Interesting blog entry (and comments/replies) from Jan Heine's blog

[PATRICK MOORE]

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/riding-fast-is-fun/

I personally -- to quote one commentator -- would rather stab myself
in the eye than ride 600 km, but this little essay has some good
points about the joy of riding fast, but on intelligent bikes. Several
RBW references in the correspondence, too.
--
"When in Rome, do as they done in Milledgeville."

Flannery O'Connor

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[Aaron Young]

Yes, a great conversation in the comments.  I personally thought Jan's suggestion of a 665b version of the Roadeo was an excellent idea.  What a bike that would be!

Aaron Y

Vancouver, WA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

[ted]

Perhaps it could go to 650b in the smaller sizes (like on the Hillsen)
but I fear they wouldn't sell that many. The Rodeo is targeted at club
racer riding, and for that it sorta makes sense to have the same size
wheels as everybody else.

On Aug 5, 2:24 pm, Aaron Young <1ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, a great conversation in the comments.  I personally thought Jan's
> suggestion of a 665b version of the Roadeo was an excellent idea.  What a
> bike that would be!
>
> Aaron Y
> Vancouver, WA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012, PATRICK MOORE wrote:
> >http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/riding-fast-is-fun/
>
> > I personally -- to quote one commentator -- would rather stab myself
> > in the eye than ride 600 km, but this little essay has some good
> > points about the joy of riding fast, but on intelligent bikes. Several
> > RBW references in the correspondence, too.
> > --
> > "When in Rome, do as they done in Milledgeville."
>
> > Flannery O'Connor
>
> > -------------------------
> > Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
> > For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
> >http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
> > -------------------------
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:;>
> > .

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;>.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 16:04 -0700, ted wrote:
> Perhaps it could go to 650b in the smaller sizes (like on the Hillsen)
> but I fear they wouldn't sell that many. The Rodeo is targeted at club
> racer riding, and for that it sorta makes sense to have the same size
> wheels as everybody else.

Well, it can't be for wheel swaps, that doesn't happen on club rides,
but for borrowing a tube? I know that for most of my bikes there's no
chance anyone else on the ride will have the right size tube, so I carry
two or three. It's really not a big deal.

[RonaTD]

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 6:04:46 PM UTC-5, ted wrote:

 The Rodeo is targeted at club
racer riding, and for that it sorta makes sense to have the same size
wheels as everybody else.

While I personally have no problem carrying my own tubes and patches (and an honest to goodness pump for crying out loud...), I've been thinking recently about what to get for my daughter who has expressed an interest in club riding at college. I had exactly the same thought - she's only 5'3" and short legged at that, and I think 650B is the bees' knees, but for what she wants to do, I think 700C will be better. Steve says there won't be wheel swaps, but her frame will have a lot of clearance. If one of her cohorts bangs a wheel out of true, she'll be able to put it in her frame and they can all ride home :-)  (Don't laugh ... it could have happened with me and a friend. Fortunately I was able to bang his wheel back straight enough that it would fit in his carbon fork.)

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 18:30 -0700, RonaTD wrote:

> Steve says there won't be wheel swaps, but her frame will have a lot
> of clearance. If one of her cohorts bangs a wheel out of true, she'll
> be able to put it in her frame and they can all ride home :-)

And she'll have Shimano 10 and the friend will have Campagnolo 11 or
SRAM or maybe even Dura Ace 11, and it will be the back wheel because it
always is the back wheel, and the chance of shifting working correctly
will be slight. In practice what happens in a case like this is
somebody pulls out a cell phone and calls for a ride home.

You don't spec your bike on the off chance of a once-in-a-lifetime freak
like this.

[ted]

Back when I raced, I did use other peoples wheels a few times. That
sort of group ride is a bit of a hive thing in some ways and having
similar sized wheels and similar gears seems to work well. For tires
there is a lot more variety and better availability w/ the 700c size.
Particularly in the 35mm and under sizes the Rodeo allows. I never met
a club racer who even thought about toe overlap. They aren't likely to
be interested in more clearance for bags between the seat or bars and
the tires. So for selling a racish oriented bike I do think staying
with 700c makes some sense.

Now I am not saying any of you shouldn't prefer a 650b bike, or that
it wouldn't be neat if Riv offered that option in a Rodeo or Rodeo
like bike. If I could afford yet another bike I would be tempted by
such a thing myself. I just don't think they are likely to do that,
and that it might not sell all that well if they did. I do expect that
if you rang them up and ask for a custom thats basically a 650b rodeo
they would fix you right up.

I wonder how the 56, and 58 Hillsens (650b) sell relative to the 57
and 59 (700c)?
Thats gotta be the most direct marketing comparison of identically
themed bikes with those two wheel sizes.

[Michael_S]

As much as I enjoy the technical content of BQ I often struggle with Jan's "strong negative opinions"  with most bikes/parts that are competition for his products or what he rides. 

He also suggests that we all would be happier on thin tubed standard diameter frames, not offering the ideas that we are all not slight of build like he is. Any of us who are larger in size but as fit will get the same effect on larger/thicker  tubes that are more proportionate to our size.   

~mike

Carlsbad Ca

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 01:56 -0700, Matt Beebe wrote:
> Bicycles are open, while modern automobiles are black, disposable
> boxes.

How long do most riders keep the same bicycle? Looking at folks I know
in the bike clubs I belong to, I get the feeling people keep their cars
longer than their bicycles.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 20:46 -0700, Michael_S wrote:
> As much as I enjoy the technical content of BQ I often struggle with
> Jan's "strong negative opinions" with most bikes/parts that are
> competition for his products or what he rides.

If you are insinuating Jan disses products because they compete with
things Compass sells, I would have to strongly disagree. He doesn't
like things because Compass sells them; Compass sells things because he
likes them, and often because there is no other source or similar
product.

>
> He also suggests that we all would be happier on thin tubed standard
> diameter frames, not offering the ideas that we are all not slight of
> build like he is. Any of us who are larger in size but as fit will get
> the same effect on larger/thicker tubes that are more proportionate
> to our size.

Not necessarily. At 200 lb, I am a LOT heavier than Jan, and anything
but "slight of build". I've owned two OS-diameter Rivendells that I
have sold and replaced with standard-diameter frames of the same tubing
gauge, primarily because they were too stiff for me. The tubing is 1
size thicker than what Jan prefers; I believe the performance for me is
similar, if not identical, to what Jan experiences.

[Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery]

I commend Jan for following his passion and making a very welcome business out of it. I'd urge every interested person to read his blog and his paper publication and carefully consider what he and his contributors have written.

But after that, take what has been written with a grain of salt. I promise that every one of Jan's opinions is perfectly true - for Jan, for today. Some others may share aspects of Jan's body type, riding style, personality, or general preferences, and some chords may ring true. But for others, there's no need to wear Jan's clothes if they don't fit.

I'm thinking of commuters and recreational riders who ride 6000+ miles per year on, say, a tire that Jan didn't review favorably or on a bike that doesn't have Jan's optimal steering geometry (i.e. most bikes). I'm thinking of people who ride relatively slowly for an hour or two most days taking pictures, but would never think PBP, or even a 200k, sounds like a good time.

Jan is a sort of like a famous wine connoisseur. If he says Wine X is good but Wine Y is swill, and you try both and find your preferences are the exact opposite, then his opinion is worthless to you, and you shouldn't lose sleep worrying that you're not tasting your wines correctly.

[jimD]

I keep the good ones forever.
Still have my Dave Porter custom and that's over 20 years old.
I'm keeping my Riv Custom until I wear out.
The Riv is so good I've fantasized having a duplicate made as a backup.
-JimD

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 07:41 -0700, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote:
>
> Jan is a sort of like a famous wine connoisseur. If he says Wine X is
> good but Wine Y is swill, and you try both and find your preferences
> are the exact opposite, then his opinion is worthless to you, and you
> shouldn't lose sleep worrying that you're not tasting your wines
> correctly.
>

I can't say much about wine critics, but a film critic whose preferences
are exactly opposite to yours can provide some of the best film reviews.
If I know reliably if he loves it I will hate it and if he hates it I
will love it, I can go to the films he hates with great confidence I
will have a wonderful time.

> I'm thinking of commuters and recreational riders who ride 6000+ miles
> per year on, say, a tire that Jan didn't review favorably or on a bike
> that doesn't have Jan's optimal steering geometry (i.e. most bikes).
> I'm thinking of people who ride relatively slowly for an hour or two
> most days taking pictures, but would never think PBP, or even a 200k,
> sounds like a good time.

There is a trade-off with tires. The features that make a tire
flat-resistant also make it slow, and the features that contribute to a
tire being fast often result in a rapid wearing, vulnerable tire. If
you ride slowly taking pictures and would rather get a root canal than a
flat tire, the last thing you want is a fast, supple, rapid wearing
expensive tire with no puncture resistance.

> But for others, there's no need to wear Jan's clothes if they don't
> fit.

Certainly not.

[robert zeidler]

Well said Jim.

I think BQ is an excellent publication, particularly the accounts of
rides/events.

I enjoy the product reviews-sometimes. But the rest? Sometimes I don't know.

He seems to have gotten away from the "everything not made by the
classic French builders-which by the way you probably never get your
hands on-is somehow/way inferior" thing, but the various tests of tire
rolling resistance, etc., are akin to a high school science project
while others have the appearance of being self-serving whether they
are or not.

For example, there was a recent custom build for a 6'4" rider. He was
put on a 59cm w/ 171mm cranks? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Or the endless opinion that fatter tires are every bit as fast as
skinny tires. No way. More comfortable? Absolutely. Better on dirt?
For sure. Not faster. If that were the case, does anyone believe
that the entire bicycle, and tire industry would not jump at the task
to supply the entire racing/fast recreational community with new
frames and rubber? Come on all you anti-corporate people out there,
of course they would!

Lastly, a bike with a big square box-shaped bag is more aero than a
non-bag equipped bike? Maybe if Cadel evans had installed one in the
Tour, he would've narrowed the gap in that crucial time trial.

Again, a great publication that I look fwd to each and every month.

RGZ

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/O4bZhZMQThIJ.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 11:51 -0400, robert zeidler wrote:
> Or the endless opinion that fatter tires are every bit as fast as
> skinny tires. No way. More comfortable? Absolutely. Better on dirt?
> For sure. Not faster. If that were the case, does anyone believe
> that the entire bicycle, and tire industry would not jump at the task
> to supply the entire racing/fast recreational community with new
> frames and rubber? Come on all you anti-corporate people out there,
> of course they would!
>

This sounds like yet another iteration of the old "if wide tires were
better than 700x23 clinchers the racers would use them." However, it
turns out, those 700x23 clinchers you've been seeing the racers use are
nothing of the sort: they are tubulars disguised to make them look like
clinchers. (And it's well known, due to their construction and the
shape of the rims for them, tubulars of a given size ride like clinchers
that are several mm wider.)

Do you see anybody actively marketing sew-ups to the recreational
make-believe-they-are-racers community? Of course not. They simply
perpetuate the lie that those narrow clinchers are what the racers are
using.

[Brian Campbell]

I linked the tubing spec for the AHH to the comments section. I am curious if anyone reads it and what the ensuing discussion might be. I appreciate what Jan does for cycling and agree with quite a bit of what he says conceptually. As with any of the "bike personalites" I read what they think, try thier ideas, keep what I like and forget what I don't like. There is no right answer. Diffferent bikes for different likes.

[Jim Cloud]

I'm in agreement with Jim Thill and Robert Zeidler on this. There's
been an interesting thread going on the Classics Rendezvous Google
Group ("Doing things the old fashioned way... -
http://groups.google.com/group/classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles/browse_thread/thread/a0388964638f7ad3/4571c40974ec8067)
with some very active participation by some who have been builders and
designers of bikes since the 1970's (Jim Merz, Richard Sachs). I
would characterize those posts as bicycle design progress did not
"freeze" either with the classic Campy NR/SR racing bike era or the
French Constructeur touring bike.

I find some of the various modern Constructeur bikes, built with
French components from the 1960-1970's (e.g. Mafac brakes, Simplex
derailleurs, T.A. or Rene Herse modern manufacture cranks), to be a
little strange. Richard Sachs once characterized the modern
infatuation with the French Constructeur era bike, as the end-point of
touring bike design, as being in the vein of Civil War enactors. He
also made the point that most of the riders in the top finishing group
of classic brevets, such as the P-B-P are not riding bikes that evoke
the Rene Herse or Alex Singer randonneur bikes of the past - they're
riding modern carbon fiber frame bikes. I think this was a valid
observation.

Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ

> > To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/O4bZhZMQThIJ.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 11:00 -0700, Jim Cloud wrote:
> Richard Sachs once characterized the modern
> infatuation with the French Constructeur era bike, as the end-point of
> touring bike design, as being in the vein of Civil War enactors.

Yes, that's very amusing, but one should also notice that as one of the
best known builders of steel racing bikes, which have not been seen in
the pro peloton for many years now, and which will certainly never be
seen there again, he himself could be described as engaging in or
fostering Civil War Re-enactment.

> He also made the point that most of the riders in the top finishing
> group of classic brevets, such as the P-B-P are not riding bikes that
> evoke the Rene Herse or Alex Singer randonneur bikes of the past -
> they're riding modern carbon fiber frame bikes.

He also seems to be unaware that PBP is not a race.

[Matthew J]

And Richard also failed to note the race bike riding PBP speedsters also skirt the rules. Many have support staff at the various rest stops with food, water bottle changes, change of clothes, etc. Jan is promoting a vike for people who actually rando the ways the rules intend - unsupported. Everything you need for 1200k is on the bike at the start.

As for tires, Jan did not say large tires are faster. Rather he said on most road conditions well made tires wider than the average race clinchers have lower rolling resistance. And in fact, the width of race tires is increasing.

Finally, on the linked comments section, Jan says he likes the Hilsen for what it is, but he does not think it would be the best choice of bikes to go out riding with a group of people with thin tube lbikes optimized for going fast. I doubt GP would argue the point.

[Jim Cloud]

I would hardly expect Richard Sachs to completely abandon his method
of frame construction at this point in his career and begin making
carbon fiber frames. The current demand for his bikes far exceeds his
capacity (he has a seven-year backlog) and he no longer builds any
frames except for previous customers of his frames. His bikes are
still, in addition, quite competitive in cyclocross.

He also builds bikes that are "Thoroughly Modern Millies" in terms of
their equipment specifications, he isn't scouring the shelves looking
for classic NOS Campy components from the NR/SR era. He has stated
that every bike he produces in 2012 is a product of modern techniques
and equipment, he does not build the bikes with the same exact methods
and materials that he used 30 years ago.

> He also seems to be unaware that PBP is not a race.

I would also imagine that Sachs is aware that the P-B-P isn't a race
for many who ride in the event. I still think it's a race for those
who finish with the best times. Don't you?

Jim Cloud
Tucson, AZ

[Matthew J]

Sorry about multiple posts above.  IPad Google Groups compatability issues.

 

>I still think it's a race for those who finish with the best times.  Don't you?

 

I think if they thought of it as a race they would follow the rules.

[J L]

I don't want to take this thread much more OT than it already is.  There are a few things that I wanted to chime in on:

I found Rivendell and the BOB philosophy by accident - experimenting with my own bike fit and style.  In a sense I pre-screened many of the Rivendell ideals  - find a bike that does this or fits this way - rather than find out about fit and utility from Rivendell.  I mention this because I like the angle of Jan Heine's work that deals with riding style/ preference evolution.  I don't ride in brevets or long events so much of the BQ work doesn't apply directly to me.  That said, I do read BQ and take what I can from it - along with ideas from Riv, Dave Moulton, etc.  As other people have said there are certain things about Jan's delivery that don't sit well with me.  At times he can come across as dismissive and over simplifying things.  The cranks for example:  It seems to me that his decision to create a net forged replica of the famous Rene Herse crank in the traditional 171mm size is defended by claiming that longer cranks are not needed because it is only a 2% difference (or so, don't have the quote in front of me but i think we have all read it).  I think it could be true that once set up well a bicycle with 171mm cranks could perform as well and as comfortably for the same rider as another bike with 175mm cranks - given that many other factors and components establish fit.  However, I have not seen him explain it this way. I have seen him dismiss the size difference. I have also been taken aback by his comments on crank fitting: Grease the spindle, install the crank, tighten it up after a few miles then leave it alone... This set-it-up-then-leave-it-alone model of bicycling does not relate to me at all.  I don't have the privilege to own several bikes that can be set up and left alone and I like to tinker.  I am constantly changing/adjusting/altering and swapping parts to get better/ different rides from my bicycles.  Perhaps that is another Riv philosophy thing more than a BQ ideal.  His approach just bugged be because it was so foreign to my experience but I don't mean to say it was wrong.   Backing up a bit it is too bad that he has to defend the crank size/design at all.  Running a small wholesale/retail business is not a simple task and creating a boutique product like those cranks is a financial gamble.  I am glad that he has done so much.  The happy accident that became the Hetre is another example.  They are my favorite tires and it all came about in such and interesting way. 

Bottom line:  I would like to see Jan, etc. at BQ do more to relate the context specific to their opinions/findings about bicycles. 

JL

[Matthew J]

> It seems to me that his decision to create a net forged replica of the famous Rene Herse crank in the traditional 171mm size is

> defended by claiming that longer cranks are not needed because it is only a 2% difference (or so, don't have the quote in front of me

> but i think we have all read it).

 

Gross oversimplification. 

 

Jan explained quite clearly his is a small operation.  To make the Rene Herse to the best of standards he believes in he had a mold created to forge the cranks.  Making molds is very expensive.  Jan opted to have them made in what he believes is the most optimal size.  If you want cranks in other sizes, there are many companies out thee.  Expecting a one person operation - and one with a very tight focus - to match the offerings of the bigs is unfair.  Look no further than the limits GP has to set with his Rivendell business- a business intended for a much wider market. 

On Monday, August 6, 2012 2:20:39 PM UTC-5, JL wrote:

I don't want to take this thread much more OT than it already is.  There are a few things that I wanted to chime in on:

It seems to me that his decision to create a net forged replica of the famous Rene Herse crank in the traditional 171mm size is defended by claiming that longer cranks are not needed because it is only a 2% difference (or so, don't have the quote in front of me but i think we have all read it). 

I found Rivendell and the BOB philosophy by accident - experimenting with my own bike fit and style.  In a sense I pre-screened many of the Rivendell ideals  - find a bike that does this or fits this way - rather than find out about fit and utility from Rivendell.  I mention this The cranks for example:  I think it could be true that once set up well a bicycle with 171mm cranks could perform as well and as comfortably for the same rider as another bike with 175mm cranks - given that many other factors and components establish fit.because I like the angle of Jan Heine's work that deals with riding style/ preference evolution.  I don't ride in brevets or long events so much of the BQ work doesn't apply directly to me.  That said, I do read BQ and take what I can from it - along with ideas from Riv, Dave Moulton, etc.  As other people have said there are certain things about Jan's delivery that don't sit well with me.  At times he can come across as dismissive and over simplifying things.    However, I have not seen him explain it this way. I have seen him dismiss the size difference. I have also been taken aback by his comments on crank fitting: Grease the spindle, install the crank, tighten it up after a few miles then leave it alone... This set-it-up-then-leave-it-alone model of bicycling does not relate to me at all.  I don't have the privilege to own several bikes that can be set up and left alone and I like to tinker.  I am constantly changing/adjusting/altering and swapping parts to get better/ different rides from my bicycles.  Perhaps that is another Riv philosophy thing more than a BQ ideal.  His approach just bugged be because it was so foreign to my experience but I don't mean to say it was wrong.   Backing up a bit it is too bad that he has to defend the crank size/design at all.  Running a small wholesale/retail business is not a simple task and creating a boutique product like those cranks is a financial gamble.  I am glad that he has done so much.  The happy accident that became the Hetre is another example.  They are my favorite tires and it all came about in such and interesting way. 

[Patrick in VT]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 2:44:22 PM UTC-4, Matthew J wrote:

Many have support staff at the various rest stops with food, water bottle changes, change of clothes, etc.  Jan is promoting a vike for people who actually rando the ways the rules intend - unsupported.  Everything you need for 1200k is on the bike at the start.  

last i checked, bag drops and "support" at controls are within the rules . . . in fact, it's the norm, at least on the longer brevets I've done.  even on the shorter brevets, people rely on cashiers at convenience stores (these often serve as controls) to buy food, supplies, etc., or have people meet them there with anything that might be needed.  the faster riders want to be in and out of controls as quickly as possible - it saves a significant amount of time.   and when your racing ... . errr, i mean randonneuring .... those precious minutes count.

[Kelly]

if they are breaking the rules then aren't they disqualified?  Or listed as DNF? 

Or are they cheating in a way that isn't seen an only a few or is it an allegation that all top finishers are cheaters?  

Just curious I have no idea... just doesn't sound right.

Kelly

[J L]

I meant to defend the 171mm crank design/sizing and only mention that I was want for a more clear explanation of why the size could still work given to those people who had commented in the past "I ride 175mm cranks these wont work for my other bike", rather than a defense of the manufacturing/design aspects  Perhaps I wasn't clear.
 
JL

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/wXAk0oplQcAJ.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:29 -0700, Matthew J wrote:
> Jan explained quite clearly his is a small operation. To make the
> Rene Herse to the best of standards he believes in he had a mold
> created to forge the cranks. Making molds is very expensive. Jan
> opted to have them made in what he believes is the most optimal size.
> If you want cranks in other sizes, there are many companies out thee.
> Expecting a one person operation - and one with a very tight focus -
> to match the offerings of the bigs is unfair. Look no further than
> the limits GP has to set with his Rivendell business- a business
> intended for a much wider market.

So, in other words, it's a case of he can't afford to make cranks in
different sizes and this size ought to work for most people, especially
since the next larger size is only a tiny percentage longer; and for
those who can't make that size work, there are plenty of other cranks on
the market they can buy.

Looking for some kind of theory of crank length that would explain why
171 is the "perfect size" is a mistake.

[Matthew J]

>  last i checked, bag drops and "support" at controls are within the rules

 

My reference was intended to be PBP exclusively - I see the way I wrote that is not clear.  As I understand the PBP rules, bag drops are not allowed.

[Matthew J]

> if they are breaking the rules then aren't they disqualified?  Or listed as DNF? 

> Or are they cheating in a way that isn't seen an only a few or is it an allegation that all top finishers are cheaters? 

 

It is a big race with thousands or participants and spectators.  Believe the organization is the French equiavalent of a not for profit.  Enforcement  is not easy under any circumstances - nigh impossible in PBP.  And of course the idea is those who participate do so within the spirit of the event.  Obviously there are those who don't care.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 13:48 -0700, Matthew J wrote:
> It is a big race with thousands or participants and spectators.
> Believe the organization is the French equiavalent of a not for
> profit. Enforcement is not easy under any circumstances - nigh
> impossible in PBP. And of course the idea is those who participate do
> so within the spirit of the event. Obviously there are those who
> don't care.

And it's not a race.

[ted]

> How long do most riders keep the same bicycle?  Looking at folks I know
> in the bike clubs I belong to, I get the feeling people keep their cars
> longer than their bicycles.

seems to me its a lot like cars. Some folks trade em every year (or
even faster), others run em till they are dust, and lots of folks fall
somewhere in between.

[ted]

> Finally, on the linked comments section, Jan says he likes the Hilsen for what it is, ...

But I don't think Jan knows what a Hilsen is. I am also skeptical
about his notions regarding oversized main triangle tubes.

I have an old Gios race bike that has what I think Jan calls thin
tubes. I also have a AHH with, of course, oversized tubes.
If I was going on a hard ride with a race club, or doing a criterium,
I would ride (and have ridden) the Gios. But thats not because the
Hillsen lacks "performance" if we are using that as short hand for
easy to go fast on. I just love the way the Gios handles when riding
in a pack.
I very much doubt that the Hillsen is slower than the Gios, unless of
course those GB cerf tires I have on it aren't all they'r cracked up
to be (As best I can tell they are).

Despite all his talk of experimental basis and evolving views he
frequently strikes me as rather dogmatic, and prone to leaping to
conclusions.

[robert zeidler]

Not talking about a few centimeters. That's never even been suggested. I'm talking about 12 or 20 mm bigger. 

You're not going to determine what rolls faster by rolling down a hill and measuring with a stop watch. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[Eric Platt]

Now, I don't ride fast.  And because of that, rarely ride with others.  And the skinniest tire I have is a 700x37.  But if wider is always faster, then the Surly Moonlander with the 4.5 inch wide, incredibly supple tires must the the fastest bike out there.

 

(As Jim Thill can attest, we rode with a guy on a Surly Pugsley last year who could keep up with anyone.  He passed me at nearly 40mph on one downhill and later chased and caught up with a tandem during some rolling hills.)

 

Eric Platt

St. Paul, MN

[ted]

I keep thinking how nice if would be if folks would use numbers (and
units if course) more often.
You know, like how many mm wider, or how many mph faster etc.
Even better folks could also state a base state they are comparing to.
Like 1 mph faster at 20 mph.

On a related note, with curves of optimal tire pressure vs. weight
being out there, does anybody else wonder when somebody is going to
put forward an "optimal" tire width vs. weight curve to go with it?
Maybe with different curves for different surfaces?

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com<javascript:;>
> > .

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:;>.

[Allan in Portland]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:16:03 PM UTC-7, z-man wrote:

You're not going to determine what rolls faster by rolling down a hill and measuring with a stop watch. 

Um, why not? Assuming one is rigorous with the measuring, ie. calm wind, repeat roll-downs, same bike & rider, etc. Have you read the test procedure they used? Seemed solid to me, which is why I'm asking. Thx.

-Allan

[Allan in Portland]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:59:06 PM UTC-7, ted wrote:

> Finally, on the linked comments section, Jan says he likes the Hilsen for what it is, ...

But I don't think Jan knows what a Hilsen is. I am also skeptical
about his notions regarding oversized main triangle tubes.

Just curious, are you a magazine sub (or once were) or basing this on his blog and things he's written on various list-serves?

Regards,
-Allan

[Michael Hechmer]

I too am a big Jan Heine admirer.  He is a very bike smart guy, but he is confused about two things, not evident in the posted blog.  First, riding fast and riding far are two different things.  Both can be fun, but as you combine the two, fewer and fewer people actually enjoy it.  Second, bikes and components are not necessarily faster or better because they were first made in France.  I would be happy to put my Ram, with mostly USA made components, up against any bike costing not more than twice as much on any two to four hour ride, which is about all that I or most riders actually enjoy.

michael

On Sunday, August 5, 2012 3:29:18 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/riding-fast-is-fun/

I personally -- to quote one commentator -- would rather stab myself
in the eye than ride 600 km, but this little essay has some good
points about the joy of riding fast, but on intelligent bikes. Several
RBW references in the correspondence, too.
--
"When in Rome, do as they done in Milledgeville."

Flannery O'Connor

-------------------------
Patrick Moore, Albuquerque, NM, USA
For professional resumes, contact Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html
-------------------------

[ted]

Not a sub.
My remark about him not knowing what a hillsen is stems from enquiring
on his blog about his reasoning for characterizing it as he did and
then reading his response of "It’s not an issue of comfort, but of
performance. Whether the A. Homer Hilsen is overbuilt or not is hard
to say without having ridden one."
My skepticism about the importance of main triangle tube diameter is
based on my impressions of a Gios and a Hillsen's ride qualities and
some simplistic mechanics based theorizing. I also enquired about that
but I don't think he responded on that aspect of the thing.
If you can point me to any open source description of the basis for
his views on tube diameter, or even a more complete explanation of
what those views are, I would appreciate it.
My other remarks are just how his presentation in his blog strikes me.
Not just the one thread but still I was likely being overly snarky and
ought to take a chill pill or something (like maybe go ride a bike).

[Tim McNamara]

On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:51 AM, robert zeidler <zeidler...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or the endless opinion that fatter tires are every bit as fast as
> skinny tires. No way. More comfortable? Absolutely. Better on dirt?
> For sure. Not faster.

This is measurable. Avocet did testing on this in the 80s, and others have more or less duplicated, and found that up to about 25 mm wider was faster but this effect dropped off due to the necessity to change to a coarser fabric for the casing due to- if I recall correctly- hoop stress increasing faster than the minor diameter increases. Basically a casing made from the fine high-TPI fabric possible at 18-25 mm is prone to failure at widths of 28-35 mm. This may have been for cotton casings and I don't know if the same holds true for synthetic casing fabrics.

I have found that wider tires are more prone to casing failures, less prone to pinch flats and about the same for punctures. At 6'4" and 230 lbs, I also find I have to inflate all tires to the rated pressure with the result that differences in comfort are not really all that noticeable. A little, maybe.

[Tim McNamara]

On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:00 PM, Jim Cloud <Clou...@aol.com> wrote:

> I find some of the various modern Constructeur bikes, built with
> French components from the 1960-1970's (e.g. Mafac brakes, Simplex
> derailleurs, T.A. or Rene Herse modern manufacture cranks), to be a
> little strange. Richard Sachs once characterized the modern

> infatuation with the French Constructeur era bike, as the end-point of

> touring bike design, as being in the vein of Civil War enactors. He

> also made the point that most of the riders in the top finishing group
> of classic brevets, such as the P-B-P are not riding bikes that evoke
> the Rene Herse or Alex Singer randonneur bikes of the past - they're

> riding modern carbon fiber frame bikes. I think this was a valid
> observation

I am reminded of Dr. Clifford Graves's story of PBP, in which the technical inspector told him that his Rene Herse was "too heavy" and that most of the other riders were on race bikes (I'd bet that the difference was probably all of 2 kg or so).

Of course, my Rivendell All-Rounder has fenders, 32 mm tires, lights, front rack, Berthoud bag, Mafac tandem cantis, etc... And did before Jan started publishing VBQ. My inspiration was the old Guinness book. Initially I saw Jan as a sort of like-minded fellow, but he has gone far beyond me in that direction. One of my other favorite bikes is a 3 speed "club racer" type bike (I designed and built the frame) with a Carradice Nelson that I bought from Riv at least 15 years ago. And my other favorite bike is my old Ritchey from my racing days, with 25s on it.

I much prefer Jan's event reports, interviews and histories to the tech articles. I have never liked bike test reports in any magazine. At least Jan makes no bones about his very specific preferences and standards, which makes it easier to interpret his evaluations.

[Allan in Portland]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 6:18:41 PM UTC-7, ted wrote:

Not a sub.

Don't have time to track down any blog posts on it, but the triangle stoutness is in the magazine quite a bit, both how he came to discover it, and how he went on to qualitatively measure it. In short, and taking liberties with Jan's description the frame is a spring. With the right amount of flex in the spring, energy can be absorbed on the down stroke and released as the pedal crest in rotation. Too much flex and the bike bobs, too little and the spring isn't stretched any.

There's plenty of quantitative questions still open, but qualitatively "planing" as he calls it is pretty well settled, unless one thinks Jan is a complete kook. As he said in the blog, he's ridden some 50 bikes in the last 10 years like a borrowed mule. (OK, I added the second part.) I'm inclined to believe him on this point.

Regards,
-Allan

[ted]

I don't know what z-man's objection is but the annals of science are
full of wrong or overstated conclusions based on seemingly solid
approaches. I believe Jan concedes, or even boasts, that his
methodology is different that what pretty much the entire tire
engineering and testing industry does. If I were going to give it a
critical evaluation I would want a very detailed definition of the
testing methodology, all the raw data, and complete documentation of
the data reduction and analysis. Since I am not inclined to buy the
relevant issues of BQ I don't have access to that information. Even if
I did buy the articles the info I would want may not be there.

For me, Jan's assertions about tires are more persuasive than many,
but still way short of proven scientific fact.
Naturally others may give them more (or less) weight.

[Tim McNamara]

While Jan et al made a lot of efforts to minimize the variables- the goal of experimental design being to eliminate all fariables except the one you want to measure- doing a coast down ride with a live human on board, outside, etc., has too many variables that may intrude. They worked hard but the design of the experiment doomed it to having too much noise, even with careful statistical analysis, to produce reliable and valid results.  I have much preferred the tests Jan has done using a power meter, which also has uncontrolled variables but seems to me to be a more direct way to measure the feature of interest:  how efficient the bike is with product A vs. product B.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 19:37 -0500, Eric Platt wrote:
> Now, I don't ride fast. And because of that, rarely ride with others.
> And the skinniest tire I have is a 700x37. But if wider is always
> faster, then the Surly Moonlander with the 4.5 inch wide, incredibly
> supple tires must the the fastest bike out there.

Nobody has ever made either claim.

[Jan Heine]

On Aug 6, 12:20 pm, J L <subfas...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The cranks for example:  It seems to me that his decision to
> create a net forged replica of the famous Rene Herse crank in the
> traditional 171mm size is defended by claiming that longer cranks are not
> needed because it is only a 2% difference (or so, don't have the quote in
> front of me but i think we have all read it).

It would have been very easy to make multiple crank lengths from the
same forging. All small crank makers do this (unless they don't even
forge their cranks at all, and just machine them from billet). We
chose to make a single length, so we can make stronger cranks.

We don't save any money by doing this, and we get a lot of flak. Why
do we don't we just do it the easy way, like everybody else? Because
we think it is better to have a stronger crank that can pass EN
standards for fatigue resistance. (Ask the other small makers whether
theirs have passed the EN standards.)

Next thing, people might say that Grant Petersen only likes lugged
frames because all his frames are lugged. Self-serving, isn't it? Of
course, it's utter nonsense: It would be easy for Rivendell to sell
TIG-welded frames - they'd save tens of thousands of dollars they
invest in lug molds along the way. So Grant doesn't like lugged frames
because Rivendell sells them, but Rivendell sells lugged frames
because Grant likes them. The liking came first, the selling second.

> The happy accident that became the Hetre is another
> example. They are my favorite tires and it all came about in such and
> interesting way.

The only accident part in the Hetre was that it turned out 2 mm wider
than planned. The fast-rolling, super-comfortable nature of the tire
was no accident, but based on careful research both by Bicycle
Quarterly and Panaracer. I bet that even if the Hetre had been a 38 mm
tire as planned, it still would be your favorite tire.

If you want to see what we have to say about some products we sell
that didn't meet expectations, you can read that here:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/mounting-tires-on-rims-with-deep-wells/

I don't think we are prone to making excuses for things that don't
turn out right.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
http://www.bikequarterly.com

Follow our blog at http://janheine.wordpress.com/

[Jan Heine]

On Aug 6, 6:53 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

> While Jan et al made a lot of efforts to minimize the variables- the goal of experimental design being to eliminate all fariables except the one you want to measure- doing a coast down ride with a live human on board, outside, etc., has too many variables that may intrude. They worked hard but the design of the experiment doomed it to having too much noise, even with careful statistical analysis, to produce reliable and valid results.

The statistical analysis is a tool to determine how much "noise" you
have. If the same tires always score the same in repeat experiments,
but other tires always score differently, then you have shown that the
tires are different. If there is too much noise, you will find that
the differences between repeat tests of the same tire are greater than
the differences between different tires. The statistics are just a
formalized way of evaluating that. So to say that "the results are
flawed despite the statistical analysis" doesn't make sense.

What it comes down to is both the amount of external variables and the
size of the differences in tire performance. In an extreme example, if
you measured a square wheel vs. a round one, you could have all kinds
of wind and other variables, yet you would show conclusively that the
round wheel is faster. (The square one doesn't turn at all.) What
surprised us with our testing was that the performance differences
between tires are huge - large enough to measure even in a test that
has some (albeit small) amount of noise.

I had hoped that with the recent trend of even pro racers to wider
tires at lower pressures, the tire discussion was finally over. Yes,
we did use methods that were different from the industry standard.
However, the industry (at least in North America, where Bicycle
Quarterly is mostly read) has since accepted our results, which means
that a) they found our methods credible and b) they were able to
replicate our results with whatever testing methods they chose.

[ted]

Thanks for the synopsis. It sounds like you may be conflating two
phenomena.
Flexy main triangles exhibit bottom bracket motion under strong
pedaling (mostly sideways and rotating). Since metal has quite low
elasticity losses energy you put in mostly comes back out. Wether or
not that energy release sends a particular rider down the road faster
or not is a bit harder to pin down. You may find reading about the
early Vitus fames and Seaun Kelly interesting on this point. I think
its fair to say that how much of this is how good a thing is
debatable.
I thought when Jan talked about "planing" he was referring to how the
bike interacted with road irregularities. This is about in plane
deformations. In that mode the main triangle is so much stiffer than
the fork, and probably the rear triangle, not to mention the tires and
wheels that I find it hard to credit the suggestion that a stiff main
triangle presents a problem there.

I wouldn't say a complete kook, but a bit kooky maybe. Certainly he
even describes himself a well outside of mainstream thought on these
topics. I suspect that "planing" is only mostly settled in the view of
those who believe Jan (which I doubt is a majority of any relevant
group except perhaps BQ subscribers).

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:14 -0700, Michael Hechmer wrote:
> I too am a big Jan Heine admirer. He is a very bike smart guy, but he
> is confused about two things, not evident in the posted blog. First,
> riding fast and riding far are two different things. Both can be fun,
> but as you combine the two, fewer and fewer people actually enjoy
> it.

> Second, bikes and components are not necessarily faster or better
> because they were first made in France.

Do you honestly think he believes that? You don't think there's any
chance at all that it's simply that he likes the sort of things the
French made?

> I would be happy to put my Ram, with mostly USA made components, up
> against any bike costing not more than twice as much on any two to
> four hour ride, which is about all that I or most riders actually
> enjoy.

I'll happily take that challenge, having been the owner of a Ram which I
sold because it was too stiff for me, and replaced with a Johnny
Coast-built Velo Orange Randonneur (just like the one BQ tested) with
all the other components except the headset swapped over. Two hour,
four hour, ten hour ride, in every case the VO performs differently in a
way that I would characterize as "better".

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 19:21 -0700, ted wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say a complete kook, but a bit kooky maybe. Certainly he
> even describes himself a well outside of mainstream thought on these
> topics. I suspect that "planing" is only mostly settled in the view of
> those who believe Jan (which I doubt is a majority of any relevant
> group except perhaps BQ subscribers).
>
>

Well outside the "stiffer is always better" school of thought, for sure.
A downright heretic in that respect. As for the rest, don't be so sure:
they referred to what he calls "planing" as "a lively ride" back in the
day, and bikes that had it were highly respected and enjoyed.

[ted]

Jan writes: "It would be easy for Rivendell to sell TIG-welded frames"
Not to dispute Jan's assertion that he and riv both sell what they
sell because they like it and not the other way around (ie liking what
they sell because they sell it), I buy that hook line and sinker for
both businesses, but I think Grant has said that Riv would not be
successful selling such bikes because other larger well established
firms with cost advantages are already covering that.

> http://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/mounting-tires-on-rims-with-...

[Peter Morgano]

So what is the obsession with stiffer tubing, in all seriousness? The only bike I can remember flexing under me so much I noticed it was my Look KG96 and it was CF which is supposedly super stiff, but it was more that I was afraid at 250lbs of destroying it rather than being bothered by the flexiness. I can remember back in the day reading about how pros loved 531 due to its "springiness" while climbing, is the trend towards super stiff just yet another marketing ploy? I wish I had the money to have 4 totally different bikes to be able to ride them all back to back but at my weight and riding conditions I rock the bombadil which while stiffer than my old Raleigh International is certainly not dead feeling, then again I only have one top tube, thankfully.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[ted]

"... in every case the VO performs differently in a

way that I would characterize as "better"."

Here Here. Surely some bikes behave differently than others, and
informed people develop preferences.
A difference in preferences doesn't make one party right and the other
wrong.

[ted]

"So what is the obsession with stiffer tubing,"

Hmmm. Sorry cant really say, find it a bit much myself.
I have noticed differences, particularly climbing standing and
"jumping".
With a stiff bottom bracket there is an immediacy of forward response
when you stomp a pedal, which I might characterize as "responsive".
With a more flexible one the chain may intermittently rum on the fd
cage as you climb out of the saddle.
Some folks say a bike feels "dead" if nothing moves when they shove or
pull on it.
If you ride a loaded bike and the seat tube and head tube don't stay
in plane, handling can suffer.
I think its mostly stuff like that.

Perhaps somebody who feels stronger about it can give a better answer.

[Tim McNamara]

True enough. Various aspects of bike frame design have been serially overemphasized over the course of decades, including BB stiffness, chainstay length, chainstay and seatstay diameters, etc. The power loss from BB flex is probably close enough to nil as makes no difference, even with "noodly" frames. I like mine to be stiff enough to make derailleur rub rare because it's annoying, but I've never actually been able to feel any power loss from frame flex. Someone already mentioned Sean Kelly who won monuments and Classics, the maillot vert, the Vuelta a Espana, etc., on one of the most notoriously noodly frames ever made, the Vitus 979. If the frame flex handicapped him, well that's actually just kind of frightening...

Allan referenced the idea of a bike frame as a spring which is actually correct. It is a spring. There are several springs on a bike- the frame, the handlebars, the wheels (especially laterally but also radially), the saddle, etc. In the case of bars, frame and radial wheel flex the distances involved are tenths to hundreds of an inch. Lateral wheel flex, especially the rear wheel, can be relatively large (e.g., 1/8 to 1/4 inch) under normal use. A lot of these can be quantified with strain gauges, which might be an interesting study. Can "planing" be objectively measured and compared to the subjective experience?

Can all those things affect how a bike feels to ride? Maybe. I think that most are like the princess and the pea, but some people may be more sensitive to these sorts of inputs than me. We all have had the experience of "I like this bike and I don't like that bike." There are a lot of variables that go into that. Some of those might be exactly the kinds of thing Jan writes about, some may not.

[ted]

Certainly fads or styles or whatever have ebbed and flowed over
whether or not a noodly frame is undesirable, or how stiff is stiff
enough, or if stiff is harsh and uncomfortable, or whatever, but I
think Jan is fairly unique in claiming categorically that the right
flex is faster, and enough faster that a stiff bike can't be a good
"performance" bike.

Im still not quite sure exactly what he is advocating. If its about
beneficial interaction between pedaling action and bb flex I don't get
why thats called planing. Does somebody here know?

[Jan Heine]

On Aug 6, 7:37 pm, ted <ted.ke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Jan writes: "It would be easy for Rivendell to sell TIG-welded frames"
>

> I think Grant has said that Riv would not be
> successful selling such bikes because other larger well established
> firms with cost advantages are already covering that.

When you look at Surly's success with taking many Rivendell designs
and ideas and replicating them in TIG, it seems that there is a very
ready market for those bikes. Knowing the economics of the bike
business, I suspect that the Surly brand is more profitable than
Grant's bike lines. But I also suspect that Grant doesn't care - he
makes the bikes he makes not because they are the most profitable, but
because they are the bikes he loves.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly

http://www.bikequarterly.com/

[Tim McNamara]

Jan has tried to explain that, mainly he came up with the term when he was first thinking about the issue, IIRC. He borrowed the term from boating.

One problem is that what's stiff to Jan and Mark might be noodly to me, since I am probably 60 lbs heavier and 6" taller than they are. My "fastest" bike (according to my average speeds, anyway, but again there are too many uncontrolled variables) is my Ritchey, which also has the stiffest BB due to the ovalized seat tube.

[Philip Williamson]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:16:03 PM UTC-7, z-man wrote:

Not talking about a few centimeters. That's never even been suggested. I'm talking about 12 or 20 mm bigger. 

I missed the antecedent for this. 

 

You're not going to determine what rolls faster by rolling down a hill and measuring with a stop watch.

I can't think of another method to rank two rolly things except by rolling them, timing the speeds, and comparing the results. 

Genuinely puzzled, 

Philip

biketinker.com

[Robert Zeidler]

Personally I like that it comes down to a personal preference. What doesn't work for me may be perfect for you. Your tight size 12 shoe may be like a slipper on my feet.

The numbers game is the perfect, scientific way to measure, say, the rolling resistance of tires. That doesn't mean you can't still prefer the "less than optimal" tire.

For example, Ruffy Tuffy's, until they are a bit broken in, feel like Velcro to me-they just feel like they are glued to the road. OTOH, the JB's are a great rolling, comfy tire. I love the way they whistle down the road. Go figure.



Sent from my iPad

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

[Robert Zeidler]

To get it absolutely spot on every single time?  Likely but not possible. 

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/IqLWKSTUP_QJ.

[Robert Zeidler]

Sorry, typing a bit fast... Meant to say, possible but not likely. 

Sent from my iPad

[Michael Hechmer]

Having made one negative entry on this, let me add that on two points Jan is absolutely right.

I've been riding Grand Bois Cerf Green this summer and have found them to be outstanding - fast, comfortable and puncture resistant.  Much nicer tire than either the Pasella or Ruffy Tuffy (I've never user the RP version.)

He's also absolutely right about frame flex and planning. There is a sweet spot that synchronizes rider and bike.  I will also grant that this spot is easier to hit with many traditional standard guage  tubes than with some modern OS tubing, however the latter is quite possible.  My Rambouilllet with OS tubing and my custom 1988 Marinoni stage racing frame (a bike with a world championship on its resume) offer amazingly similar rides. This is especially noticable in Vt's rolling countryside.

OTH, I don't get the cold forged vs cnc argument.  The only crank that has ever failed for me was a cold forged Sugino, and that after 25 years of use the whole rounded out.  I would bet that when a crank does break it's almost always  due to a mfg. defect.  No process is ever 100% consistent and every process will produce some failures. CNC cranks and brakes are plenty strong enough to start and stop all my bikes for much longer than I will own them.

Michael

[Robert Zeidler]

I notice the same thing on any charity ride or a lot of brevets. It's Ti or CF up front. Still takes a good motor of course.

For example, my 64cm Atlantis, w/ GB 30c tires, Berthoud fenders, VO front rack, Brooks B 17, and Berthoud bag weighs in at almost 37 lbs.

I can take my 67cm Seven Alaris, w/standard gearing (53/39, Campy 12/29 10 spd), a small under seat pack, and small-ish Ortlieb handlebar bag, equally comfy Specialized saddle, carrying the same stuff, the whole rig weighs 19.4 lbs.

On a hilly 200 or 300k on the Riv, I'm usually mailing it in by the end. I'm usually still knackered on the other but at the finish much sooner.

Sent from my iPad

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[justin...@gmail.com]

I think the key point here is that you (or me or Jan or Sheldon) are making judgement calls about what 'better' means. 'Better' is not a scientific measurement. It's an opinion. Stiffer is measurable. It's objective. That doesn't mean it is 'better' or 'worse' for anyone but the person choosing. I think that often we confuse descriptive, opinion based adjectives with descriptive, objectively data derived ones.

[Robert Zeidler]

Unless you can guarantee no variance in wind speed or direction, however slight, or that the finger depressing the stop watch button at the exact same second, every single time, just to cite two of many variables, what you have is a Boy Scout Merit Badge project, not anything remotely resembling real research. 

Sent from my iPad

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/pBCUUB9POcEJ.

[Robert Zeidler]

Well said. The part of these tests that is labeled " conclusions" should be, instead, "perceptions".

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:02 AM, justin...@gmail.com wrote:

> I think the key point here is that you (or me or Jan or Sheldon) are making judgement calls about what 'better' means. 'Better' is not a scientific measurement. It's an opinion. Stiffer is measurable. It's objective. That doesn't mean it is 'better' or 'worse' for anyone but the person choosing. I think that often we confuse descriptive, opinion based adjectives with descriptive, objectively data derived ones.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/JqP0Oc8M_U4J.

[ted]

"Jan has tried to explain that, mainly he came up with the term when
he was first thinking about the issue, IIRC. He borrowed the term
from boating."

Interesting. It is precisely because of the terms use in boating that
I find his application perplexing and a source of confusion.
When a boat planes it is running more over the water than through it.
It's also a phenomena that requires a minimum speed to realize, and
there is a hump in resistance before reaching planing speeds where
resistance is greater than it is after you get the boat up and
planing. Seems like it just doesn't fit as a label for a desirable
oscillating bottom bracket motion.

On Aug 6, 10:41 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> Jan has tried to explain that, mainly he came up with the term when he was first thinking about the issue, IIRC.  He borrowed the term from boating.
>
> One problem is that what's stiff to Jan and Mark might be noodly to me, since I am probably 60 lbs heavier and 6" taller than they are.  My "fastest" bike (according to my average speeds, anyway, but again there are too many uncontrolled variables) is my Ritchey, which also has the stiffest BB due to the ovalized seat tube.
>

[Jan Heine]

On Aug 7, 4:33 am, Robert Zeidler <zeidler.rob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To get it absolutely spot on every single time?  Likely but not possible.

Humans can be very consistent. When we went to the wind tunnel, we
found that a rider can adopt the same position, time and again. The
variability in wind resistance for the same rider on the same bike -
while pedaling - was on the order of 2-5%.

More recently, we worked with a Power Meter on the track. I was
surprised that my lap times (at 20 mph) were within 1 second of each
other, for a quarter-mile lap. Making sure that there is no wind is
easy. We have a wind-speed meter, but even more accurate is observing
the leaves on trees around our test track. If they don't move at all,
wind speed is less than 0.3 m/s

For our roll-down tests, we had two people time the first day, and
their times were within 0.3 seconds of each other. Repeat runs of the
same tires usually fell within 0.5 seconds - which accounts for all
the noise combined. The differences between the fastest tire, a hand-
made racing clincher, and the slowest, the Rivendell Nifty-Swifty,
were 5 seconds. You can see that we had no difficulty showing that
these tires offer different performance. (Total time was 25 - 30
seconds, to the slowest tire rolled about 20% slower than the
fastest.)

Our method does not allow us to determine minute differences between
similar tires. Is the Grand Bois Hetre faster than the Mitsuboshi
Trimline? We can't tell. But we can tell tires that are significantly
different, like the 25 mm version of the Michelin Pro 2 Race, which is
faster than the 23 mm version, which in turn is faster than the 20 mm
version.

Doing a rigorous statistical analysis allows us to see the limitations
of our study. I haven't seen any other cycling-related study that has
published their statistical analysis - most don't even bother with
repeat measurements.

As far as which tire is better - we would never make such a value
judgment. We provide the data which tire is faster, and we leave the
judgment to the reader. The same is true for all our articles: If we
form an opinion, we give you plenty of information that allows you to
agree or disagree. Even if you disagree, you will find the information
useful in forming your own opinion.

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly

[ted]

I think Jan asserts that stiffer is slower, which is objectively
measurable.

[Jan Heine]

On Aug 7, 4:42 am, Michael Hechmer <mhech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> let me add that on two points Jan
> is absolutely right.
>

> OTH, I don't get the cold forged vs cnc argument.  The only crank that has
> ever failed for me was a cold forged Sugino, and that after 25 years of use
> the whole rounded out.  I would bet that when a crank does break it's
> almost always  due to a mfg. defect.  No process is ever 100% consistent
> and every process will produce some failures. CNC cranks and brakes are
> plenty strong enough to start and stop all my bikes for much longer than I
> will own them.

Michael,

I am glad you agree with us on many things... If your only bone with
us is that we use a more expensive manufacturing process for our
products than you deem necessary, then that isn't too bad!

Cranks do fail from fatigue - otherwise, they would fail the first
time you pedal very hard.

Cold-forging is stronger than CNC machining. That is a simple fact,
which does not need to be discussed. Is cold-forging necessary for a
bicycle crank? It probably depends on the crank design and on the
rider. We know that a CNC-machined crank will fail the EN fatigue
test, unless it uses a huge amount of material.

In the 1990s, there were large numbers of lightweight CNC-machined
cranks for mountain bikes. Remember Kooka, Topline and all the others?
Very few of the companies exist any longer. Their cranks had high
failure rates, and once this became an issue after these cranks had
been out for a few years, most of the makers folded.

The René Herse crank is a lightweight design, with material only where
it is needed. Cold-forging is more expensive, but I cannot imagine
sending out cranks to customers without being confident that they are
safe to ride.

Jan Heine
Compass Bicycles
http://www.compasscycle.com/

[Matthew J]

> but I think Grant has said that Riv would not be
> successful selling such bikes because other larger well established
> firms with cost advantages are already covering that.

 

Along with Surly, Soma appears to be holding its own selling both lugged and Tig.  Gunnar which has its frames made by Waterford is another.  I don't know how much of Ben's business is frames, but you see a lot of his Milwaukee bikes here in the Midwest anyway.

[Matthew J]

> I notice the same thing on any charity ride or a lot of brevets. It's Ti or CF up front. Still takes a good motor of course.

 

Ti bike are almost always custom, meaning whoever is riding that probably spends a lot of time on the bike given the time and money invested.  Moreover, while Ti is letter than steel, Ti frames use wider tubing.  The weight difference between a Ti and steel frame is not all that different.

 

While good CF frames are up there in price, there are a lot of lower cost models out there, making them easier for younger (and one would hope anyway, better shape) cyclists.

 

Good steel road frames, like Ti, are almost usually custom (or in the case of Riv, custom quality and price).  You are not going to see a lot of steel riders at the front of any large race primarily because there are not a lot of appropriate steel bikes out there.  Especially so in Europe, where the custom bike building industry lags the U.S. signficantly.  Check out the blogs of a lot of the U.S. steel builders out there and you will see that many are getting a % of orders from Europe and Asia as well.  As the overseas markets begin to develop their own steel builders, I expect you will see more steel bikes in general and more leading races.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Mike]

If you like the way your bike rides, it’s an awesome bike.--Skip Bennet at Surly.

It's from this post: 

http://surlybikes.com/blog/post/some_answers_to_just_about_any_bike_forum_post_ive_ever_read

[Patrick in VT]

On Monday, August 6, 2012 4:42:16 PM UTC-4, Matthew J wrote:

 

My reference was intended to be PBP exclusively - I see the way I wrote that is not clear.  As I understand the PBP rules, bag drops are not allowed.

Ancien/anciennes can correct me here, but i'm pretty sure bag drops are commonly used at PBP and there is no penalty for this, nor is it considered cheating.  In my experience, "unsupported" isn't a very precise word in randonneuring. 

Regarding whether it's "racing" or not, that's entirely up to any given rider.  everybody has a goal - whether it's to finish fast, set a personal best or just finish.  real amateur "races" work the same way - often, the winner gets absolutely nothing but a bit of local glory.  participation in a 5/10k foot race, or a marathon (also a "race"), or Cat4 masters cyclocross race, or local sprint triathlon, etc. is not contingent on people who think they are actually going to "win" - folks do it because they like it.  or want to try something new.   the results might read differently, but rando and "racing" aren't that different.  its just people out for the experience/personal challenge, reaching for their goals and enjoying an active life. 

[RJM]

I don't know, I prefer stiffer frames so for me they are better.

[Ryan Watson]

Apologies if someone already mentioned this, but...
Long before I ever heard the name Jan Heine or the term "planing," It was Grant Petersen who first brought the phenomenon to my attention.
The 1992 Bridgestone catalog has an article on p. 34 explaining why they preferred skinny tubing on their bikes when the rest of the world was going OS. It's called "The Benefits of a Little Frame Flex" and compared it to jumping higher on a sprung wooden floor as opposed to a hard concrete floor.
One quote: "A bike frame flexes under the pressure of pedaling, and, as it recovers from the flex, releases some of that energy to help you go."
I've always wondered why Grant changed his mind and went with stiff OS tubing on Rivendell bikes.

Cheers,
Ryan in Albuquerque

[Matthew J]

> Ancien/anciennes can correct me here, but i'm pretty sure bag drops are commonly used at PBP and there is no penalty for this, nor is

> it considered cheating.  In my experience, "unsupported" isn't a very precise word in randonneuring. 

 

Well, would not be the first time I misunderstood something I read somewhere.

 

Of course whether the bike is Steel, Ti or Plastic, a rider should be able to go faster without a load than with. 

 

If the rider intends to ride 1200 km without any outside supply, the traditional Rando set up is as good a way to do this as any.  By that I mean a relatively light frame and fork with a modest sized bag up front for easy access.  You could carry battery lights, but dynamo mean less chance of losing light, so why not?  And, if the ride is in a place where rain is likely- such as the Pacific Northwest or the Northwest Coast of France, fenders make a lot of sense. 

[justin...@gmail.com]

You would have to show me some pretty rigorous tests to prove that across the board, stuff = slow. I LOVE BQ and all that it does for cycling, both technically and culturally, but I have yet to see tests that strike me as being rigorous enough to assert anything from them as an axiom or anything more than a anecdotally observed theory.

Justin, in Philly

[erik jensen]

the only dichotomy worth talking about in bicycling are those who ride their bikes instead of driving a car, and those who don't.

beyond that, do what you will nobody cares.

before that, your decisions harm other people and force those without the choice to inhale your pollution.

erik, who had to close his windows because the chevron refinery caught fire last night and is extremely frustrated by the give me convenience or give me death crowd.

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 05:33 -0700, ted wrote:
> I think Jan asserts that stiffer is slower, which is objectively
> measurable.

I would like to see a citation for that statement.

I believe I have read almost everything Jan has published in the last 10
years (except for the Competition Bicycles book) and I do not recall any
such blanket statement. So please, go hunt for it and when you find it,
quote it in its entirety and provide a citation.

Either that, or retract the statement.

Steve Palincsar
Alexandria VA

[Matthew J]

> erik, who had to close his windows because the chevron refinery caught fire last night and is extremely frustrated by the give me

> convenience or give me death crowd.

 

Agree with your car sentiments whole-heartedly (car free myself for eight years this month).  I think that Chevron refinery makes the heavy oil used in third world power plants (which of course is much worse than gasoline from the pollution perspective).

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 22:28 -0700, Jan Heine wrote:
> But I also suspect that Grant doesn't care - he
> makes the bikes he makes not because they are the most profitable, but
> because they are the bikes he loves.

Further evidence is the way he keeps redesigning lugs. That's a huge
amount of money for each new design, while repeat castings of an already
paid for design would be much less expensive. Obviously it's not
motivated by a desire to maximize profits!

[Steve Palincsar]

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 21:42 -0700, ted wrote:
> Certainly fads or styles or whatever have ebbed and flowed over
> whether or not a noodly frame is undesirable, or how stiff is stiff
> enough, or if stiff is harsh and uncomfortable, or whatever, but I
> think Jan is fairly unique in claiming categorically that the right
> flex is faster, and enough faster that a stiff bike can't be a good
> "performance" bike.

Citation, please.

[Matt Beebe]

Well said Erik.   Sometimes we get caught up in specialization within bicycling, which should be trivial.    Of course, we are reading the RBWOB list, which is yet another specialization.     Sorry to hear about the Chevron refinery fire and its fallout.   I rode my bike to your neck of the woods once.   I crossed the bridge at Martinez from the north while heading to Oakland, and could not believe how huge the Shell refinery is.    Unfortunately the Chevron/Shell refineries have caused higher rates of respiratory disease, neurological disorders, and cancer for the people in the Richmond/Oakland area, to say nothing of their effect on the local wildlife.

[Robert Zeidler]

Personally I hope does do quite well on each bike. That's his right.

Sent from my iPad

[Robert Zeidler]

And if memory serves I might have seen the term in Bicycle Guide back in the 80's

Sent from my iPad

[Anne Paulson]

So then if you timed me and Bradley Wiggins on the same course, with a
stopwatch, you couldn't tell that he was faster, because maybe you
weren't quite accurate with the stopwatch? No, you could easily tell,
because the tiny difference in the stopwatch pressing would be
overwhelmed by the fact that he is twice as fast as I am.

Similarly with the tire tests. The differences between tires,
surprisingly, were very large. Whatever small noise got introduced by
stopwatch pressing was overwhelmed by the large measured differences
between slower tires and faster ones.

--
-- Anne Paulson

My hovercraft is full of eels

[Steve Palincsar]

On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 11:43 -0700, Anne Paulson wrote:
> So then if you timed me and Bradley Wiggins on the same course, with a
> stopwatch, you couldn't tell that he was faster, because maybe you
> weren't quite accurate with the stopwatch? No, you could easily tell,
> because the tiny difference in the stopwatch pressing would be
> overwhelmed by the fact that he is twice as fast as I am.
>
> Similarly with the tire tests. The differences between tires,
> surprisingly, were very large. Whatever small noise got introduced by
> stopwatch pressing was overwhelmed by the large measured differences
> between slower tires and faster ones.
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Robert Zeidler <zeidler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless you can guarantee no variance in wind speed or direction, however
> > slight, or that the finger depressing the stop watch button at the exact
> > same second, every single time, just to cite two of many variables, what you
> > have is a Boy Scout Merit Badge project, not anything remotely resembling
> > real research.

And Galileo's experiments were Boy Scout Merit Badge projects too, and
not real science, for the same reason?

Anne's right.

[Robert Zeidler]

I would measure the difference between you and Mr Wiggins and then offer to buy him a beer after you smoked him!

Sent from my iPad

[Peter Morgano]

Just dont steal his underpants! Apparently when you get so drunk you forgot where you leave your underwear it is someone elses fault, haha.

[Robert Zeidler]

Believe what you want to believe. If Galileo were the last word on science, it would have gone no further. A genius, no doubt, but let's see him launch a spacecraft from earth, put a man on the moon, and return him safely to earth.

Ever see the old Roman distance markers on some European roads? Pretty accurate. But those same distances have been made more precise with modern measuring devices.

To take that a step further, every piece of property ( in the Northeast) was surveyed in the 1700's and given it's dimensions. If modern methods were used to confirm this now, it is estimated that +/- 12% of landowners would end up with zip.

If modern measuring devices were no better they wouldn't have been invented.

RGZ

Sent from my iPad

[Patrick in VT]

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 2:43:57 PM UTC-4, Anne Paulson wrote:

Similarly with the tire tests. The differences between tires,
surprisingly, were very large. Whatever small noise got introduced by
stopwatch pressing was overwhelmed by the large measured differences
between slower tires and faster ones.

what was the fastest tire (size and width) in Jan's tire testing? 

[justin...@gmail.com]

Still so many variables there! In order to get a truly scientific test of what makes an optimal tire you'd need to produce a variety of tire widths using identify casing/tread/etc then several using a single casing and several treads in a given width. Then several casings and a single tread at a given width. THEN THE BSD. Oh lord, when will it end? Our search for scientific bicycling nirvana has brought us to naught!

[Jan Heine]

Using the data published so far, the fastest tire was a hand-made
clincher with cotton casing in a 700C x 24 mm (actual) width. However,
since that was the only hand-made clincher in the test, it's hard to
conclude much from that beyond that hand-made cotton casings are super-
fast. (Pro racers have known that for a long time, almost all of them
race on hand-made tires with cotton or silk casings.)

Would a hand-made clincher with cotton casing in a 34 mm width be
faster yet? We are working on that...

Jan Heine
Editor
Bicycle Quarterly
http://janheine.wordpress.com/

[robert zeidler]

I rest my case. Justin is taking over for me. A high-five and the ring you go!

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/gEtc1Ldiyf0J.