What happened to Cannondale's SilkRoad?
Reuben Hick
road bike, and I love the HeadShock. Now I have upgraded all of the
components. All along I was asked why I didn't just buy a new bicycle.
Simple, who makes a light roadbike with DA triple and a front suspension?
Now if Cannondale would make a SilkRoad frame with that nice "hourglass"
seat stays then I would upgrade. All they have now is a lame R800 "Sport"
with 2rd class components - put on at least Ultegras!
Paul Southworth
Reuben Hick <reube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A number of years ago, I picked up a SR900 with the Ultegra 600s. Great
>road bike, and I love the HeadShock. Now I have upgraded all of the
>components. All along I was asked why I didn't just buy a new bicycle.
>Simple, who makes a light roadbike with DA triple and a front suspension?
I don't know of any off-the-shelf. You can get a suspension fork
for any road bike, but it won't be a Headshock. Not sure if Rock Shox
is still making them but I see them for sale at various bike clearance
outlets.
>Now if Cannondale would make a SilkRoad frame with that nice "hourglass"
>seat stays then I would upgrade. All they have now is a lame R800 "Sport"
>with 2rd class components - put on at least Ultegras!
Probably Cannondale found out that Dura Ace road bikes need to be
like pro racer bikes if you want to sell them. That means they need
to be as uncomfortable as possible, with tiny tires, 12-23/53-39 gearing,
big drop from saddle to stem, little bits of carpet fiber bric-a-brac, etc.
And they need to be 17 pounds or less.
So keep your bike and send a letter to Cannondale telling them
you wanted to buy a new bike but they don't make your bike anymore
so you're just going to keep the old one.
--Paul
The Pomeranian
>
> Probably Cannondale found out that Dura Ace road bikes need to be
> like pro racer bikes if you want to sell them. That means they need
> to be as uncomfortable as possible, with tiny tires, 12-23/53-39 gearing,
> big drop from saddle to stem, little bits of carpet fiber bric-a-brac, etc.
> And they need to be 17 pounds or less.
Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable. They are among the most comfortable
of bikes. That why pros can ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week. I
don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
but it seems to live on and on.
That said, I don't see much wrong with some extra suspension (aside from
"something more to break and maintain"), particularly if the local roads
are in very poor condition. The easiest way to add suspension is to put
on bigger tires and use lower pressure. One does need to be careful
when selecting new frames/forks because many will not accept "largish"
tires. Limited tire size seems to be the only commonplace comfort
drawback with many of the more modern frame/forks.
Reuben Hick
> of bikes.
I guess that explains why non-racers flock to bikes advertised as "more
comfortable".
> That why pros can ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week.
Pros ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week because they practice on the bike
they intend to ride. If one was to replace the words "ride them" for "use
jackhammers" as applied to people who bust up concrete for a living, can we
say that because construction workers use jackhammers "30 to 40" hours per
week (clearly not union "workers"), are jackhammers among the "most
comfortable of " construction tools?
> I
> don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
> but it seems to live on and on.
A huge conspiracy by the bike manufacturers to steer customers away from
spending $3000-4000 on a much more comfortable high performance bike and
towards far less expensive models with pain inducing fat springy seats,
raised handlebars, suspensions forks, and fatter tyres. (sigh)
And here I read articles about people complaining about pain when restarting
their riding program and the solution is, among other things, to ride more
often so that the body adapts to the tiny hard seat, bent over position...
Pros can handle the 30-40 hours per week because there is no alternative.
Guy Chapman
<reube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable. They are among the most comfortable
>> of bikes.
>I guess that explains why non-racers flock to bikes advertised as "more
>comfortable".
Racing bikes /are/ comfortable if they've been adjusted properly, and
if you're fit enough that you're not sitting on the saddle like a sack
of potatoes. "Comfort" bikes are actually pretty uncomfortable on
long rides, as they tend to be more upright, putting more of your
weight on the saddle.
>> don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
>> but it seems to live on and on.
>A huge conspiracy by the bike manufacturers to steer customers away from
>spending $3000-4000 on a much more comfortable high performance bike and
>towards far less expensive models with pain inducing fat springy seats,
>raised handlebars, suspensions forks, and fatter tyres. (sigh)
You can spend the same sums on a mountain bike. That equation's not
about comfort and never will be - but I can buy a road bike for under
$500 equivalent, and it will be comfortable because I will spend up to
10% of that money on fitting - computerised fit analysis, steerer
shims, reach adjustment and so on. Actually I won't, as I blew the
money on a bent instead - now that's real comfort biking for you!
>And here I read articles about people complaining about pain when restarting
>their riding program and the solution is, among other things, to ride more
>often so that the body adapts to the tiny hard seat, bent over position...
>Pros can handle the 30-40 hours per week because there is no alternative.
And because they are fit. If you ride all year round you don't get
the early-season discomfort. I ride all year round. Until recently I
was sitting on a Brooks B17N, a narrow piece of hard leather which was
pretty damned comfortable. Comfort was only ever an issue on my MTB,
with it's upright position and gel saddle.
Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
Above email is a spam-sink. Remove maker of Spam from bikeHO...@chapmanFOODScentral.com to reply by mail
Steve
> Racing bikes /are/ comfortable if they've been adjusted properly, and
> if you're fit enough that you're not sitting on the saddle like a sack
> of potatoes. "Comfort" bikes are actually pretty uncomfortable on
> long rides, as they tend to be more upright, putting more of your
> weight on the saddle.
It is a reasonable argument that the vast majority of the typical road
racing bikes out in the market are replica's of the type of bike the pro's
use.
That doesn't make them comfortable though, even when adjusted properly, as
you often cannot adjust them properly. By that I mean raise the stem and
put on a tire that's wider then 25mm. This type of bike may well be the
perfect bike for a professional bike racer, but there's seemingly good
business to be made in aftermarket stems and saddles designed to make the
bikes comfortable. It may well be a poor survey, but seemingly everyone I
rode with on a Vermont trip this summer had your typical
Trek/C-Dale/Litespeed/etc.. road racing machine with a raised handlebar and
a triple. Too bad about the wider tires, though, as they don't fit under
the brakes as the manufacturers design them with short reach brakes and
clearance for 23mm tires.
This is mostly the argument that Grand Peterson's been making for a few
years now 'bout fit and position on a bike and the general lack of useful
design in bikes these day's. An astute argument in my mind.
Racing bikes may well be comfortable when your 25 or 30, but after 14
seasons - 5 racing, I am not alone in wanting a "comfort bike", in this case
a Heron that easily takes 27mm tires, has laid back seat tube angles that
work well with the shorter rails on a Brooks saddle, a Nitto stem that gets
my h-bar up at seat level and a triple so I can spin up hills.
Steve B.
Steve Palincsar
I don't disagree with you at all. However, the type of bike you and
Grant (and I) favor would still appear to "Mr. Hick" to be an
uncomfortable racing bike etc. etc. The fact that your Heron or my
Rambouillet are extremely comfortable for long rides in excess of 100
miles will be disbelieved. After all, we've got those nasty drop bars
and those hard leather saddles.
Tim McNamara
> > comfortable of bikes.
>
> I guess that explains why non-racers flock to bikes advertised as
> "more comfortable".
No, that's why they flock to cars.
John D.
comfortable bike is what is currently marketed as a Cyclocross bike. I
currently have two road bikes one mountain bike and a recumbent, I enjoy all
of them but still find the cyclocross bike to be something I look forward
to. It has more room for wide tires, more relaxed angles for better
handling and I think Cannondale even makes one of them with a headshock.
This will definately be my next bike.
John
"Steve" <sbmt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:tWbF9.290$Kk2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Guy Chapman
wrote:
[snip road bike coomfort 'tis / 'tisn't]
>That doesn't make them comfortable though, even when adjusted properly, as
>you often cannot adjust them properly. By that I mean raise the stem and
>put on a tire that's wider then 25mm.
That's not adjusting them properly, that's trying to turn a road racer
into a comfort bike or tourer. Low stem and skinny tyres aren't
uncomfortable per se - they aren't ideal on potholed roads, but that
wasn't the question. For potholed roads you want a Moulton.
>This type of bike may well be the
>perfect bike for a professional bike racer, but there's seemingly good
>business to be made in aftermarket stems and saddles designed to make the
>bikes comfortable.
Many of which are bought by people who don't understand that rule 1 is
to get the fit right. This is closely followed by rules 2 through
ten, which are the same :-)
>It may well be a poor survey, but seemingly everyone I
>rode with on a Vermont trip this summer had your typical
>Trek/C-Dale/Litespeed/etc.. road racing machine with a raised handlebar and
>a triple. Too bad about the wider tires, though, as they don't fit under
>the brakes as the manufacturers design them with short reach brakes and
>clearance for 23mm tires.
Isn't that a bit like complaining that the offorad performance of a
Ferrari is lacking, though? If these guys want a bike for long day
rides, a road bike is the wrong thing. They need an audax bike or a
tourer. Road racing bikes are mostly about speed, and much of the
extra cost goes in shaving off weight for faster climbing. Racers
don't sit on the saddle and grind like us mortals do.
>Racing bikes may well be comfortable when your 25 or 30, but after 14
>seasons - 5 racing, I am not alone in wanting a "comfort bike", in this case
>a Heron that easily takes 27mm tires, has laid back seat tube angles that
>work well with the shorter rails on a Brooks saddle, a Nitto stem that gets
>my h-bar up at seat level and a triple so I can spin up hills.
Nowt wrong with that, but I will repeat that my audax-type bike is
more comfortable than my MTB even though the MTB has fatter tyres and
a padded saddle.
My point was that road racing bikes are not uncomfortable when you set
them up and use them for road racing.
Guy Chapman
wrote:
>The fact that your Heron or my
>Rambouillet are extremely comfortable for long rides in excess of 100
>miles will be disbelieved. After all, we've got those nasty drop bars
>and those hard leather saddles.
Precisely. The Brooks B17 is the original comfort saddle :-)
Steve
> them up and use them for road racing.
All true.
Unfortunately, most folks don't want to "race" on roads, they simply want to
"ride" on roads.
What you find is too few of those audax style bikes that might be just the
ticket for the majority of folks graduating from hybrids and mt. bikes.
What they read is the crap Bicycling spews out and all they see are those
$5000 aluminum Colnago's in the shops, all with h-bars 4 inches too low, a
titanium butt wedge saddle, and skinny tires prone to pinch flats on
boutique wheels. Whew !.
Yes they can get a correct position and fit, but for what ?. Racing and
that's it. But that's OK, I even own one and every once in a while I ride
my Klein, instead of the Heron. It's a great bike, but the Herons a better
bike, if only 'cause it's a road bike, while the Kleins a racing bike.
My last $.02
SB
Steve
"Steve Palincsar" <pali...@his.com> wrote in message
> I don't disagree with you at all. However, the type of bike you and
> Grant (and I) favor would still appear to "Mr. Hick" to be an
> uncomfortable racing bike etc. etc. The fact that your Heron or my
> Rambouillet are extremely comfortable for long rides in excess of 100
> miles will be disbelieved. After all, we've got those nasty drop bars
> and those hard leather saddles.
Yeah, it's a mystery how hard it is to get folks to understand.
Case in point is my oldest sister who also shares a love for cycling. She
lives in the SF area and can easily do 30 - 40 miles on her 32 lbs hybrid.
She complains often about how tired her butt gets (on a really wide saddle -
mind you) from sitting all the time.
I tried to explain about getting some of the upper body weight on to the
h-bar (she sits upright), about all that weight shifting to her butt on
those long hills, about all the time she spends climbing with all that
weight...yada, yada, yada. I tried (believe me - I tried) to get her to go
over to Rivendell across the bay to talk to Grant about getting a real road
bike. She's too cheap ( a family trait I've overcome) to spend $1500 on a
bike, when $350 at REI does the trick.
Sigh !. Back to the iBob list where they understand.
SB
Mark Hickey
>Racing bikes may well be comfortable when your 25 or 30, but after 14
>seasons - 5 racing, I am not alone in wanting a "comfort bike", in this case
>a Heron that easily takes 27mm tires, has laid back seat tube angles that
>work well with the shorter rails on a Brooks saddle, a Nitto stem that gets
>my h-bar up at seat level and a triple so I can spin up hills.
Well I'm a lot more than 30 - and I am still quite comfortable on a
"racing bike", much more so than I am on my MTB (at least after any
reasonable distance).
It all depends on your mission statement.
If part of that mission statement is going a certain distance at a
certain speed, sitting bolt upright on a large saddle while turning
fat lower pressure tires is something I'd consider "uncomfortable".
It's much more "comfortable" to cover those same miles on a fast,
efficient bike.
If, OTOH, your mission statement consists of putting in a certain
number of hours at a given effort level - it really doesn't matter
much what you ride (including a stationary). ;-)
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
The Pomeranian
>
> > Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable. They are among the most comfortable
> > of bikes.
>
> I guess that explains why non-racers flock to bikes advertised as "more
> comfortable".
You think the marketeers of those "comfort" bikes are more forthcoming
than any other marketeers? Come on. They're selling on perception as
much as the next guy.
> > That why pros can ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week.
>
> Pros ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week because they practice on the bike
> they intend to ride. If one was to replace the words "ride them" for "use
> jackhammers" as applied to people who bust up concrete for a living, can we
> say that because construction workers use jackhammers "30 to 40" hours per
> week (clearly not union "workers"), are jackhammers among the "most
> comfortable of " construction tools?
That's just nutty. I have 3 racing bikes, 1 tourer, 1 TT bike, and 1
MTB. Only one of my racing bikes has a remotely "hard" ride, and that's
mostly because it has a short wheel base (its a criterium bike
specifically intended for short circuit rides). It is more than 10
years old and has a shorter wheelbase than _any_ other bike/frame I've
seen. The other 2 racing bikes are quite comfortable. I get the
feeling you've never ridden a decent road racing bike.
> > I
> > don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
> > but it seems to live on and on.
>
> A huge conspiracy by the bike manufacturers to steer customers away from
> spending $3000-4000 on a much more comfortable high performance bike and
> towards far less expensive models with pain inducing fat springy seats,
> raised handlebars, suspensions forks, and fatter tyres. (sigh)
The most uncomfortable saddles sold are those touted to be comfort
saddles; talk about false advertising. The racing saddles are the most
comfortable sold, they have to be. I know, I've tried them all. I use
a racing saddle on my touring bike. I sit the same way on my touring
bike that I sit on my racing bikes with the exception that my stem is
shorter and the handlebars are higher. That's equivalent to saying that
I could sit that way (more upright w/ "raised handlebars") on my racing
bikes if I wanted to. I already commented on the tire size issue of
modern racers (I think this is a valid complaint of many modern race
bikes). I can easily put 27c tires on my older race bikes and I can
easily put 25c tires on my modern race bike.
> And here I read articles about people complaining about pain when restarting
> their riding program and the solution is, among other things, to ride more
> often so that the body adapts to the tiny hard seat, ...
Racing saddles are the most comfortable, hands down, no serious
argument. Position is the single most important comfort issue and tour
and "sport" riding differ mainly with regard to how upright one rides.
> ...bent over position...
Most bike shops will provide a shorter/taller stem for little or no
cost. They want the business.
> Pros can handle the 30-40 hours per week because there is no alternative.
Road racing bikes are generally comfortable. Sure things can be done to
make bikes ride even more "plushly," but that alone doesn't call out a
general statement that race bikes are uncomfortable, they aren't. I
have nothing against suspension or a special bike when the roads are
rough. You can put a Softride stem and a shock seatpost on a racing
bike. That'll be plush.
I ride race bikes and I don't tolerate discomfort. If Grant Peterson
wanted to do his customers and frame builders a favor, he'd start
offering "road racing bikes" that would take his Roly-Poly's.
Steve
comment:
>Probably Cannondale found out that Dura Ace road bikes need to be
like pro racer bikes if you want to sell them. That means they need
to be as uncomfortable as possible, with tiny tires, 12-23/53-39 gearing,
big drop from saddle to stem, little bits of carpet fiber bric-a-brac, etc.
And they need to be 17 pounds or less.<
He hasn't had a word to say in all this, I am beginning to suspect that he's
a troll.....
SB
Ken
news:MNdF9.1640$Kk2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> the ticket for the majority of folks graduating from hybrids and mt.
> bikes.
Is that true? Practically every brand has some road bikes with triple
cranksets, dropout eyelets, shorter stem, etc. that would be great for
recreational centuries. At least around where I live (lots of hills), these
are very popular. 10 years ago, triple crankset road bikes were somewhat
rare, but now you can find several models in any bike shop.
The Pomeranian
>
> I don't disagree with you at all. However, the type of bike you and
> Grant (and I) favor would still appear to "Mr. Hick" to be an
> uncomfortable racing bike etc. etc. The fact that your Heron or my
> Rambouillet are extremely comfortable for long rides in excess of 100
> miles will be disbelieved. After all, we've got those nasty drop bars
> and those hard leather saddles.
Not a lot of folks go on rides of 100+ mi and a road racing bike seems
to do me fine on my 100 mi loops, and I'm 45 yo. If I was riding 100+
mi day-to-day, I might sit a bit more upright and maybe go for a
marginally longer wheelbase and marginally larger tires, but all in all
true road racing bikes are quite comfortable if fitted properly.
Not many folks are going to be comfortable on 100+ mi rides unless they
are accustomed (conditioned) to it, regardless of the bike. Some fat
fred will wither on a ride like that no matter what kind of bike it is,
although a racing bike would actually help because it requires less
energy per mile. I don't disbelive for a moment that your bikes are
comfortable, although I personally despise Brooks saddles.
The Pomeranian
>
> I don't disagree with you at all. However, the type of bike you and
> Grant (and I) favor would still appear to "Mr. Hick" to be an
> uncomfortable racing bike etc. etc. The fact that your Heron or my
> Rambouillet are extremely comfortable for long rides in excess of 100
> miles will be disbelieved. After all, we've got those nasty drop bars
> and those hard leather saddles.
Bernie
Guy Chapman wrote:
It is fascinating that the machines that look like torture devices feel and ride great when they are fitted well
to the rider. It is much more practicality than nostalgia that keeps drop bars, skinny leather seats, toe clips,
threaded forks (hint hint, let's not let them disappear) in constant popular useage. As for seats, the only
seats that have been really hard on my ass have been squishy comfort seats. Wouldn't pay 2 cents for one.
Best regards, Bernie
Bluto
> Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable.
Hogwash, plain and simple.
> They are among the most comfortable
> of bikes. That why pros can ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week. I
> don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
> but it seems to live on and on.
I used to ride a bike with a narrow, hard saddle and bars 6" to 8"
below the saddle level, but I did so because it was fast. I got used
to it, but it was not the comfortable choice by any means. That's not
the point of a speedy bike.
Of course, the first time I put in 200 miles in two days, I was
bleeding from my butt. I put on a more accomodating saddle and never
looked back, even for my speedy bikes.
If you think a race bike is comfortable, it just tells me you haven't
spent any time on a bike whose (wide) bar tops are higher than the
saddle, nor one equipped with a Brooks 90/3 sprung triple rail seat.
Big, grippy platform pedals to support the soles of comfortable
walking shoes are also a nice feature you may have missed.
> That said, I don't see much wrong with some extra suspension (aside from
> "something more to break and maintain"), particularly if the local roads
> are in very poor condition. The easiest way to add suspension is to put
> on bigger tires and use lower pressure.
Amen to that, but by "bigger tires" I would not mean 28mm. I use 38mm
or wider tires when comfort is the issue. This is yet another reason
why a race bike is not a comfortable bike, by definition.
Here's a list of the most significant reasons I believe a racing bike
as offered is not comfortable, even for an experienced rider:
- Stem places bars too low, overweighting hands even on the tops
- Bend of bars makes either the top bend or the drops slope too
steeply
- Saddle is poorly padded and WAY too narrow
- Only foolishly small tires can be fitted (barely over half as wide
as those used on '20s track racers)
- Neither brakes nor shifters can be accessed from the bar tops
- Pedals are specific to shoes that are uncomfortable by design
- Short c-stays give harsh bump response and poor weight distribution,
interfere with heels of large feet
- Steering is often touchy, requiring constant vigilance
Note that "frame lacks mechanical suspension" is not on the list.
Monkey motion does not adequately address any of the above issues,
though it's not a bad thing per se.
Chalo Colina
Eric S. Sande
>comfortable bike is what is currently marketed as a Cyclocross bike.
If it wasn't for marketing we'd see stuff like the Schwinn Cross-Fit
made out of Cromoly with good components for a decent price.
Bwahhahaha.
On the other hand, that was a decent bike.
--
_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>cwhi...@texastwr.utaustin.edu__________
Harley
Lib. seat. I've only had a few bikes and haven't found anything more
comfortable. Sure wish they still made them; I'd buy a spare. h
yodelmoaner
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the Phrase Of The Day.
Say it out loud, then think about what you're thankful for today.
Happy thoughts, happy thoughts.
whitfit
> Monkey motion does not adequately address any of the above issues,
> though it's not a bad thing per se.
I don't know much, but I know that my Cannondale 'cross bike with the
headshock is comfortable for a lot of different types of riding. I
can throw on narrow tires, and feel comfortable on the pavement. I
can throw on cross tires, and ride on trails. I have taken it touring
in France (fully loaded), and was very happy with the results.
The Headshock can be locked out on climbs, and if I leave it locked
out, I can certainly tell the difference (and this is using tires
above 30mm) when I hit a bump, or crack in the road. The thing is
basically maintenance free, and with only one inch of travel, and
heavy duty bearings and a spring for the suspension, there's not much
that can go wrong, and nothing that has for me. I might be saying
something different in twenty years, but that's the deal I made with
the devil when I decided to buy it.
It's a weird mongrel of a bike, which scares off traditionalists and
road weenies and people who like mountain bikes. Kind of in between,
not fastest at anything bike, but comfortable for road and fire road
and touring, and with me, it ain't the one pound difference in the
bike's weight that is slowing me down.
Whitfit.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I used to ride a bike with a narrow, hard saddle and bars 6" to 8"
> below the saddle level, but I did so because it was fast. I got used
>
> If you think a race bike is comfortable, it just tells me you haven't
> spent any time on a bike whose (wide) bar tops are higher than the
> saddle, nor one equipped with a Brooks 90/3 sprung triple rail seat.
> Big, grippy platform pedals to support the soles of comfortable
> walking shoes are also a nice feature you may have missed.
I think we need to remember that people are different in strength,
flexibility, and size.
Your nickname reminds me that you're a very big guy. Seems to me that a
person weighing over 250 pounds might be very uncomfortable on a certain
combination of frame & saddle & tire, whereas a person weighing 125
might be perfectly comfortable on that same combination.
I also think that fit is likely more important than things like tire
size. My daughter's new bike is a "road" model which _looks_ less
comfortable than her previous touring frame. However, the new one fits
her much better, and she says she's _much_ more comfortable on it.
That said, I'm in the camp that believes more people would happier on
bikes which were less racing oriented. For most people, there's no
point in pretending to be a racer.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Bike Dude
Let me guess: your crit bike is a KHS Turbo Aero Comp or similar
Zinn/Boone/Hed design wit the curved seat tube. I have never seen a
shorter wheelbase that this bike (the rear tire kisses the BB shell).
Peter Cole
news:8b4b7de4.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> Here's a list of the most significant reasons I believe a racing bike
> as offered is not comfortable, even for an experienced rider:
>
> - Stem places bars too low, overweighting hands even on the tops
> - Bend of bars makes either the top bend or the drops slope too
> steeply
> - Saddle is poorly padded and WAY too narrow
> - Only foolishly small tires can be fitted (barely over half as wide
> as those used on '20s track racers)
> - Neither brakes nor shifters can be accessed from the bar tops
> - Pedals are specific to shoes that are uncomfortable by design
> - Short c-stays give harsh bump response and poor weight distribution,
> interfere with heels of large feet
> - Steering is often touchy, requiring constant vigilance
I'm an aspiring "ulra-cyclist", I commonly do rides longer than 200 mi,
although that isn't considered very far by those who do this kind of thing. I
can't think of any other group that has similar needs for comfort and
performance. Some just ride for the distance, some for both distance and time.
I think this group really has the final word on what works and what doesn't.
What I like in a bike is the ability to change the configuration. Saddles and
pedals are easily swapped out. Saddles are a very personal choice, and I don't
think there are any comfort rules of hard vs. soft, narrow vs. wide, or
traditional vs. modern, whatever works for you works. I've found that shoes
are much more important than pedals. A sufficiently stiff sole makes any
difference in pedal platform size unnoticeable.
The most important thing to be able to change on a bike is tires. My main bike
is a Cannondale touring frame with cantilever brakes. I use anything from 23
mm, high performance tires to 37 mm, deeply treaded, carbide studded tires.
Usually I'm riding 28 mm slicks. I have a Nitto, long quill stem which allows
a very big adjustment range in bar height, but I've found that I don't change
it, comfortable for me is bar tops 4" or so below the saddle.
My frame has long chain stays and wheelbase, which I think is a good thing. I
like the ability to ride no-hands so I can stretch on the bike during long
rides, and a little more stability during fast descents on unfamiliar roads,
sometimes in the dark, is reassuring. Frames and brakes with generous
clearances really should be the rule rather than the exception, if bike design
followed practicality rather than fashion.
Guy Chapman
wrote:
>Yes they can get a correct position and fit, but for what ?. Racing and
>that's it. But that's OK, I even own one and every once in a while I ride
>my Klein, instead of the Heron. It's a great bike, but the Herons a better
>bike, if only 'cause it's a road bike, while the Kleins a racing bike.
I can buy that - I have an old Claud Butler Super Dalesman,
lightweight touring frame (531ST) - what we would now call an audax
bike, I guess. I can keep pace with our local roadies easily enough,
it just needs a bit more effort uphill. But I would be dropped dead
in a real race - which is fine, becauise I'm a commuter not a racer.
These days, of course, I ride something upon which the UCI would
undoubtedly frown - sod 'em :-)
Guy Chapman
>It is fascinating that the machines that look like torture devices feel and ride great when they are fitted well
>to the rider. It is much more practicality than nostalgia that keeps drop bars, skinny leather seats, toe clips,
>threaded forks (hint hint, let's not let them disappear) in constant popular useage. As for seats, the only
>seats that have been really hard on my ass have been squishy comfort seats. Wouldn't pay 2 cents for one.
>Best regards, Bernie
Absolutely. I have loads of mates who think like we do - and they all
think I've taken leave of my sense by buying a 'bent :-)
Patrick Lamb
<reube...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>And here I read articles about people complaining about pain when restarting
>their riding program and the solution is, among other things, to ride more
>often so that the body adapts to the tiny hard seat, bent over position...
>Pros can handle the 30-40 hours per week because there is no alternative.
If you want to hear grumbling about pain, you should check out some of
the groups and mailing lists dealing with walking. People who have
had not significant exercise for years, or just over the winter, it
doesn't seem to matter. Their legs hurt. Their feet hurt. Their
butts hurt. According to your logic, they're in pain because of their
position. What position should they adopt? Bicyclists on road bikes
look like hunchbacks, and you propound an upright position. Walkers
stand upright and hurt -- should they imitate Quasimodo?
Pat
Jim Quinn
exactly twice, the wide seat chaffed my thighs and the seat was way too
squishy. I will take one of those narrow racing saddles any day over the
week over a comfort saddle. I do about 15 hours a week on the bicycle so
being comfortable is important to me.
"Bike Dude" <bicycl...@attbi.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3DE7033D...@attbi.nospam.com...
Bernie
Guy Chapman wrote:
Hey Guy!
I see nothing wrong with riding a recumbent. I may ride one myself some day - when I'm too old to get out of my easy
chair!
Cheerful regards! Bernie (5 years gasoline free)
Bernie
Patrick Lamb wrote:
You've just got to do your best with what you've got. I know that's a short
story, but that's it. And hey, keep the butter side up, and have a little fun!
Best regards, Bernie
There is something about a Martini
Ere the dining and the dancing begin,
And to tell you the truth,
It is not the vermouth--
I think that perhaps it's the gin.
-- Ogden Nash
Guy Chapman
>I see nothing wrong with riding a recumbent. I may ride one myself some day - when I'm too old to get out of my easy
>chair!
Heh! I take my easy chair with me :-) And I'm not that old,
either....
<http://www.chapmancentral.com/Web/public.nsf/documents/bike_optima_stinger>
Mark Hickey
>The Pomeranian <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote:
>
>> Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable.
>
>Hogwash, plain and simple.
C'mon, take off the gloves and really take a swing! ;-)
>I used to ride a bike with a narrow, hard saddle and bars 6" to 8"
>below the saddle level, but I did so because it was fast. I got used
>to it, but it was not the comfortable choice by any means. That's not
>the point of a speedy bike.
>
>Of course, the first time I put in 200 miles in two days, I was
>bleeding from my butt. I put on a more accomodating saddle and never
>looked back, even for my speedy bikes.
To replicate what you experienced, I picture scaling my own minimalist
racing saddle down to a 2/3 scale model and riding it. Yep, that
would be uncomfortable (for those of you who don't know, Chalo is a
huge mountain of a human being, while I'm a middle-of-the-bell curve
US male).
Oh no, now you're going to start a campaign to get every saddle
manufacturer to build only saddles about 10" (25cm) wide! ;-)
Guy Chapman
<frkr...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>Your nickname reminds me that you're a very big guy. Seems to me that a
>person weighing over 250 pounds might be very uncomfortable on a certain
>combination of frame & saddle & tire, whereas a person weighing 125
>might be perfectly comfortable on that same combination.
250lb is not that big - I used to weigh 210 (although I'm now down to
under 180). Depends on height, of course. I maintain that however
heavy you are, if you're riding hard your legs carry most of your
weight most of the time, so the saddle isn't an issue - in fact, it
needs to be narrow to make sure it doesn't get in the way of
pedalling. Wide saddles, upright posture and flat bars are not a
comfortable position for me. I can't pedal hard enough, I can't get
my hands comfortable and I can't get enough of my weight forward to
get the bike balanced nicely. But I don't necessarily denounce flat
bar bikes as torture devices, because for a lot of people they aren't.
What constitutes a comfortable bike probably depends a lot on the
rider and the type of riding, I suppose.
Guy
===
Now available in both wedgie and bent flavours!
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old
mail addresses may no longer work. Apologies.
James Hodson
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>250lb is not that big - I used to weigh 210 (although I'm now down to
>under 180).
You had a shave? :-)
>What constitutes a comfortable bike probably depends a lot on the
>rider and the type of riding, I suppose.
>
Quite soon after I bought my road bike I popped into the LBS to buy a
new saddle. They were quite surprised when I asked for a harder seat
and not a softer perch.
I am very comfortable on my rigid MTB with its upright position. I'm
also fine on the road bike with the ZOOMmmmm style of riding. However,
on the former, I ride in a relaxed gear, whereas on the latter, I have
to maintain a more furious pedalling style.
James
--
A credit limit is NOT a target.
Bernie
Guy Chapman wrote:
Just jiving with ya Guy! ;-) Actually I do like the look of those compact models. I tried to outrun a couple on their
RansRockets on my hybrid this autumn - they didn't look THAT fast! Oh well. I can see why you'd want to commute on one.
Best regards, Bernie
Guy Chapman
<jUNDERSC...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>on the former, I ride in a relaxed gear, whereas on the latter, I have
>to maintain a more furious pedalling style.
You want to be careful with that pedalling furiously (TM) stuff :-)
Not sure I understand this concept of "relaxed" pedalling, though - is
that where you don't bother pulling on the upstroke?
Rory Mason
Cannondale has rebranded the Silk Road and put it in their "Sport Road"
category.
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3RS8Y.html
The 800 HeadShok "only" comes with 105, has 700 x 25c Conti Gatorskins,
suspension seatpost, gel saddle, rise stem, etc. They should also offer
this as a frameset, ask your local retailer.
Cyclocross model still exists also at
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/03/cusa/model-3XS8.html for more info.
Reuben asked if Cannondale still made a suspended road bike... you would've
thought by the responses that he asked for a Spanish Inqui...
"Reuben Hick" <reube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4U4F9.750$Bv.53...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> A number of years ago, I picked up a SR900 with the Ultegra 600s. Great
> road bike, and I love the HeadShock. Now I have upgraded all of the
> components. All along I was asked why I didn't just buy a new bicycle.
> Simple, who makes a light roadbike with DA triple and a front suspension?
>
> Now if Cannondale would make a SilkRoad frame with that nice "hourglass"
> seat stays then I would upgrade. All they have now is a lame R800 "Sport"
> with 2rd class components - put on at least Ultegras!
>
>
>
one of the six billion
"Reuben Hick" <reube...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4U4F9.750$Bv.53...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> A number of years ago, I picked up a SR900 with the Ultegra 600s. Great
> road bike, and I love the HeadShock. Now I have upgraded all of the
> components. All along I was asked why I didn't just buy a new bicycle.
> Simple, who makes a light roadbike with DA triple and a front suspension?
>
> Now if Cannondale would make a SilkRoad frame with that nice "hourglass"
> seat stays then I would upgrade. All they have now is a lame R800 "Sport"
> with 2rd class components - put on at least Ultegras!
>
>
Not to say there aren't reasons to go Ultegra or DA, but I bet in a blind test you couldn't tell the difference between 105 and
Ultegra.
My first "modern" bike came with 105 and brought a whole new league of efficiency and performance in shifting. Subsequent upgrades
never brought any appreciable differences besides aesthetics (which do have value, but don't increase utility).
Bluto
> To replicate what you experienced, I picture scaling my own minimalist
> racing saddle down to a 2/3 scale model and riding it. Yep, that
> would be uncomfortable (for those of you who don't know, Chalo is a
> huge mountain of a human being, while I'm a middle-of-the-bell curve
> US male).
I imagine that my cherished Brooks B90/3 would look pretty ordinary at
2/3 scale, except for all the springy stuff. Scale a Selle Italia
Flite up until it's about 20cm wide and it might be a comfy saddle
too. It would look a little like a banana seat, though. :D
> Oh no, now you're going to start a campaign to get every saddle
> manufacturer to build only saddles about 10" (25cm) wide! ;-)
Nah, different stoops for different bums, I say. I see a whole lot
more skinny saddles than skinny butts out on the road, though; perhaps
a bit of balance would be a good thing. After all, it seems that huge
fat springy gumdrop saddles (which are the next most common after tiny
skinny ones) are purchased as an overreaction to real or anticipated
trauma from the little hard kind. What would be best for most people
might be like a race saddle but significantly bigger.
I think high performance riders should also have the option of a
"clipless saddle"-- like a carbon fiber trailer hitch ball mounted
atop the seatpost. It would give this forum yet another lubrication
issue to kick around.
Chalo Colina
Tom Keats
chump...@hotmail.com (Bluto) writes:
> I think high performance riders should also have the option of a
> "clipless saddle"-- like a carbon fiber trailer hitch ball mounted
> atop the seatpost. It would give this forum yet another lubrication
> issue to kick around.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :-)
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply
Bluto
> I'm an aspiring "ulra-cyclist", I commonly do rides longer than 200 mi,
> although that isn't considered very far by those who do this kind of thing. I
> can't think of any other group that has similar needs for comfort and
> performance. Some just ride for the distance, some for both distance and time.
> I think this group really has the final word on what works and what doesn't.
For multiple-centuries, they sure do. But what works best for half an
hour at modest speeds is different than what hurts the least after 300
miles in a day.
> What I like in a bike is the ability to change the configuration. Saddles and
> pedals are easily swapped out.
It's one of the reasons I prefer motorcycles to cars.
> I've found that shoes
> are much more important than pedals. A sufficiently stiff sole makes any
> difference in pedal platform size unnoticeable.
A shoe that stiff is by its nature an uncomfortable shoe. Feet bend;
shoes should too! It's more tolerable cycling in a stiff shoe than
walking, but it still bears no comparison to a good walking shoe
supported by a broad, slightly concave platform pedal. The fact that
a good walking shoe works just as well away from the bike is a quality
that encourages more thorough integration of your bike into your daily
life.
Chalo Colina
James Hodson
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Not sure I understand this concept of "relaxed" pedalling, though - is
>that where you don't bother pulling on the upstroke?
>
Just a lower gear and being happy at a slower speed. Thus: Spin as
usual but don't be fussed if you don't actually get anywhere
particularly quickly.
Ryan Cousineau
chump...@hotmail.com (Bluto) wrote:
> "Peter Cole" <pete...@nospamatallattbi.com> wrote:
Chalo, is that really true? Feet do bend (the arch shape and all, I
know) when being used in impact activities (a fancy name for walking and
running). But cycling isn't like that. First off, there's no impact, so
the foot doesn't have to flex much to bear the shock (well, maybe when
_you_ sprint out of the saddle it's an impact activity, but in this as
so much else, you are the outlying data point).
My personal experience was that I rode for quite some time in a variety
of walking/running shoes with toe clips, very good for power (there was
a definite improvement over plain platform pedals). Then this year I
switched, after several months of getting back into riding, to SPDs. The
shoes I got were on the flexy side for bike shoes, but did have a hard
plastic footbed between the sole and the insole.
It was night and day: the combination of the stiffer sole and the better
connection with clip-in pedals was night and day. I gained a gear for
large parts of my commute ride, a huge equipment-based performance gain.
I have had NO (nada, none) problems with foot discomfort (except wet
feet), and if anything my feet feel better than they did before.
I had to switch back to my wife's platform-equipped bike a few weeks ago
for one day, and after one day I put my SPD pedals on the bike so I
could ride it comfortably.
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.cat (trim trailing t), www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
FREE WINONA!
Guy Chapman
<jUNDERSC...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Not sure I understand this concept of "relaxed" pedalling, though - is
>>that where you don't bother pulling on the upstroke?
>Just a lower gear and being happy at a slower speed. Thus: Spin as
>usual but don't be fussed if you don't actually get anywhere
>particularly quickly.
No, no, still can't quite see what youy're getting at. Do you mean
you'd be satisfied with an average under 20,0mph or something? ;-)
Bluto
> Bluto wrote:
>
> > Feet bend;
> > shoes should too! It's more tolerable cycling in a stiff shoe than
> > walking, but it still bears no comparison to a good walking shoe
> > supported by a broad, slightly concave platform pedal.
>
> Chalo, is that really true? Feet do bend (the arch shape and all, I
> know) when being used in impact activities (a fancy name for walking and
> running). But cycling isn't like that.
<snip>
> My personal experience was that I rode for quite some time in a variety
> of walking/running shoes with toe clips, very good for power (there was
> a definite improvement over plain platform pedals). Then this year I
> switched, after several months of getting back into riding, to SPDs. The
> shoes I got were on the flexy side for bike shoes, but did have a hard
> plastic footbed between the sole and the insole.
>
> It was night and day: the combination of the stiffer sole and the better
> connection with clip-in pedals was night and day. I gained a gear for
> large parts of my commute ride, a huge equipment-based performance gain.
> I have had NO (nada, none) problems with foot discomfort (except wet
> feet), and if anything my feet feel better than they did before.
I remember well the feeling of vastly improved power transmission when
I got my first pair of SPD clipless pedals from clips-n-straps. At
that time I had no compunctions about wearing my bike shoes to school,
same as my bike shorts. A few factors have made me happier switching
to big flat platform pedals, though:
-- I stopped wearing shoes that were too small for my feet. I had
been wearing US size 13 because my feet did fit into them, and they
were the biggest shoes available in most styles. Turns out that 14.5
is a better approximation of my size. Ever look for walkable clipless
shoes in size 50? I am told they exist, but to date I've seen none.
-- I started working in industry, and I gradually figured out that all
shoes are not made equal when it comes to standing for 10-hour shifts.
I became discriminating about comfortable, durable shoes and boots.
None of them are even a little bit like anything that comes drilled
for cleats.
-- I put on weight and rode much less mileage. Power transmission
efficiency, real or perceived, is no longer any kind of limiting
factor on my riding performance. I now have way more leg power than
wind to support it.
-- I became heavy and strong enough to bend pedal spindles. This
disqualified clipless pedals out of hand for a time. Then Time ATACs
came out, with a beefier spindle than other clipless pedals. I bought
two pairs. I used them intermittently, tolerating the too-small
shoes. I soon discovered that I had bent the pedal spindles.
Amidst all the component failures, trial and error, and
experimentation, one thing was proved to me on several occasions.
Those shoes that are most comfortable to stand and walk in, are also
most comfortable to cycle in, provided that the pedals are
sufficiently supportive of their flexible soles. Oldfangled
quill-type or rattrap pedals are inadequate to the task; I discovered
in my quest for non-bendy spindles that outsized BMX/freestyle pedals
are the ticket. BMX riders often wear Vans and other skateboarding
shoes, which are too flexible for comfort on less-than-generously
sized pedals. The oversized pedals characteristic of BMX have not
proven to be any impediment to high performance in this very
competitive racing category. The following links feature examples of
big, friendly BMX pedals:
http://www.gearshark.com/finder/details/Odyssey-Triple-Trap-Pedals-9-16-/275127.html
http://www.reverb54.com/416south/product/pedals.htm
http://www.brooklynmachineworks.com/parts/shinburger.htm
OK, so the last one isn't so friendly.
Anyway, if you want to ride comfortably in Red Wing boots, Converse
Chuck Taylors, Birkenstocks, Topsiders, Mephistos, cowboy boots, bunny
slippers, or any other kind of shoes unsuited to pushing teeny-tiny
little pedals, then big wide flat pedals are the way to go. They're
not only the most comfortable for your feet, but you also have the
comfort of knowing that whatever shoes you are wearing, you are ready
to ride.
Chalo Colina
--
Peter Cole
>
> -- I stopped wearing shoes that were too small for my feet. I had
> been wearing US size 13 because my feet did fit into them, and they
> were the biggest shoes available in most styles. Turns out that 14.5
> is a better approximation of my size. Ever look for walkable clipless
> shoes in size 50? I am told they exist, but to date I've seen none.
I have several in size 50, also 51 & 52 (oversize to wear heavy socks in
winter). Diadora and Sidi make up to size 52 anyway. Diadora makes a SPD
"Vans" style shoe (Cayman) for ~$60 which isn't bad. Sidi "Mega" shoes are
made extra-wide and go to 52. They're kind of pricey. I got a pair (52) of the
MTB ones on sale from Gnashbar for $120 this year.
The Pomeranian
All you need to do on a "road racing" bike is move the bars back and up
a little. Then you can almost call it a Rivendell.
zeldabee
> Not to say there aren't reasons to go Ultegra or DA, but I bet in a blind
> test you couldn't tell the difference between 105 and Ultegra.
I've always wondered how one does a 'blind' test on a bike. How would you
keep from, say, smacking into a parked car? EMNTK, and all that.
--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/
The Pomeranian
>
> The Pomeranian <lifti...@smellslikeakennel.com> wrote:
>
> > Racing bikes aren't uncomfortable.
>
> Hogwash, plain and simple.
Road racing bikes are generally quite comfortable. I know, I own three
of them. I ride in massive group training rides where pretty much
everyone rides racing bikes. No one mentions discomfort at the coffee
shop after the ride. No one looks uncomfortable except when the
pressure is on at the front. Riders appear relaxed and comfortable when
cruising along in the peloton.
> > They are among the most comfortable
> > of bikes. That why pros can ride them for 30 to 40 hours per week. I
> > don't know why the myth and lore of "uncomfortable racing bikes" exists,
> > but it seems to live on and on.
>
> I used to ride a bike with a narrow, hard saddle and bars 6" to 8"
> below the saddle level, but I did so because it was fast. I got used
> to it, but it was not the comfortable choice by any means. That's not
> the point of a speedy bike.
The point of a "speedy" bike is not to make one uncomfortable. Racing
bikes can't be uncomfortable by necessity.
> Of course, the first time I put in 200 miles in two days, I was
> bleeding from my butt.
This is not the riding most people typically do. Nonetheless, I'd have
no trouble doing those miles on either of my road racing bikes.
> I put on a more accomodating saddle and never
> looked back, even for my speedy bikes.
Obviously you have unique needs when it comes to most any aspect of a
bike, due to your atypical size.
> If you think a race bike is comfortable, it just tells me you haven't
> spent any time on a bike whose (wide) bar tops are higher than the
> saddle, nor one equipped with a Brooks 90/3 sprung triple rail seat.
I averaged 100 mi a day on a "loaded" cross country tour on my touring
bike. The bars (on my touring bike) were back 1 to 1.5 cm and up 2 tp 3
cm from my race bike. Other than that, the position was identical to my
racing bikes. I used the very same saddle because racing saddles are
generally the most comfortable. They have to be, pro racers spend more
time in the saddle than anyone else. A road racing bike is comfortable
for the typical usage (miles or hours ridden) it will see from most
users.
> Big, grippy platform pedals to support the soles of comfortable
> walking shoes are also a nice feature you may have missed.
You may have missed cycling shoes that fit your feet. If they don't fit
correctly, they won't be comfortable, just like any shoe. You could put
those platform pedals on a road racing bike. In any case, shoes are not
part of the bike, and pedals are only nominally so.
> > That said, I don't see much wrong with some extra suspension (aside from
> > "something more to break and maintain"), particularly if the local roads
> > are in very poor condition. The easiest way to add suspension is to put
> > on bigger tires and use lower pressure.
>
> Amen to that, but by "bigger tires" I would not mean 28mm. I use 38mm
> or wider tires when comfort is the issue. This is yet another reason
> why a race bike is not a comfortable bike, by definition.
A modern road racing bike is comfortable for its intended purpose:
riding on modern roads. Sure, if the roads are exceptionally rough,
then a bigger tire will help. I don't see how riding in abnormal
conditions (long distances of poor quality roads) calls for a general
statement damning the comfort of racing bikes. Again, your need for 38c
tires is more a pointer to your size than anything else. Your 38c is my
28c. I put Roly-Polys (rated 28c; 27c true) on one of my road racing
bikes and it rides like a cloud. This road racing bike is quite
suitable (comfortable) for long stretchs of rough roads. I could ride
it across the country with good comfort.
I think you, like others, are trying to turn "degree of comfort" into a
Pass/Fail comfort criteria. It doesn't work that way. Sure my touring
bike is marginally more comfortable than my racing bikes, but that
doesn't make racing bikes "uncomfortable" for most of the riding that I,
and probably most other people are ever going to do. The fact that pros
can put so may miles on racing bikes should point to the general fallacy
of "racing bikes are uncomfortable." Why is a racing bike uncomfortable
because someone picked the wrong shoes?
> Here's a list of the most significant reasons I believe a racing bike
> as offered is not comfortable, even for an experienced rider:
>
> - Stem places bars too low, overweighting hands even on the tops
It's easy to put the bars higher (stem change). Many LBSs will do it
for free if you buy the bike from them.
> - Bend of bars makes either the top bend or the drops slope too
> steeply
I don't know what this means. There are so many styles and dimensions
of "racing bars" out there that I can't see how handlebar choice can be
seriously complained about.
> - Saddle is poorly padded and WAY too narrow
Sparse padding actually helps comfort. Deep padding causes one to sink
into the saddle such that the weight is no longer borne by the ischeal
turberosities and is instead borne by the soft tissue in between.
Heavily padded saddles cause limp dick syndrome and are thus notably
uncomfortable. Racing saddles such as the Selle Italia SLR and generic
Flite are good examples of very comfortable saddles. There is no
guarantee that any saddle that comes with a bike is going to be
comfortable for all users. Most folks accept that they may need to try
different saddles, regardless of the classification of bike type.
Again, racing saddles are generally very comfortable.
It is interesting that Rivendell sells Brooks saddles as "comfortable."
I had a Brooks Team Pro saddle and it was very uncomfortable. I can
accept that Brooks saddles work for some folks. My Flite & SLR saddles
are far more comfortable for me and I know so many fellow riders, racers
included, who feel that the Flite saddle is one of the best all time
comfortable saddles ever made. I've had Avocet saddles sold to me as
comfort saddles: they were even worse than the Brooks.
When I was prepping for my loaded X-country tour, I went on training
rides on my touring bike, just to check things out. At 30 or 40 mi, my
crotch really hurt and I was using the Avocet saddle billed as a
"comfort tour saddle." I thought "hey, my crotch never hurts on my
racing bike, and it has a Flite saddle." I had originally purchased the
Flite because it was light, but found that it was the best designed
saddle I'd ever ridden. It was light _and_ it was comfortable.
Needless to say, the comfort touring bike received a racing saddle, and
the "comfort saddle" dissappeared at the flea market. The SLR is
lighter yet and arguably even more comfortable. I'm sure the common
racing saddles would need to be scaled up in size for you, for you to
see the benefit that more average folks see.
> - Only foolishly small tires can be fitted (barely over half as wide
> as those used on '20s track racers)
Like I said before, even my most limited frame/fork, which is C-fiber,
will easily take 25c tires. That's good for almost any purpose I have
and quite comfortable for most any place I ever ride. I wouldn't quite
call 25c "foolishly small" for a racing bike, or for most riders, or for
most roads. I have acknowledged that the rather common current tire
size limitation of modern road racing bikes is a valid criticism. It
wouldn't hurt the bikes design to accept a nominally larger tire.
> - Neither brakes nor shifters can be accessed from the bar tops
I don't get it. What does that have to do with comfort? I don't have
any trouble shifting or braking, as far as comfort goes. It never
occured to me to complain about it.
> - Pedals are specific to shoes that are uncomfortable by design
Manufacturers design shoes to be uncomfortable?
> - Short c-stays give harsh bump response and poor weight distribution,
> interfere with heels of large feet.
Don't buy a crit bike. Buy a road racing bike. There is nothing wrong
with the weight distribition of a crit bike for doing crit racing.
> - Steering is often touchy, requiring constant vigilance
Don't buy a crit bike. I love my crit bike for racing crits exactly
because of its handling response. With all this said, I did use my crit
bike for general riding before my stable exploded. Again, comfort is
not a pass/fail line. The crit bike was okay, the road racing bikes are
better and are _plenty_ good enough for 100 mi weekend fred rides on
most roads.
> Note that "frame lacks mechanical suspension" is not on the list.
> Monkey motion does not adequately address any of the above issues,
> though it's not a bad thing per se.
I have nothing against suspension. For some folks with special needs,
extra suspension may be mandatory. That does not call out a general
statement that racing bikes are uncomfortable, they aren't.
Ajneet Singh Dhillon
Sorry for the long porst but if you have a GT road bike you
should really read this.
I have a GT Road bike and around the beginning of October
I broke the derailleur hanger on the bike. Fortunately, some
guys out hunting gave me a ride home. No big deal I thought,
I would just buy a new hanger and that would be that.
When the new hanger came there was a small manufacturing defect
in it and had to be bent so that it aligned correctly. After about
three weeks of riding around with this new hanger it too broke. The
most likely reason was that it was weakened by bending it back
into place as I had not crashed or damaged it in anyway. This
time someone who I ride bikes with happened to be driving by
and I got a ride home with her.
When I got home I called my LBS and they ordered two more hangers.
They arrived today and they all had manufacturing defects. I was not
willing to take the realignment by bending route again so
I got my LBS to return them.
I just got off the phone with Pacific cycle who now own
GT. They said they would be willing to give me two hangers
for the price of one th second I could use as a spare in case
the first broke. I pointed out to them that this would not work
be sufficent as last time when the hanger broke it took be
derailleur with it. I was lucky my rear wheel did not get trashed
as the derailleaur went into the spokes. The Pacific cycle
representative pointed out they were not responsible as
they were not owners of GT when my bike was manufactured.
I could live all of this but what I cannot accept is the
following. I asked the Pacific guy when they would be ordering
new hangers. He said in about 3 months after they have sold
their current stock. In other words they are willing to
knowingly sell a defective product. I probably should
have asked if there two for one deal applied to all their other
customers. At the time I was too astonished to ask.
Marlene Blanshay
<Pine.GSO.4.44.021202...@peano.math.purdue.edu>, Ajneet
Singh Dhillon <adhi...@math.purdue.edu> wrote:
> Sorry for the long porst but if you have a GT road bike you
> should really read this.
>
> I have a GT Road bike and around the beginning of October
> I broke the derailleur hanger on the bike. Fortunately, some
> guys out hunting gave me a ride home. No big deal I thought,
> I would just buy a new hanger and that would be that.
>
Stuff snipped.
Thanks for posting that, I'll keep it in mind. I have a GT ZR 3.0 which I
really love. But a few weeks ago I was in an accident and the derailleur
hanger was damaged, among other things- the handlebars were bent and rear
wheel was damaged.
I hadn't heard about this but I'll find out what the story is when I get
all the repairs done.
Ryan Cousineau
Now on this, we agree. My shoes are nominally walkable, but I don't. I
keep a pair of shoes at work for working in. The furthest I walk in my
SPDs is once around the mall.
> -- I put on weight and rode much less mileage. Power transmission
> efficiency, real or perceived, is no longer any kind of limiting
> factor on my riding performance. I now have way more leg power than
> wind to support it.
But this in particular makes you unusual. Moreover, don't the
inefficiencies still affect you? You still have to get enough oxygen to
support the wasted parts of your power stroke.
> -- I became heavy and strong enough to bend pedal spindles. This
> disqualified clipless pedals out of hand for a time. Then Time ATACs
> came out, with a beefier spindle than other clipless pedals. I bought
> two pairs. I used them intermittently, tolerating the too-small
> shoes. I soon discovered that I had bent the pedal spindles.
Okay, but this is really, really unusual. I know you're big, and I
totally accept this, but this surely affects way less than 1% of all
serious cyclists.
> Amidst all the component failures, trial and error, and
> experimentation, one thing was proved to me on several occasions.
> Those shoes that are most comfortable to stand and walk in, are also
> most comfortable to cycle in, provided that the pedals are
> sufficiently supportive of their flexible soles. Oldfangled
> quill-type or rattrap pedals are inadequate to the task; I discovered
> in my quest for non-bendy spindles that outsized BMX/freestyle pedals
> are the ticket. BMX riders often wear Vans and other skateboarding
> shoes, which are too flexible for comfort on less-than-generously
> sized pedals. The oversized pedals characteristic of BMX have not
> proven to be any impediment to high performance in this very
BMX riders crave easy exits from big-air crashes more than power.
Otherwise they would have gearing that actually let them carry some
speed. They also wear those shoes because a bunch of their tricks
involve taking their feet off the pedals.
For BMX racers, I don't know what the score is, but Shimano made the
caged-clipless M636 et al for them. That's my pedal of . . . not choice,
but it's what I got for free.
> competitive racing category. The following links feature examples of
> big, friendly BMX pedals:
> http://www.gearshark.com/finder/details/Odyssey-Triple-Trap-Pedals-9-16-/27512
> 7.html
> http://www.reverb54.com/416south/product/pedals.htm
> http://www.brooklynmachineworks.com/parts/shinburger.htm
>
> OK, so the last one isn't so friendly.
Don't do that! I had the bad judgment to look at the link from their
warning about shin damage.
> Anyway, if you want to ride comfortably in Red Wing boots, Converse
> Chuck Taylors, Birkenstocks, Topsiders, Mephistos, cowboy boots, bunny
> slippers, or any other kind of shoes unsuited to pushing teeny-tiny
> little pedals, then big wide flat pedals are the way to go. They're
> not only the most comfortable for your feet, but you also have the
> comfort of knowing that whatever shoes you are wearing, you are ready
> to ride.
I will readily agree that normal shoes are better suited to walking than
bicycling shoes, and that BMX-type pedals work best with street shoes.
But I think you make a virtue of a necessity when you claim that bike
shoes are uncomfortable for riding. I haven't seen anything in your post
above that indicates why you think bicycling (which _is_ different from
just about every other shoe-using activity you care to name in that for
most of us, it isn't an impact activity) shouldn't have different shoes.
I heartily acknowledge that your needs are so special that it would be
folly for me (or most of this ng) to dictate standard solutions: if you
bend spindles, all bets are off.
But most people don't bend spindles, and will ride faster and at least
as comfortably (more in my case) in stiff-soled cycling shoes than
soft-soled street shoes of any description.
James Hodson
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>No, no, still can't quite see what youy're getting at. Do you mean
>you'd be satisfied with an average under 20,0mph or something? ;-)
>
What's 20,0 or even 20.0 mph?
I currently weigh 13 bigguns - I blame that shampoo bottle top - so
it's all rather hard work at the moment. Besides, the rear mech on my
rigid doesn't like being told to move outwards at the mo. I think it's
A SIGN.
Come summer, I shall restart my fit bit.
Fat Jim
Just zis Guy, you know?
<jUNDERSC...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote:
>I currently weigh 13 bigguns
Stone, not cwt. I assume? I'm now down in the runt zone at 12st 10lb
- I need to spend more time with heavy objects at the gym. Normally
I'm 13st, and I certainly was when I rode 40 miles in under 2h earlier
this year.
No more excuses, Jim lad!
Guy
===
Bluto
> Obviously you have unique needs when it comes to most any aspect of a
> bike, due to your atypical size.
Fair. Many, perhaps most, of the particulars of why I find road
racing bikes uncomfortable probably come down to this. But there are
issues that transcend rider size in which a racing bike (not just any
road bike) is less than optimally comfortable even for its intended
purpose. It is optimized for properties other than comfort.
> > Big, grippy platform pedals to support the soles of comfortable
> > walking shoes are also a nice feature you may have missed.
>
> You may have missed cycling shoes that fit your feet. If they don't fit
> correctly, they won't be comfortable, just like any shoe. You could put
> those platform pedals on a road racing bike. In any case, shoes are not
> part of the bike, and pedals are only nominally so.
Cycling shoes do not flex, which is good for power and bad for
long-wear comfort regardless of fit. Shoe rigidity is necessary only
because sport pedals are too small to support all-purpose shoes.
My complaints with comfort issues vis-a-vis racing bikes has to do
with these bikes "as offered". Sure, you can put on a high stem, a
drop bar with parallel tops and drops, wider saddle and tires, etc.,
but what you end up with is then not a racing bike as offered.
> Again, your need for 38c
> tires is more a pointer to your size than anything else. Your 38c is my
> 28c.
Perhaps from a contact patch pressure standpoint, but not when it
comes to amount of "suspension travel". A taller tire offers more
vertical suspension no matter how lightweight you are.
> I think you, like others, are trying to turn "degree of comfort" into a
> Pass/Fail comfort criteria. It doesn't work that way. Sure my touring
> bike is marginally more comfortable than my racing bikes, but that
> doesn't make racing bikes "uncomfortable" for most of the riding that I,
> and probably most other people are ever going to do.
Graded on a curve, racing bikes get a D simply because they are not as
comfy as most other kinds of bikes. There's a continuum with say, BMX
and hour record bikes on one end, and Dutch granny bikes and beach
cruisers on the other. That range is, after all, the only basis for
what is or isn't a comfortable bike. And in that range, road racing
bikes finish near the back of the pack.
Which isn't to say that they are not plenty comfortable for you, and
many other riders, for your purposes.
> The fact that pros
> can put so may miles on racing bikes should point to the general fallacy
> of "racing bikes are uncomfortable." Why is a racing bike uncomfortable
> because someone picked the wrong shoes?
That's like saying that pro football must be comfortable because there
are guys who do it for hours every day. (Hint: it's not.)
> Sparse [saddle] padding actually helps comfort. Deep padding causes one to
> sink into the saddle such that the weight is no longer borne by the ischeal
> turberosities and is instead borne by the soft tissue in between.
Thin foam only works when the saddle shell has a lot of "give", which
is a form of cushioning (though my use of the term "padding" left
something to be desired). Sprung Brooks saddles, for instance,
feature a lot of cushioning and no foam at all.
> Racing saddles such as the Selle Italia SLR and generic
> Flite are good examples of very comfortable saddles.
Only if your ITs are cross-eyed.
> It is interesting that Rivendell sells Brooks saddles as "comfortable."
> I had a Brooks Team Pro saddle and it was very uncomfortable.
That's because it's got a too-narrow shape, in imitation of other
racing saddles. A B17 would no doubt be better, and a B72 even
better. There's no rule that says a saddle must be the same width as
your ITs and no wider; extra width provides lower-pressure support to
the areas under the sit bones.
> I've had Avocet saddles sold to me as
> comfort saddles: they were even worse than the Brooks.
That's because they have the mistaken combination of a stiff shell and
firm padding. An Avocet race saddle was the one that caused me the
unfortunated bleeding-butt episode some years ago.
> I had originally purchased the
> Flite because it was light, but found that it was the best designed
> saddle I'd ever ridden. It was light _and_ it was comfortable.
> Needless to say, the comfort touring bike received a racing saddle, and
> the "comfort saddle" dissappeared at the flea market. The SLR is
> lighter yet and arguably even more comfortable. I'm sure the common
> racing saddles would need to be scaled up in size for you, for you to
> see the benefit that more average folks see.
I am not alone in this. Most of the folks I see plying the street on
their bicycles have narrow saddles but not narrow backsides. I used
to ride a narrow saddle too, because that was how the game was played.
Lots of hard miles showed me that "comfortable enough" just wasn't.
> > - Neither brakes nor shifters can be accessed from the bar tops
>
> I don't get it. What does that have to do with comfort? I don't have
> any trouble shifting or braking, as far as comfort goes.
Would you find a car comfortable that had the shifter and brakes out
on the dashboard on the other side of the steering wheel?. As set up,
most racing bikes have one nominally tolerable hand position, and you
can't access the controls from it.
> > - Pedals are specific to shoes that are uncomfortable by design
>
> Manufacturers design shoes to be uncomfortable?
They design bike shoes not to flex. That's uncomfortable. Wooden
clogs went out in the 18th century for a reason (though they are SPD,
Look, and Time cleat compatible).
> > - Short c-stays give harsh bump response and poor weight distribution,
> > interfere with heels of large feet.
>
> Don't buy a crit bike. Buy a road racing bike. There is nothing wrong
> with the weight distribition of a crit bike for doing crit racing.
The difference between 40cm and 42cm stays fails to address the issue.
If racing bikes could be had with 50cm c-stays, or with c-stay length
proportional to frame size, then that would offer a fix for the
problem. It's obvious to me that the reasoning behind "the shortest
possible stays for all riders" and "the shortest possible stays, plus
2cm, for all riders" is the same flawed reasoning.
I do not suggest that racing bikes are the wrong bikes for racing.
Though they could IMO stand some improvement, they are fine for that
purpose, as well as for other purposes requiring maximum speed and
power efficiency.
But they are not comfortable bikes!
Mark Hickey
> As set up,
>most racing bikes have one nominally tolerable hand position, and you
>can't access the controls from it.
I'd really have to disagree with this. I'm very comfortable on the
drops, the hooks and the hoods on my road bike - and it's got a
"higher than normal" drop from the top of the saddle to the top of the
bars of about 5" (12.5cm). I think it's all a function of the rider's
flexibility and dimensions.
>They design bike shoes not to flex. That's uncomfortable. Wooden
>clogs went out in the 18th century for a reason (though they are SPD,
>Look, and Time cleat compatible).
The only shoes I've ever worn that were uncomfortable were those with
a flexible sole. After about an hour of riding with my older SPD MTB
shoes, I'd get hot spots on the balls of my feet. Doesn't ever happen
with my newer, much stiffer shoes. Just rode 108 miles in the Tour de
Tucson and never even noticed my feet.
>I do not suggest that racing bikes are the wrong bikes for racing.
>Though they could IMO stand some improvement, they are fine for that
>purpose, as well as for other purposes requiring maximum speed and
>power efficiency.
>
>But they are not comfortable bikes!
If you're trying to go a certain distance in a certain time, they're
the most comfortable option you can get (assuming the required speed
is reasonably high). But I'll bet if I scaled up virtually everything
on my (very average sized) road bike by a factor of about 1.4x, you'd
think it's pretty comfortable too! ;-)
Steve Palincsar
> Shoe rigidity is necessary only
> because sport pedals are too small to support all-purpose shoes.
Anything with a sharp edge of any kind will bite right through soft all
purpose shoes. I will never forget the time I tried to ride a century
with Campy road pedals and sneakers. Lines of fire branded into my feet
and seared into my mind. And those weren't small pedals. Maybe on a
Lyotard Berthet platform pedal you could get away with it, or possibly a
Phil CHP. But your regular old style rattrap pedals? Forget it. (I
wish I could forget.)
Reuben Hick
test you couldn't tell the difference between 105 and
> Ultegra.
Then what is the point in offering Ultegra? If 105's and Ultegras are
practically indistiguishable, then why buy the more expensive grouppo? I
can understand going DA - mainly for poser value, but I am constantly told
how much more durable they are too. So I can see having a flagship DA, but
with no diff between the lower end components....
BTW, my favorite LBS in Dallas has a CAAD3 frame (with the headshock) for
$150 that begs to be made into a cyclocross bike... now that I know that
Ultegras are no different from 105s, I think I know how I can economically
build this up.... now to figure out what kind of brakes to put on it.
Mark Lee
"Baka Dasai" <idontr...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> If, like the vast majority of bicycle users worldwide, bicycle
> usage is integrated into your everyday life, then it's ridiculous
> to have separate cycling shoes.
>
> For example, I use my bike to go to work, to go shopping, to go
> to friend's houses, to go to the movies, to go to bars, to go to
> restaurants, to go the park, to go the train station as the first
> stage of a long journey, etc. Cycling is my primary mode of
> travel.
>
> Obviously it would be totally impractical to bring a pair of
> shoes with me everywhere I go, and always be changing into them,
> and then have to carry a smelly pair of cycling shoes with me.
> That would be enough to give up riding my bike.
>
> I *could* wear a pair of cycling shoes everywhere I go, but,
> sucker for style that I am, I find them ugly. I don't even know
> if they're uncomfortable for walking - I've never tried a pair
> on.
> --
What about your stinky clothes and armpits?
Mark Lee
Who thinks "normal" shoes are okay for under about 2km.
A Muzi
> > I haven't seen anything in your post
> > above that indicates why you think bicycling (which _is_ different from
> > just about every other shoe-using activity you care to name in that for
> > most of us, it isn't an impact activity) shouldn't have different shoes.
"Baka Dasai" <idontr...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:asn7o7$sgno5$1...@ID-128080.news.dfncis.de...
> I'll give you a reason.
>
> If, like the vast majority of bicycle users worldwide, bicycle
> usage is integrated into your everyday life, then it's ridiculous
> to have separate cycling shoes.
>
> For example, I use my bike to go to work, to go shopping, to go
> to friend's houses, to go to the movies, to go to bars, to go to
> restaurants, to go the park, to go the train station as the first
> stage of a long journey, etc. Cycling is my primary mode of
> travel.
>
> Obviously it would be totally impractical to bring a pair of
> shoes with me everywhere I go, and always be changing into them,
> and then have to carry a smelly pair of cycling shoes with me.
> That would be enough to give up riding my bike.
>
> I *could* wear a pair of cycling shoes everywhere I go, but,
> sucker for style that I am, I find them ugly. I don't even know
> if they're uncomfortable for walking - I've never tried a pair
> on.
> --
> Baka Dasai
> When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
Baka, you make a good point. I agree wholeheartedly about that aspect of
urban cycling. I wear leather dress shoes with toeclips (add rubber shoe
covers when it's cold and/or wet). They're plenty stiff enough to be
comfortable and have no neon accents (two nice features!)
That being said, this isn't an area which has a "right" or "wrong" answer.
I am equally enamored of my other bike which is wonderfully comfortable on
Sunday morning with Looks and SiDis. There are riders who eschew even
toeclips, riders who wear sandals with cleats built in (incomprehensible to
me) and everything inbetween. If you've found a format that lets you cycle
more and/or more comfortably, that's a good thing. The wider range of
choice we have nowadays is a good thing too because more riders' tastes are
accomodated. We have enough divisive issues without parsing cyclists into
factions by footwear!
--
Andrew Muzi
http://www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April 1971
Steve Palincsar
> What about your stinky clothes and armpits?
It's quite possible to ride commuting distances without getting
overheated and "stinky". I've been commuting to work for 22 years now,
haven't had to take a shower upon arrival at work yet.
It helps if you have easy terrain, but also you have to pay attention and
adjust your clothing as well as your pace so as to not overheat. It also
helps if you take a shower in the morning, shortly before leaving on your
commute. (Obviously, it matters much less on the way home.)
Steve Palincsar
> http://www.gearshark.com/finder/details/Odyssey-Triple-Trap-Pedals-9-16-/275127.html
> http://www.reverb54.com/416south/product/pedals.htm
> http://www.brooklynmachineworks.com/parts/shinburger.htm
>
> OK, so the last one isn't so friendly.
I'll say. "Shinburger" indeed. I have a mallet like that only with
blunter points that was made to tenderize meat by pounding it. The
Triple Trap doesn't exactly look friendly either - makes me think of the
jaws of some prehistoric predatory fish. I can only imagine what either
of those two would do to you if you happened to accidentally kick the
pedal hard from behind when it was at 6 o'clock, sending it spinning into
your shin! The Snafu Concaves, on the other hand, look like something
that would be perfect for a winter pedal to use with insulated boots.
> Anyway, if you want to ride comfortably in Red Wing boots, Converse
> Chuck Taylors, Birkenstocks, Topsiders, Mephistos, cowboy boots, bunny
> slippers, or any other kind of shoes unsuited to pushing teeny-tiny
> little pedals, then big wide flat pedals are the way to go. They're not
> only the most comfortable for your feet, but you also have the comfort
> of knowing that whatever shoes you are wearing, you are ready to ride.
Grant Peterson's been promoting what he calls Step On Pedals, too.
Except for the ones with teeth, they're quite the thing for utility
bikes. (I still bear the scars of one with teeth.)
Steve Palincsar
> All you need to do on a "road racing" bike is move the bars back and up
> a little. Then you can almost call it a Rivendell.
You could put a pencil moustache on most men but that wouldn't make 'em
Clark Gable... or (since The Time For This has clearly come) you could
put a toothbrush moustache on most men but that wouldn't make them (wait
for it) Adolf Hitler!
-30- (and not a minute too soon)
The Pomeranian
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:04:49 -0800, Ryan Cousineau said (and I quote):
>
> > above that indicates why you think bicycling (which _is_ different from
> > just about every other shoe-using activity you care to name in that for
> > most of us, it isn't an impact activity) shouldn't have different shoes.
>
>
> If, like the vast majority of bicycle users worldwide, bicycle
> usage is integrated into your everyday life, then it's ridiculous
> to have separate cycling shoes.
It's ridiculous to wear street shoes on a 100 mi ride. All one needs is
the the "campus" pedals where they can clip in on one side, for long
rides, and flats for their street shoes on the other side.
> For example, I use my bike to go to work, to go shopping, to go
> to friend's houses, to go to the movies, to go to bars, to go to
> restaurants, to go the park, to go the train station as the first
> stage of a long journey, etc. Cycling is my primary mode of
> travel.
Those are typically short rides and I wouldn't bother with cycling shoes
for them either.
> Obviously it would be totally impractical to bring a pair of
> shoes with me everywhere I go, and always be changing into them,
> and then have to carry a smelly pair of cycling shoes with me.
> That would be enough to give up riding my bike.
I could ride 100 mi with street shoes, but I'll enjoy the ride more with
cycling shoes. If running an errand to the grocery store, street shoes
are more appropriate, and I use the "flat" side of the campus pedals for
these short utility rides. You can have your cake and eat it too.
> I *could* wear a pair of cycling shoes everywhere I go, but,
> sucker for style that I am, I find them ugly.
There are some plain black ones out there.
> I don't even know if they're uncomfortable
> for walking - I've never tried a pair
> on.
I can wear my MTB shoes at work all day, although I prefer "street
shoes" for that.
The Pomeranian
> issues that transcend rider size in which a racing bike (not just any
> road bike) is less than optimally comfortable even for its intended
> purpose. It is optimized for properties other than comfort.
I think they are "comfortable" and they need to be because racers are
some of the highest milage cyclists.
> Cycling shoes do not flex, which is good for power and bad for
> long-wear comfort regardless of fit. Shoe rigidity is necessary only
> because sport pedals are too small to support all-purpose shoes.
That doesn't make sense. You are simply proposing transferring the
stiffness from the sole to the platform underneath. It is stiffness in
either case. My Sidi's are as comfortable as any shoe I own, and they
are bike shoes. Again, it is an issue of fit firstly. Yes,
uncomfortable bike shoes exist, but so do uncomfortable street shoes.
The challenge is to simply find shoes that fit.
> My complaints with comfort issues vis-a-vis racing bikes has to do
> with these bikes "as offered". Sure, you can put on a high stem, a
> drop bar with parallel tops and drops, wider saddle and tires, etc.,
> but what you end up with is then not a racing bike as offered.
Fair enough, but so many bike purchasers, both racer and non-racer,
change things like the stem and the saddle after the purchase, that to
specifically complain about racing bikes is not justified.
> Perhaps from a contact patch pressure standpoint, but not when it
> comes to amount of "suspension travel". A taller tire offers more
> vertical suspension no matter how lightweight you are.
Sure, but I can lower the pressure a good deal in my 28c tires and get
the cloudlike ride I mentioned. How cushy does it need to be? I don't
fatigue on my longest rides, so aren't they quite comfortable enough?
My minivan is quite comfortable for my typical trips, do I need the
Madden cruiser (I'd like it, for sure)? For your size, you'll need more
pressure in the same size tire to provide the same "bottom out"
protection I have. That means, other things equal, I can run tires at a
lower pressure than you.
> > I think you, like others, are trying to turn "degree of comfort" into a
> > Pass/Fail comfort criteria. It doesn't work that way. Sure my touring
> > bike is marginally more comfortable than my racing bikes, but that
> > doesn't make racing bikes "uncomfortable" for most of the riding that I,
> > and probably most other people are ever going to do.
>
> Graded on a curve, racing bikes get a D simply because they are not as
> comfy as most other kinds of bikes.
I'd give 2 of 3 of my race bikes a B+ at worst because I can do 100 mi
rides and not even think about being uncomfortable.
> There's a continuum with say, BMX
> and hour record bikes on one end, and Dutch granny bikes and beach
> cruisers on the other.
Gimme a break. I've ridden a beach cruisers over hill and dale for 30
mi. They suck. It was horrible.
> That range is, after all, the only basis for
> what is or isn't a comfortable bike. And in that range, road racing
> bikes finish near the back of the pack.
Shall I say again that this is simply not true? Yes, racing bikes are,
all in all, pretty darn comfortable.
> Which isn't to say that they are not plenty comfortable for you, and
> many other riders, for your purposes.
That's what I'm saying. Most folks saying race bikes aren't comfortable
probably haven't ridden one that was fit properly and instead are
influenced by GP's screed.
> That's like saying that pro football must be comfortable because there
> are guys who do it for hours every day. (Hint: it's not.)
Hint: it is a contact sport and they don't practice like they play,
except during tryouts when a few players are on the cusp.
> > Sparse [saddle] padding actually helps comfort. Deep padding causes one to
> > sink into the saddle such that the weight is no longer borne by the ischeal
> > turberosities and is instead borne by the soft tissue in between.
>
> Thin foam only works when the saddle shell has a lot of "give", which
> is a form of cushioning (though my use of the term "padding" left
> something to be desired). Sprung Brooks saddles, for instance,
> feature a lot of cushioning and no foam at all.
No, the shells of my saddles are very stiff and do not provide much
cushion. The foam is thin. I've been meaning to try even less padding
by riding with shorts without the pad. I haven't gotten around to it,
because all my bike shorts have pads.
> > Racing saddles such as the Selle Italia SLR and generic
> > Flite are good examples of very comfortable saddles.
>
> Only if your ITs are cross-eyed.
A lot of folks like those saddles. They are better than anything else
I've ever tried and I've tried enough in the past 25 years.
> > It is interesting that Rivendell sells Brooks saddles as "comfortable."
> > I had a Brooks Team Pro saddle and it was very uncomfortable.
>
> That's because it's got a too-narrow shape, in imitation of other
> racing saddles.
Then it is a poor imitation, because the Flite and SLR are superbly
comfortable.
> A B17 would no doubt be better, and a B72 even
> better.
But why? They are as heavy as bricks, are expensive, and it is
difficult to see that they could improve upon the Flite and/or SLR. I
will be happy to fairly test a B17 or B72 if a sponsor antes up.
> There's no rule that says a saddle must be the same width as
> your ITs and no wider; extra width provides lower-pressure support to
> the areas under the sit bones.
I don't know that I'm saying the saddle must be the same width, although
I do know it is primarily important to keep from sinking onto the soft
tissue in between the ITs.
> > I've had Avocet saddles sold to me as
> > comfort saddles: they were even worse than the Brooks.
>
> That's because they have the mistaken combination of a stiff shell and
> firm padding.
Actually, I would call the padding quite thick. That is part of the
Avocet problem.
> An Avocet race saddle was the one that caused me the
> unfortunated bleeding-butt episode some years ago.
I had two Avocets, they both were rotten. Thanks to the Flite and SLR,
I now know how comfortable a bike seat can be. Very comfortable, that
is.
> ... Most of the folks I see plying the street on
> their bicycles have narrow saddles but not narrow backsides. I used
> to ride a narrow saddle too, because that was how the game was played.
> Lots of hard miles showed me that "comfortable enough" just wasn't.
Like I said, I don't even think about the saddle anymore. That means it
has sufficient comfort. We can probably agree that saddles probably
have individual favor, but that said, there are many choices out there
today and racing saddles are included in the very comfortable category.
> > I don't get it. What does that have to do with comfort? I don't have
> > any trouble shifting or braking, as far as comfort goes.
>
> Would you find a car comfortable that had the shifter and brakes out
> on the dashboard on the other side of the steering wheel?.
I reach farther for the shifter in my car than I do on my bike, and I
have no complaints about my car. So I still don't get it.
> As set up,
> most racing bikes have one nominally tolerable hand position, and you
> can't access the controls from it.
I wouldn't call the position in the drops a "bad position," and hands on
the brake hoods and hands on the uppers count as two comfortable
positions. There isn't anything wrong with "drop style" race bars.
So-called randonneur bars are so close to race bars, I hardly put them
in a different category.
> > > - Pedals are specific to shoes that are uncomfortable by design
> >
> > Manufacturers design shoes to be uncomfortable?
>
> They design bike shoes not to flex.
They don't need to flex.
> That's uncomfortable.
I hadn't noticed that after 25+ years of going on long rides. I guess I
should pay more attention.
> The difference between 40cm and 42cm stays fails to address the issue.
> If racing bikes could be had with 50cm c-stays, or with c-stay length
> proportional to frame size, then that would offer a fix for the
> problem. It's obvious to me that the reasoning behind "the shortest
> possible stays for all riders" and "the shortest possible stays, plus
> 2cm, for all riders" is the same flawed reasoning.
I have nothing against longish chainstays, but I should note that my
race bike that accepts 28c tires has 41 cm stays. Like I said, it rides
like a cloud. Sure, I think a longer wheelbase softens the ride, due
mainly I think to not sitting so directly over the point of vertical
impulse, but still I think that road racing bikes, like mine w/ 41 cm
stays are quite good enough.
> I do not suggest that racing bikes are the wrong bikes for racing.
> Though they could IMO stand some improvement, they are fine for that
> purpose, as well as for other purposes requiring maximum speed and
> power efficiency.
I think that it wouldn't hurt a lot of riders to have a bit longer
chainstays, and there would be a marginal improvement in the "softness"
of the ride. That still doesn't mean my 41 cm c-stay bike is
uncomfortable, it is not.
> But they are not comfortable bikes!
Uhm, mine are, and so are the bikes of my friends, or so they say.
Tom Keats
Steve Palincsar <pali...@his.com> writes:
> It helps if you have easy terrain, but also you have to pay attention and
> adjust your clothing as well as your pace so as to not overheat.
I thought I was going to rue summer's passing. But lately, with
daytime temps of around 8c (46f), I find controlling temperature
with clothing easier and more comfortable than other times of year.
For on top, a shirt or jersey and a windshell are often enough;
sometimes the windshell is too much. Bare knees can get cold, but
warmers or tights (or long pants) handily fill that bill.
If I'm stuck with work indoors for awhile, I'll start feeling cold.
But after a good ride, I can turn the thermostat down, open a
window, and let the fresh 02 flow through. We can adjust our
warmth in order to ride, but we can also ride to adjust our warmth.
I /do/ miss the long nights of summer.
cheers,
Tom
--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
remove NO_SPAM. from address to reply
Frank Krygowski
>
> What about your stinky clothes and armpits?
You shouldn't need to shower every time you ride a bike. You should be
able to ride moderate distances in street clothes - or even long
distances, if necessary. I've taken 30 mile rides on my way to work,
dressed in casual office clothes.
If your armpits stink, it's a bacterial problem. It's not caused by
riding in non-approved cycling clothing. Talk to your doctor about it.
> Mark Lee
> Who thinks "normal" shoes are okay for under about 2km.
Sounds to me like your bike is just a toy. You're not getting as much
out of cycling as you could be.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Tom Keats
Baka Dasai <idontr...@operamail.com> writes:
> 100 miles! If I have to go somewhere that far away I'll catch
> the train or drive my car. You must be really poor and/or have
> loads of time if you're using your bike for a 100 mile journey! :)
A foggy-morning trip from Vancouver to near where Fabrizio lives,
for a cuppa coffee.
> OK, I'm just having fun here, but I'm also trying to tip the
> balance of this newsgroup towards utility cycling and away from
> "sport" or "fitness". Tools, not toys!
Oooohh, Fab's not gonna like that! :-)
Shoes ... phffffttt. We've gotta harden our bums for our
saddles, and we've gotta harden our feet for our pedals.
It's a tough row we hoe. Carnacs 'n nail-on cleats, 'n all.
Or Zeller's loafers. Or gimmes found in the back lane,
that we've had to stick the soles back on with white glue.
Chin up, and wear our laughing gear.
That's all there is to it.
I'm just having fun, too <w> (but I'm being a little
something-or-otherly pertinent as well).
I've gotten through some pretty dark times, but the
bike has helped me survive them; often in spite of
whatever footware (if any) I've had.
All this fuss about shoes! If you've got a pair that
doesn't need duct tape to cover the leaks, yer laffin'.
And even if they do leak, if you've got a change of
sox at home, you're still laffin'. If power transfer
is the quest, I contend that developing piston-like
thighs is more important ... lower legs & feet (and
pedals) are just con-rod stuff.
I'm just getting a hair up my ass about how preparing
to ride bike is getting too much like getting ready
for a space walk.
Screw a buncha worries about shoes, and the pedals
that need 'em. Toke-lips & toast-wraps on my cheap-o
VPs are good enuff 4 me. If the Gentle Reader perceives
need of, or wants a fancy foot/bike interface, all power
to them. But it's not necessary to just enjoy riding bike.
In fact, maybe it detracts from being able to just hop on
and go.
It's not in the shoes/pedals; it's in the quads. And a
transportational rider with really good quads can easily
frustrate the "serious" cyclists -- fancy pedals/shoes 'n
all, trying to beat him along that stretch of road.
Putting on special shoes, and attaching them to
stumpy pedals doesn't build quads.
Freedom,
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:3DF01EF7...@cc.ysu.edu...
> Mark Lee wrote:
> >
> > What about your stinky clothes and armpits?
>
> You shouldn't need to shower every time you
> ride a bike. You should
> be
> able to ride moderate distances in street clothes - or even long
> distances, if necessary.
and
> Sounds to me like your bike is just a toy. You're
> not getting as much
> out of cycling as you could be.
I'm not sure if "toy" is the best word for a tool for sport, but it's
sure true that Mark Lee doesn't seem to see that bikes can and should
be used for transportation.
One thing -- when I ride the way you describe (I call it walking pace)
it doesn't matter what sort of pedals I have. I'm usually
in street shoes and while platform pedals would be nice, even
the craziest tiniest racing pedal is OK because I'm not getting
out of the saddle and I'm not pedalling hard. I used to ride in
penny loafers on road SPDs -- not a lot of contact there. With
no problems. Or one minor problem -- just starting and stopping
at lights with one foot on the pedal could be a little disconcerting.
But no big problem. I had "only" one bike and used it for everything.
It had to be good for racing, and I "muddled through" commuting and
errands on it.
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
James Hodson
wrote:
> I've been commuting to work for 22 years now...
>
WOW! Why don't you live a bit closer to your place of employment?
>It helps if you have easy terrain, but also you have to pay attention and
>adjust your clothing as well as your pace so as to not overheat. It also
>helps if you take a shower in the morning, shortly before leaving on your
>commute. (Obviously, it matters much less on the way home.)
Anyway, Steve, I do agree with you about taking it easy and not
smelling like a rugby player's jock strap on arrival. It is relatively
easy, especially in my current state of unfitness as I'm loathe to
exert myself too much.
The worse thing you can do, as you indicate, is to start off in, let's
say, an unfresh manner. Those armpits soon start a'smellin' after a
few miles if they're a little unclean to start with.
However, I always wear cycling shoes when riding. Neither of my bikes
have platform pedals and I feel "unattached" whenever I use someone
else's bike with non-clipless pedals. I often ride wearing a rucksack
and have no problem putting a spare pair of shoes in there.
James
Jay Roberts
> It's ridiculous to wear street shoes on a 100 mi ride.
Why? Maybe for you, but works for me on the 3 or so centuries a month
I ride. MKS touring pedals w/straps clips (about 50 bux total) plus
street (running/hiking) shoes appropriate to the weather works fine
for me. Obviously, I'm not in competition, so the answer there would
be different.
Jay
Frank Krygowski
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> All this fuss about shoes! ...
>
> I'm just getting a hair up my ass about how preparing
> to ride bike is getting too much like getting ready
> for a space walk.
Right! When my wife and I started cycling (long, long ago) the "getting
ready" consisted of checking the tires, filling the water bottle, and
asking each other where we wanted to go.
But we gradually bought each other gifts: gloves; shorts; jerseys;
shoes; even funny hats. And for a while, it seemed somehow improper to
ride the bike without "suiting up." Otherwise, we wouldn't be seen as
Real Cyclists (TM).
I still wear most of the costume for most long rides, but for a short
ride (less than 10 miles, say) I usually wear whatever I'm wearing.
I've found that I can still be a Real Cyclist even if I'm wearing blue
jeans, hiking boots, a bulky sweater and a fedora, riding a folding bike
with 16" wheels.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Tom Nakashima
was long, long ago, when Platform Shoes were in style? <smile>
-tom
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:3DF0D218...@cc.ysu.edu...
>
> > All this fuss about shoes! ...
>
The Pomeranian
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:34:54 -0800, The Pomeranian said (and I quote):
> > Baka Dasai wrote:
> >>
> >> If, like the vast majority of bicycle users worldwide, bicycle
> >> usage is integrated into your everyday life, then it's ridiculous
> >> to have separate cycling shoes.
> >
> > It's ridiculous to wear street shoes on a 100 mi ride.
>
> the train or drive my car. You must be really poor and/or have
> loads of time if you're using your bike for a 100 mile journey! :)
It's more 5-6 hours of fun and respite than a journey.
> OK, I'm just having fun here, but I'm also trying to tip the
> balance of this newsgroup towards utility cycling and away from
> "sport" or "fitness". Tools, not toys!
There is plenty of space here, so there's no need to balance resources
because there is no meaningful scarcity. There is a lot bounced around
here about bike utility. I don't see where I disagree with you at all
for utilitarian usage of bikes.
I think "the bike" is good for both sport and utility and both have
technical aspects. It is a bit of a technical challenge to make a bike
that serves both functions well, but it can probably be done (I sort of
look at my tour/commuter bike that way). It might be simpler to have
two bikes if you've got both wants, the money, and the space.
The Pomeranian
I've done it too. I prefer bike specific shoes for long rides and I
prefer being clipped to the pedals in that case. Nashbar Rodeo pedals
(which have platform/clip choice) are under $30 and bike shoes go on
sale for under $40 fairly often.
Since this has turned into a comfort thread, clips/straps are not
especially comfortable if you like a very secure connection (cinching
down the straps). "Clipless" is superior when the balance of connection
strength and comfort is considered for long distance riding. But if you
are happy, then I'm happy; folks can get down the road pretty well with
toe clips + straps. I rode toe clips + straps for many years, but was
happy to leave that technology behind because something superior has
been developed.
Bob
I also found that clipless pedals allow some movement. Toe clips plus
straps tend to allow less movement. I went from toe clips/straps to Time
pedals, and I'll never go back. For my mountain bike, though, I've gone
more to clipless with platform pedals. For instance, I bought the new Time
mountain pedals with the platform around the pedal.
--
Bob
ctviggen at snet dot net
M Gagnon
> >>
> >
>
"Baka Dasai" <idontr...@operamail.com> replied :
> 100 miles! If I have to go somewhere that far away I'll catch
> the train or drive my car. You must be really poor and/or have
> loads of time if you're using your bike for a 100 mile journey! :)
>
>
> OK, I'm just having fun here, but I'm also trying to tip the
> balance of this newsgroup towards utility cycling and away from
> "sport" or "fitness". Tools, not toys!
> --
> Baka Dasai
With 2 young children, I define myself *mostly* as a utility cyclist. There
still are platform pedals, as I have a recent pair of Wellgo platforms
(maybe I should stock some?), with metal toeclips (I can reshape them) and
nylon straps (I'm modern, after all). Lots of my cycling is for utility and
lots of it for distances less than 10 km. One of the advantages of living in
town is that most rides (commuting, shopping, going to church, etc.) are
less than 10 km long one way. When I ride on holidays or during weekends,
it's often for 50-100 km rides with the kids... often going to faraway
parks.
For shoes: in Summer, I like SPDs which I use without cleats. They don't
look great for office work but are quite decent with casual clothing. I
think they are as comfortable as good walking shoes... but not as dedicated
hiking boots. SPDs are a _bit_ better on pedals than my normal street shoes,
so that make a difference for long rides, especially when I tow the 2
children. However, in Winter, I find I am much more comfortable with street
shoes and rubbers: much warmer and much drier.
Regards,
Michel Gagnon
Zoot Katz
tkeats@NO_SPAM.vcn.bc.ca (Tom Keats) wrote:
>Screw a buncha worries about shoes, and the pedals
>that need 'em. Toke-lips & toast-wraps on my cheap-o
>VPs are good enuff 4 me. If the Gentle Reader perceives
>need of, or wants a fancy foot/bike interface, all power
>to them. But it's not necessary to just enjoy riding bike.
>In fact, maybe it detracts from being able to just hop on
>and go.
A friend and fellow bike whacko rode his chopper to Portland for
BikeSummer 2002. He was towing a steel frame trailer with a steel
steamer trunk sitting on a solid wood base. It weighs about 65 lbs
before adding a big battery or two for the boom-box.
Any how, his shoes are $1500 orthopedic platform boots. A childhood
accident left one leg about 50mm shorter than the other and his calves
about the same size as his forearms. He rides everywhere all the time.
He can ride any bike you hand him (including the 'Red Wiggler' death
bike) and really doesn't have much choice about foot wear.
--
zk
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Tom Keats" <tkeats@NO_SPAM.vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:bbvpsa...@bud.garden.local...
>
> A foggy-morning trip from Vancouver to near where Fabrizio lives,
> for a cuppa coffee.
>
Tom, what are you doing out on the road in the fog?
You shouldn't be out in the morning in the fog or afternoon
if it's clear out as the sun is too low and it may blind some
old bat driving a car and in that case they can't see you.
Plus it's getting dusk at almost 4 p.m.
You should be in the coffee shop having a brew like a
Jamaicain Blue Mountain from the Mavis Bank plantation
or even Wallenford plantation as long as it wasn't milled
at sea level in Kingston.
Don't worry, I know what I'm doing.
Frank Krygowski
>
> Hey Frank,
> was long, long ago, when Platform Shoes were in style? <smile>
Could have been - I wouldn't know. I'm very good at ignoring "style."
Just ask my wife!
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Frank Krygowski
>
> Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DF01EF7...@cc.ysu.edu...
> >
> > ride a bike. You should
> > be
> > able to ride moderate distances in street clothes - or even long
> > distances, if necessary.
>
> it doesn't matter what sort of pedals I have.
For the record, my ride to work in street clothes isn't what most would
call a walking pace. It's just under 7 miles, and my total elapsed time
is under 30 minutes. Not fast, but not slow. When I'm not stopped at a
red light, I'm usually doing around 19 mph.
--
Frank Krygowski frkr...@cc.ysu.edu
Bernie
Frank Krygowski wrote:
In the words of the immortal Popeye the Sailor "I yam what I yam"!!
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
> Right! When my wife and I started cycling (long, long ago) the
"getting
Frank, if you want to take your training to the next level
you're going to have to leave the women at home and
start putting in serious miles.
Karin Conover-Lewis
--
Karin Conover-Lewis
klc dot lewis at gte dot net
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <chip...@lfddd.ca> wrote in message
news:EtfI9.114377$ea.20...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Bernie
round cyclist ?? :-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>That was a troll, wasn't it?
No, it was Fabs :-)
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old
mail addresses may no longer work. Apologies.
Richard Brockie
> Frank, if you want to take your training to the next level
> you're going to have to leave the women at home and
> start putting in serious miles.
In this area, just trying to keep up with some current or previous world
champion women gives me a great workout for serious miles.
--
R.
<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements
<> The tall blond one. always cause trouble."
<> richard...@yahoo.com
<> http://members.telocity.com/~richard_brockie/
Karin Conover-Lewis
--
Karin Conover-Lewis
klc dot lewis at gte dot net
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:64r3vuo3i3g9rlac4...@4ax.com...
Mike Latondresse
It appears that what you are doing isn't serious training! Haven't you
saved enough in that lame job to buy your new bike by now. I thought
the plan was to get a new bike and then start serious work for next
seasion. It is Dec 7 already, most of the pro riders are in Mallorica
doing pre season work...when are you leaving?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>OIC -- just an Italian thing, then. ;-)
Weeelllll - Fabs is a little hard to explain; part Style God and part
drooling imbecile. A bit like the kind of pet which wets the carpet
with annoying regularity but makes you laugh often enough that you
don't take it to the pound :-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<chip...@lfddd.ca> wrote:
>Frank, if you want to take your training to the next level
>you're going to have to leave the women at home and
>start putting in serious miles.
Oh, Fabs, I'm so disappointed - just when I was thinking of buying a
tandem so I could do serious miles and take the women along....
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
"Mike Latondresse" <mik...@nospamshaw.ca> wrote in message...
> It is Dec 7 already, most of the pro riders are in Mallorica
> doing pre season work...
Until we see otherwise reported in the cycling journals, we
should assume he's there.
Ryan Cousineau
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:41:40 GMT, "Karin Conover-Lewis"
> <spam...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >OIC -- just an Italian thing, then. ;-)
>
> Weeelllll - Fabs is a little hard to explain; part Style God and part
> drooling imbecile. A bit like the kind of pet which wets the carpet
> with annoying regularity but makes you laugh often enough that you
> don't take it to the pound :-)
>
> Guy
When discussing Fabrizzio Mazzoleni, it probably helps to realize that
most of the act is parody, and in real life he's probably some
Campy-riding retrogrouch with something hopeless like bar-end shifters
and a tail rack.
Well, at least I hope that's true. All the other explanations are too
horrible to believe.
--
Ryan Cousineau, rcou...@sfu.cat (trim trailing t), www.sfu.ca/~rcousine
FREE WINONA!
Benjamin Lewis
> ... something hopeless like bar-end shifters and a tail rack.
Hey!
--
Benjamin Lewis
Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.
-- Walt Kelly
Karin Conover-Lewis
--
Karin Conover-Lewis
klc dot lewis at gte dot net
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@sfu.cat> wrote in message
news:rcousine-7576DF...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
Ryan Cousineau
Benjamin Lewis <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > ... something hopeless like bar-end shifters and a tail rack.
>
> Hey!
Heh.
So retrogrouchy, my bicycle doesn't have indexing or bar-end shifters,
but that's not by choice,
-RjC.