Seems like some idiots still do this:
>
> http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15086
>
> That saved him 0.773 gram. Amazing.
>

"Still"? Well, that was 2005 :)

"Yes :oops: i know i am crazy, i didnt drill the bolt completly through,
left 1mm."

He's crazy, he knows it, and isn't afraid to announce it. I'd give him
points for that. Many nutters don't even know it, let alone admit to it
in public.

--
JS.

[John B.]

You don't read well, do you. So once again into the fray, "when there

is a choice between items Thorn seems to emphasize the more

expensive".

Now do you see a comment regarding better or worse? I don't,

It appears that you either (1) don't comprehend what you read -
dyslexia perhaps, or (2) you are deliberately misinterpreting what you
read in order to provoke an argument.

Care to tell which one it is?
Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 11:59:29 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So I'm riding down a hill, like the clappers of hell and the bike is
bouncing and wiggling all over the road and I'm reluctant to take my
hand off the bar to shift. Sure, makes perfect sense.

But tell us, when was the last you were going down hill so fast that
the bike was unstable; in the small chain ring? And, although the bike
was already bouncing about so bad that you were scared to take a hand
off the bars.... and you decided to shift to a higher gear so you can
go even faster?
Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

I was comment on a remark that the cyclist was reluctant to take
his/her hand off the bars to shift into the big ring.

How does context enter into that.

Cheers,
John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:53:03 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm sorry to be blunt but you should have no problems drilling the
commonly encountered types of Stainless 304, 318, 18-9, etc. The
common grades of stainless are relatively soft - RB 93 - 95,
considerably softer then most carbon steels however it work hardens
easily. The secret to working stainless is to keep the cutting speed
down and the feed pressure high which ensures that it doesn't work
harden.

But back to seat post clamp bolts. I happen to have a brand new,
chrome plated, seat clamp bolt, for a steel frame bike and I just went
out and drilled a bit into the end. My guess is that it is just a mild
steel bolt as it certainly drills with no particular effort.

Cheers,
John B.

[DirtRoadie]

Precisely.

> It appears that you either (1) don't comprehend what you read -
> dyslexia perhaps, or (2) you are deliberately misinterpreting what you
> read in order to provoke an argument.
>
> Care to tell which one it is?
> Cheers,
> John B.

Yes indeed, it is your blind ignorance. (being unaware by failing to
see )
You see two options in shifters. One is better and more expensive.
Imagine that!
You focus solely on "more expensive."
You seem to disregard "better" and/or believe that is not possible.
After all nobody complained about DT shifters- they must be perfect.
By your logic, integrated levers, therefore, cannot be "better."

Although keep in mind that SOMEONE was inspired by SOMETHING to move
beyond DT shifters, and as a result, integrated levers have become
ubiquitous among "performance" riders, pro or otherwise. (and the
focus of the Procycling article was comparing "performance" bikes, not
pedal powered rickshaws )
Correct?

You seem to be caught up in the belief of a vast universal evil
marketing conspiracy.
Or is there some other point you were trying to make?

While we are at it, tell us about YOUR extensive experience with
brifters/integrated shifters.
Bob Dylan stated it nicely - don't criticize what you can't
understand.
You and Frank need to realize that the times, they have-a-changed.

DR

[DirtRoadie]

If you get hung up on a phrase and try to microanalyze that, you lose
the meaning of what was being conveyed.
See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

And here's the relevant content:
" ....the riders don’t hold back when describing
the Pinarello’s shortcomings.
Flexibility is a dominant issue, but in
surprising ways. It’s not just the slender steel
frame that’s lacking stiffness, it’s also the
elegant quill stem, the hand-built wheels and
the steel forks. As riders set off en danseuse
you can actually see the whole bike flex.
This doesn’t just affect climbing or sprint
efforts. On the descents, the riders struggle
with the spongy Pinarello. 'If you go too fast
on the corners and don’t pick a good line, it’s
very hard to rectify,' Soupe reports.

Other unnerving factors on the descent
include the tricky issue of having gear shifters
on the downtube. 'It was very dangerous.
I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to change
into the big ring because the bike was

jumping all over the place,' Kneisky explains.
'The brakes were also very slow to respond.' "

If all you see is "jumping all over the place" you have missed the
overall content which merely notes a clear shortcoming of DT shifters
peripherally with regard to the bigger picture of an overly flexible
bike."

DR

[Joe Riel]

James <james.e...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 06/08/12 15:23, Joe Riel wrote:
>> Jay Beattie<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:53:03 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/12 12:36, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>>>>
>>>>> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how
>>>>>> do drill that hardened steel?
>
>>> To me, the story is unbelievable. Back in the drillium days, we
>>> bought SRP titanium bits -- or whoever was selling those things in
>>> the '70s-'80s. They were the rage by the early '80s, and Campy had
>>> even started incorporating them in to the SR derailleurs, pedals,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> -- Jay Beattie.
>>
>> Seems like some idiots still do this:
>>
>> http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15086
>>
>> That saved him 0.773 gram. Amazing.
>>
>
> "Still"? Well, that was 2005 :)
>
> "Yes :oops: i know i am crazy, i didnt drill the bolt completly
> through, left 1mm."

You misinterpreted his comment. He meant that he's crazy for
not drilling it all the way through---probably sacrified a
podium placing 8-).

> He's crazy, he knows it, and isn't afraid to announce it. I'd give
> him points for that. Many nutters don't even know it, let alone admit
> to it in public.

--

Joe Riel

[DirtRoadie]

On Aug 5, 11:23 pm, Joe Riel <j...@san.rr.com> wrote:

> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> writes:
> > On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:53:03 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
> >> On 06/08/12 12:36, John B. wrote:
>
> >> > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>

> >> > <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com>  wrote:

>
> >> >> How do you even drill a seat bolt?  What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?
>
> >> > (well, you asked :-)
>
> >> > You drill a hole lengthwise through the bolt and as for "hardened
>
> >> > steel" the strongest normal US bolt is a Grade 8 which has a tensile
>
> >> > strength of 150,000 PSI and a hardness of RC 32 which is approximately
>
> >> > the hardness of the steel tube from which the frame is built. Columbus
>
> >> > SL  for example is about RC 40. Not difficult to drill at all.
>
> >> Some juvenile delinquent snapped the whip antenna off my jeep a while
>
> >> back.  I had quite a bit of difficulty trying to drill the SS whip out
>
> >> of the threaded boss.
>
> >>http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/230752602725
>
> >> Hardness isn't everything, as I'm sure you know.  SS can be a bitch for
>
> >> the home tinkerer to work with.
>
> >> --
>
> >> JS.
>
> > To me, the story is unbelievable.  Back in the drillium days, we bought SRP titanium bits -- or whoever was selling those things in the '70s-'80s. They were the rage by the early '80s, and Campy had even started incorporating them in to the SR derailleurs, pedals, etc.
>
> > -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Seems like some idiots still do this:
>
> http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15086
>
> That saved him 0.773 gram.  Amazing.
>
> --
> Joe Riel

It's also possible that this idiot and Frank's idiot are one and the
same.
In any case, nowhere have we seen anyone advocating this practice.
DR

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
> On 06/08/12 10:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> James wrote:

>>> FK wrote:
>>
>> The issue was shifting to the big ring.
>
> Big or small, makes no difference. Was the course profile shown? No.
>
> Do you know there was no up hill part where the rider would not have
> been in the small ring? Perhaps the rider started in the small ring,
> shifted down to the smallest rear cog, and then decided to find the big
> ring after gathering some speed. You really don't know, and are
> clutching at straws.

:-) And you really don't know if the road was not smooth, or if
softened tar had corrugated the road surface. You are clutching at straws!

All we know is this: A young racer said "Other unnerving factors on the

descent include the tricky issue of having gear shifters on the
downtube. 'It was very dangerous. I couldn’t let go of the handlebars to
change into the big ring because the bike was jumping all over the place,' "

Gear shifters on the down tube. Very dangerous. Wow.

>> I never
>> got scared doing it with _any_ shifter.
>

>> I'm curious about when you make that particular shift (onto the big
>> ring) on your local mountain. Is it not when cresting the top?
>
> No, not always.
>
>> Are you
>> really that fast and unstable at that point?
>
> Stability generally increases with speed. It might be different on your
> planet.

Wait - so are you talking aobut being afraid of shifting a downtube
shifter when going _slow_?? Sheesh!

>> Because, IIRC, you're not
>> riding the high-zoot carbon frame they were pushing - um, praising.
>
> Forks, geometry and stiffness are generally what affect handling. You
> still haven't shown me your handling-o-meter, BTW.
>
> My frame is stiff as a board, and I use carbon forks with a 1 1/8" Al
> steerer.
>
> I have ridden a high-zoot carbon frame bicycle. It was a little more
> twitchy, but not unnerving.

Wait - so are you saying that a modern high-zoot carbon frame bicycle is
_less_ stable?

Really, James, I think you should outline your arguments so you don't
lose track! ;-)

>> The question now is, have you ever tried downtube shifters? They're
>> really not as scary as that article pretended.
>
> As I have stated, I have raced, trained and toured on a bike with DT
> shifters.
>
> I would not want to go back to that era given the choice - even on a
> tour.

And that's perfectly fine. But do you realize that others may have
rational reasons for making a different choice? They should not be
dissuaded by implications of "Danger! Danger!" as in that article.

> Given the tens of thousands of kilometers I've used my Ergo
> levers, and not once had them fail nor maintained them [1], I find them

> quite reliable - and safer! ...

>
> [1] As an internal part wore out after about 5 years, my previous set

> would sometimes double shift going down the cassette...

OK. One worn part in 5 years is fairly reliable, I guess.

OTOH, I now have bar end shifters on all my road bikes. The oldest are
now about 30 years old, several are about 25. None has ever had a part
wear out, other than shift cables. I prefer my level of reliability. YMMV.

> This did not make
> them unusable however, and I continued to use them for several months
> before replacing both when I got my new frame. I also found them very
> easy to dismantle, clean and reassemble, in my curiosity to find the
> cause of the problem.

But you had to replace them, not just repair them? After just five
years? I _definitely_ prefer my level of reliability and repairability!

Also, I've never been fond of planned obsolescence.

> I used STI levers for many years before that, and never had one
> catastrophically fail, nor did I maintain the internals. I don't like
> the way they wear though, with the main lever rests ever further out.


--

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

James wrote:
> On 06/08/12 11:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> James wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I'd say you can be unlucky taking a hand off the bars at times.
>>
>> For some value of "can," I guess.
>
> An experienced racer friend recently took a tumble and broke 2 ribs.
> He'd taken a hand off the bars to grab a drink. Yes it *can* and *does*
> sometimes happen, no matter how often you bleat that it is rare.

I'll note that the action of taking a drink is far more disruptive to
bike control than merely shifting gears.

However, I don't see anyone here suggesting it's foolish to keep using
water bottles. I don't see anyone saying "Why invite problems when you
don't need to anymore? Just use a Camelback!"

And to prevent some of the usual nonsense: I don't care if anyone
chooses to use a Camelback. Use what you like! But for goodness sake,
don't pretend any other choice is archaic and dangerous, OK?

>>> Sure it doesn't happen often, and "we survived" doing it more often...
>>
>> Admit it, you survived doing it all the time.
>
> All the time? No, I'm not as good as you - riding your double centuries
> without touching the bars.

You may not be as good as I am, James. It's hard to tell from here.
But still, I'm betting you survived doing it absolutely _every_ time you
took your hands off the bars! Call it a hunch, if you like. ;-)

>>> but
>>> why invite more problems when you don't need to anymore? That's just
>>> stupid.
>>
>> Then I'm sure you'll move to electronic shifting this very week, right?
>
> You have it arse about, Frank. I'm the guy who said I thought they would
> invite more problems.
>
>>
>> Believe!! And Buy!! And oh, be sure to mock anyone who makes a different
>> choice.
>>
>
> As usual, you've got it all arse about, Frank. I'm the guy saying I
> _won't_ be rushing out to buy electronic shifters.

Yet you don't realize that your position on electronic shifters is
inconsistent with your argument for integrated shifters like STI. For
STI you say "Why invite problems (like actually moving your hands!) when
you don't need to any more?" For electronics, you seem to be saying
"Not worth it" even though they would remove even more of the need to
move your hands.

If you can think of an argument against electronic shifters, you should
be able to appreciate a defense of non-STI shifters.

And again, I think you need to outline your arguments so you can review
them before posting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 7:53:03 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
>> On 06/08/12 12:36, John B. wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:42:32 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
>>
>>> <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> How do you even drill a seat bolt? What's to drill, and how do drill that hardened steel?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> (well, you asked :-)
>>
>>> You drill a hole lengthwise through the bolt and as for "hardened
>>
>>> steel" the strongest normal US bolt is a Grade 8 which has a tensile
>>
>>> strength of 150,000 PSI and a hardness of RC 32 which is approximately
>>
>>> the hardness of the steel tube from which the frame is built. Columbus
>>
>>> SL for example is about RC 40. Not difficult to drill at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Some juvenile delinquent snapped the whip antenna off my jeep a while
>>
>> back. I had quite a bit of difficulty trying to drill the SS whip out
>>
>> of the threaded boss.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/230752602725
>>
>>
>>
>> Hardness isn't everything, as I'm sure you know. SS can be a bitch for
>>
>> the home tinkerer to work with.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> JS.
>
> To me, the story is unbelievable.

I was going to say: Send me a private email and I'll tell you the guy's
name and a little more about him. But I see that Joe has found an
online post proving it should NOT be unbelievable.

There really are people who go after obviously negligible advantages.

--
- Frank Krygowski