2002 merlin XL compact tire chainstay clearance pics and video

[andre...@aol.com]

Here is an album with the bike and the chainstays:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/25224248@N05/albums/72177720310224949

here is a video showing the wheel spinning true:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h5df2x908DM

[Tom Kunich]

I didn't realize that they made Merlin titanium bikes that long ago. You have to make sure that the tire is completely centered on the rim. That slight rubbing is the tire tilted slightly on the rim. If you can't get it to work properly take it to your local shop who knows the tricks to centering the tire.

[AMuzi]

On 8/2/2023 4:04 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

We started selling Gary Helfrich Merlins in the early 1990s.
(Merlin has had other owners/locations since)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd call that frame a bad design. I don't see any reason the chainstay
spacing should be that small. There was room on the bottom bracket shell
to space them wider, and there's no clearance problem with cranks or
chainrings. Your tire choices were needlessly restricted.

I don't think the frame is suitable for 23mm tires. At the other end of
the tire width scale, I started a tour with 32mm wide (nominal 37mm)
tires on my touring bike, since we were riding the C&O Canal towpath
fully loaded. I had more chainstay clearance than you have in your
video, 37mm, maybe 37.5mm, but by ~200 miles the tire was scraping. The
tire had actually increased in width from 32mm to 35mm, something that I
didn't know could happen.

Again, I think the chainstays could be dimpled on the inner surfaces to
add more clearance. If you're interested, I can give details of how I've
done that. I'm sure Andrew can do the same.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[andre...@aol.com]

Its a Titanium frame, can you do dimples to ti?

[Tom Kunich]

It depends on the alloy but as a first assessment - no.

As I said, make sure that the tire is centered on the rim and that the wheel is straight and you won't have that rubbing.

23 mm tires are high pressure tires so they should be pumped up to 95-105 psi or so. Try that and see if the tire centers.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 17:49:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/2/2023 4:56 PM, andre...@aol.com wrote:
>> Here is an album with the bike and the chainstays:
>>
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/25224248@N05/albums/72177720310224949
>>
>> here is a video showing the wheel spinning true:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h5df2x908DM

>I'd call that frame a bad design. I don't see any reason the chainstay
>spacing should be that small. There was room on the bottom bracket shell
>to space them wider, and there's no clearance problem with cranks or
>chainrings. Your tire choices were needlessly restricted.

Agreed. Perhaps the chainstays were bent inward so that one can
install a shorter and ligher spindle? That might save a few grams.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[AMuzi]

It's very typical of race bikes when it was built. Not
excessive. And since you were not a customer for that sort
of thing then, you probably never seriously considered one.
Which is fine, people ought to ride what they like.

Once Merlin assumed a sub-one meter wheelbase and popular
racing tires of that period, designer was able to use
thinner lighter chainstays in fat ovals than he could with
dents. It's not illogical given management and sales
department directives to the designer. Merlin did build
cyclocross (32mm tire clearance) frames, which also sold as
well as anything in their price class.

in re tube cross section-
Early S+S coupler Santanas used twin round bottom tubes as
S+S is a stainless steel splined compression joint with
threaded collar:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/s&smovie.gif

Santana developed their aluminum 'Z Coupler" system to
return to a large wide oval bottom tube which is essential
to Santana's excellent handling and stability.

[Frank Krygowski]

ISTM you're talking about fashion: "It's very typical..." I'm talking about engineering.
Popular or not, it was a design choice that confers no practical benefit, and
significant practical detriment. Yes, I'm sure it was dictated by "management and
sales department" not by engineering.

Now the fashion for rock hard, ultra narrow tires is finally passing. Good! But
people are still stuck with frames that require the bad old fashion.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think the determining factor is the ductility of the metal. My touring bike is aluminum 6061-T6
with a ductility of maybe 12%. I had bet that would be sufficient, and it was.

I tried looking up the alloy used by Merlin, but I'm not sure. They seem to use Reynolds titanium
tubes, but I don't know which. Wikipedia says Reynolds uses 6Al -4V and 3Al-2.5V. Matweb
https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=mtp641 claims about 15% for
both, but that's in annealed condition. Merlin talks about cold working
https://www.merlinbikes.com/road-bikes which increases strength but decreases ductility.

Offhand, I can't think of an easy way to test whether you've got enough ductility. Sorry.

It might be possible to increase the ductility by heating the titanium as it's being dimpled, but
I really don't know. I considered that for my aluminum frame, but 6061 doesn't show any
significant gain in ductility with temperature until it gets dangerously hot, so I did my frame
at room temperature.

- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 8/2/2023 7:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Wheelbase and overall weight yes. Suitable for then-current
equipment including race tires, yes.

Thinner chainstays with big fat ovals are a good design
choice over thicker dented ones in an engineering sense,
given the geometry and the usual race tires then.

[John B.]

The specification for the "2002 merlin XL compact" is a 700-23 tire,
so logically a 700-23 tire will fit without rubbing on the frame tubes
and a 700-25 tire is only, theoretically, 2 mm wider so it ought to
fit... But, rim width can effect tire inflated size and it has been my
experience that all 23 tires aren't exactly, to the last decimal
place, the same width, and probably 25 tires are the same. Rims do
flex, some a great deal more then others - Brandt did some testing of
that and Sheldon has a section on it - number of spokes and spoke
tension, and so on.

But rather then beat oneself over the head with a stick the simple
answer is borrow a 700-23 wheel and tire from the local bike shop and
try it (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Or just buy a pair of Michelin Pro tires.

[John B.]

Well, yes, but I thought that all the jumping and down was over the
"25" :-)

But, along those lines I used to ride sew ups, probably about 700-19,
and liked them. Far, far, quicker and easier to "fix flats".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

How dare they manufacture bicycles that Krygowsky disapproves of.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 08:32:18 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Tires do flex, at least mine do. I trued up my rear 559 rear wheel a
few days ago, but as always, there was no way I could get the 40mm
tire to true up. My experience is that the more miles on my tires, the
more unbalenced and out of shape they become. Perhaps, it just a trait
of the bigger heavier tires.

[John B.]

Interesting, but Tubular tires date back to the first bicycle tire
made by John Dunlap in 1887, described as "an inflated tube of sheet
rubber". In later days it became "THE" tire for bicycle racing due to
the lower weight of tire and rim and even today professional bike
racing (Keirin) bikes use tubular's.

As for "style" Well yes, assuming that one wants a light weight wheel
and tire assemble. But perhaps "light" in the bicycle world is just a
fad?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[andre...@aol.com]

OK, so I trued the wheel so it would be as centered as possible, slightly closer to the drive side, since the spokes won't give as much in that direction. I took the bike out for a hard ride yesterday evening. Good news, no scuffing. Other thing is that the ride is wonderful. Having ridden bunch of steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon over the years, this bike is incredible. It has a magical feel even with cheap components and wheels that I used to build it.

Bilenky Cycle Works says that he could do some chainstay indentations. Not sure what he'll charge. TI Cycles also does chainstay (potato chips) work for $500. For now I'll ride it as is and see if it gives me any problems. Since this is a keeper I may eventually invest in the chainstay work.

Most grateful to everyone here,

Andres

[Roger Meriman]

Good to hear, I was rather puzzled as to why the tire was rubbing given
that all bike frame that I’m aware of will take at least 23mm if not 25mm
with luck.

And wheel being slightly out makes more sense.

Roger Merriman

[Lou Holtman]

Enjoy your rides. It is a good looking bike and scuff marks are easily brushed out with a Ti frame.

Lou

[AMuzi]

You , sir, are a well informed man of taste.
(I've ridden standard road tubulars for over 50 years)

[AMuzi]

In fairness, 'singles' are the same as tubulars in theory
but practically more like fat heavy touring clinchers.

[Tom Kunich]

On good smooth pavement, hard 23 mm tires at high pressure STILL have the lowest rolling resistance. So it isn't as if they didn't know what they were doing or were doing it at the command of marketing - it was done either because there the racing was done was good pavement or because in many locations, if a pro race was occurring there they would refinish the pavement before the race.

So I would not say that it was "bad old fashioned" because it was dictated by actual numbers from places like the rolling resistance sites which are still there and now are avoiding high pressure 23 mm tires on their tests. It was an idealized engineering problem that was simply mistaken because roads are not ideal.

[Tom Kunich]

While you're quite correct, that what seems like minor scuffing steals quite a bit of power from your ride. I think that you're producing near what my maximum was until recently - around 250 to 300 watts so you probably wouldn't notice it unless you were really tired. But the loses are still there.

[Frank Krygowski]

A good strategy, I think.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2023 7:26 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ISTM you're talking about fashion: "It's very typical..." I'm
talking about engineering.
>>> Popular or not, it was a design choice that confers no practical
benefit, and
>>> significant practical detriment. Yes, I'm sure it was dictated by
"management and
>>> sales department" not by engineering.
>>>
>>> Now the fashion for rock hard, ultra narrow tires is finally
passing. Good! But
>>> people are still stuck with frames that require the bad old fashion.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>

> Interesting, but Tubular tires date back to the first bicycle tire
> made by John Dunlap in 1887, described as "an inflated tube of sheet
> rubber". In later days it became "THE" tire for bicycle racing due to
> the lower weight of tire and rim and even today professional bike
> racing (Keirin) bikes use tubular's.
>
> As for "style" Well yes, assuming that one wants a light weight wheel
> and tire assemble. But perhaps "light" in the bicycle world is just a
> fad?

I wasn't arguing against tubulars, John. Mostly I was arguing against a
frame design that severely restricts tire width, for no good reason.
Note that there were and probably are tubulars much wider then 23mm.

And regarding light wheels and tires: For many decades, many cyclists
wanted the skinniest possible tires because they were reputed to be the
fastest, due to lower rolling resistance as well as light weight. In the
last ten years or so, it's been pretty conclusively shown that super
narrow (and thus super-high-pressure) tires are not faster.

This is all quantifiable stuff. We can discuss it with data and links if
you like.

BTW, just as a Kieren bike would probably not be best for riding on
ordinary roads, tires optimized for Kieren or other track racing are
very unlikely to be best for ordinary pavement.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Obviously, you're a retro-grouch! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Most of the rolling resistance numbers referred to in those days were
from testing on smooth steel drums. The equivalent riding surface might
be the smooth linoleum tile hallways in the lab building where I parked
my bike after riding to work. I think a wooden velodrome track would be
that smooth, and I doubt that a concrete or asphalt track would be.

I haven't seen any data proving a 23mm tire has less rolling resistance
than (say) a 28 for any normal rider on any public road. But ride
whatever you like. It doesn't matter to me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Thankfuly, Krygowski doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a good
reason for the rest of us.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 13:02:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/3/2023 11:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:14:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Then, perhaps you should stop whining and complaining about every
little thing that other people do that you prefer not to do.

[AMuzi]

I don't think this is quite so categorical.

It seems to me that more rider mass and more road surface
texture would be more efficient with wider tire section but
for lighter riders on smoother roads not so much. YMMV and
I'm sure it does

Taste is another matter.

[AMuzi]

I've been called worse but I self identify as a 'cyclist'.

[Tom Kunich]

Whatever you think, riding over aged asphalt and then onto a new covering makes a 2-3 mph speed different with my 25 mm tires so it would make a more noticeable difference with 23's. The 28's make up for the bad pavement and perhaps 30's are better, I haven't tried them yet and most of my bikes wouldn't handle a 30 (not to mention the Campy brake release problem). I think that you ride so slowly and with such fat tires that you cannot tell the difference. That is not meant as an insult but as an examination of your comments. You're welcome to ride any way you like to. These days when I'm feeling really good on a flat ride I seldom exceed a 12 mph average so it isn't as if I'm fast.

[Tom Kunich]

Well, in the case of Andre's Merlin, he is quite correct that there was no reason to put the chainstays that narrow but practice at the time. There is no doubt that sooner or later Andre is going to hit a pothole, knock his wheel out of alignment and have a hell of a drag on his ride home. With high end aluminum wheels like the Campy Shamals, the chances of this would be lessened, but it is still a possibility that wouldn't be there if the chainstays had been welded on the ends of the bottom bracket tube.

[andre...@aol.com]

I've been lucky so far, even with fairly inexpensive wheels with 30mm tall rims that they tend to stay true with a lot of abuse. Hopefully, Tom's scenario will not become a reality. I still remember the days when we rode without cellphones and we had to hitchhike home after a mechanical failure.

[Frank Krygowski]

If you're talking about the knowledge gained about rolling resistance
being less with somewhat wider top quality tires, I think it's pretty
solid. Not for every rider, not for every surface, but I think it
applies to most riders on most surface.

Yes, rider weight matters. I've been asked to advise a young(er) lady I
know who is specifically wanting a bike with wider tires than her
current 20-year-old road bike. As I told her, a 28mm tire probably works
for her like perhaps a 35mm tire would work for me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2023 1:14 PM, Catrike Rider waited 12 minutes to write a post
with no technical or logical value.

His obsession with me is just weird. The guy needs to get a life.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 8/3/2023 1:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 1:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 11:51 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2023 7:26 AM, John B. wrote:

>>> Â >
>>> Â >> On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 17:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Frank
>>> Krygowski
>>> Â >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Â >>
>>> Â >>> ISTM you're talking about fashion: "It's very

>>> typical..." I'm talking about engineering.

>>> Â >>> Popular or not, it was a design choice that confers no
>>> practical benefit, and
>>> Â >>> significant practical detriment. Yes, I'm sure it was
>>> dictated by "management and
>>> Â >>> sales department" not by engineering.
>>> Â >>>
>>> Â >>> Now the fashion for rock hard, ultra narrow tires is
>>> finally passing. Good! But
>>> Â >>> people are still stuck with frames that require the
>>> bad
>>> old fashion.
>>> Â >>>
>>> Â >>> - Frank Krygowski
>>> Â >
>>> Â > Interesting, but Tubular tires date back to the first
>>> bicycle tire
>>> Â > made by John Dunlap in 1887, described as "an inflated
>>> tube of sheet
>>> Â > rubber". In later days it became "THE" tire for bicycle
>>> racing due to
>>> Â > the lower weight of tire and rim and even today
>>> professional bike
>>> Â > racing (Keirin) bikes use tubular's.
>>> Â >
>>> Â > As for "style" Well yes, assuming that one wants a light
>>> weight wheel
>>> Â > and tire assemble. But perhaps "light" in the bicycle
>>> world is just a
>>> Â > fad?

+1

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom, this seems to be another internet example of furious agreement. You
and I are agreeing that wider tires help make up for less than perfect
pavement. Rough pavement slows narrow high pressure more than it slows
wider tires. (I'm assuming good quality tires, of course.)

I ride 28s most of the time, 32s on our tandem and utility bikes. And
when I'm on solo rides, my average speeds are definitely above 12 mph. I
still typically do 17 mph or more on flat terrain.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, we are talking apples and oranges. Unless you're using a Garmin or similar GPS tracker, don't tell me about 17 mph as if that was any sort of average.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Ah what the hell, I might as well chime in with what I like. I have an old close tolerance bicycle that has 19mm tubular tires on it and I love that bike and the ride. I don't want or need fenders on it so the lack of being able to put wide tires on it is a moot point. I'll ride that bike until I'm unable to ride a bicycle anymore.

People should be FREE to choose what they WANT not what some people on the internet tell them they should have.

Cheers

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 14:45:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/3/2023 1:14 PM, Catrike Rider waited 12 minutes to write a post
>with no technical or logical value.

It was a perfectly logical comment given your post that I was
responding to.

>His obsession with me is just weird. The guy needs to get a life.

This is from the guy who rants and raves about how others ride their
bicycles, even though their riding has no tangible effect on him.

Actually, by the way, I've had a most amazing life, and still not
ready to call it quits.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 14:52:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/3/2023 1:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

Easy to do when you only ride few piddly miles.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:03:02?p.m. UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 11:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:14:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

+1

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:11:39 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:52:13?AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 1:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

I can still get the Catrike over 20 MPH on the flat, but alas, only
for a mile or two. Back in 2016 I rode an almost flat 40 miles and
averaged 19.2 MPH. That involved slowing down for several highway
crossings.

[John B.]

I had assumed that Frank was intelligent enough to understand that
tires do effect frame design to the extent that any frame designer
would design a frame to ensure it had clearance for the wheels and
tires that he, the designer, envisioned would be used with the frame.
Thus, when narrow tubular's were commonly used why would one design a
frame to have clearance for a hulking big tire? And, certainly in the
past, sleek, narrow, tubular tires were the tire of choice of many,
perhaps most, road riders. I certainly remember, when "Mountain Bikes"
were first becoming popular that people would comment on the "big
tires".

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 13:09:21 -0400, Catrike Rider
<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

He Doesn't? Can you possibly mean that Frank is not the final
authority for bicycles in the entire university? Goodness, and here I
was thinking that Frankie's slightest thought was "graven on tablets
of stone", as it were, and dragged down from the mountain for us mere
mortals to obey.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Some years ago I came up behind an immensely fat rider, from the rear
his legs seemed wider then my entire body.
As I rode past I noticed that the tires in his "bike" were at least 4
inches wide :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well... one does like to demonstrate his superiority to the masses and
how else to do it but loudly proclaim one's fantasies.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

What! Do you mean that you do not wait, with bated breath, for Frank's
approval before doing something?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 09:17:27 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 8/2/2023 9:16 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2023 20:58:47 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/2/2023 8:32 PM, John B. wrote:

>>>>> in re tube cross section-
>>>>> Early S+S coupler Santanas used twin round bottom tubes as
>>>>> S+S is a stainless steel splined compression joint with
>>>>> threaded collar:
>>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/s&smovie.gif
>>>>>
>>>>> Santana developed their aluminum 'Z Coupler" system to
>>>>> return to a large wide oval bottom tube which is essential
>>>>> to Santana's excellent handling and stability.
>>>>
>>>> The specification for the "2002 merlin XL compact" is a 700-23 tire,
>>>> so logically a 700-23 tire will fit without rubbing on the frame tubes
>>>> and a 700-25 tire is only, theoretically, 2 mm wider so it ought to
>>>> fit... But, rim width can effect tire inflated size and it has been my
>>>> experience that all 23 tires aren't exactly, to the last decimal
>>>> place, the same width, and probably 25 tires are the same. Rims do
>>>> flex, some a great deal more then others - Brandt did some testing of
>>>> that and Sheldon has a section on it - number of spokes and spoke
>>>> tension, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> But rather then beat oneself over the head with a stick the simple
>>>> answer is borrow a 700-23 wheel and tire from the local bike shop and
>>>> try it (:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or just buy a pair of Michelin Pro tires.
>>
>> Well, yes, but I thought that all the jumping and down was over the
>> "25" :-)

>>
>> But, along those lines I used to ride sew ups, probably about 700-19,
>> and liked them. Far, far, quicker and easier to "fix flats".
>>
>
>You , sir, are a well informed man of taste.
>(I've ridden standard road tubulars for over 50 years)

During the "Iron Man" competition in Phuket, Thailand, some of the
public roads are "closed" to autos, for short periods, for the bike
race. I was on my usual Sunday Long Ride and I guess because I was on
a bike the traffic police shunted me down a road used for the bike
portion of the event. So, here I am rolling along on the side of the
road and all these big strong Racers came streaking by, nose down and
arse up, and just as one passed me he "flatted" and as I rode by he
was sitting there looking glum, on the side of the road, contemplating
his flat tire. Because, of course, there is no supporting team, or
spare bike in the Iron Man, nothing. Just you against the world and by
the time the guy could take to tire off, patch it and get started the
race would be over.

I remember thinking as I pedaled by... if he had "sew ups" he might
have had a chance :-)


--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 12:03:02?p.m. UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 11:26 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> > On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 5:14:04?PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

For all the yapping about tires I used to ride 19mm "Sew ups" and then
I gave that bike to a nephew and bought a later model with 23mm tires
and even had a bike with 25's for a while and then another which was a
"converted" mountain bike with even larger tires.

And frankly I really couldn't tell much difference between any of them
although the 19 might have been a bit more "lively". As for riding on
rough roads :-) I grew up riding horses so perhaps I have an advantage
as I learned very early if you use your legs to support your arse a
bit the ride becomes much smoother.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2023 3:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:52:13 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 1:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> These days when I'm feeling really good on a flat ride I seldom exceed a 12 mph average so it isn't as if I'm fast.
>>

>> I ride 28s most of the time, 32s on our tandem and utility bikes. And
>> when I'm on solo rides, my average speeds are definitely above 12 mph. I
>> still typically do 17 mph or more on flat terrain.
>

> Frank, we are talking apples and oranges. Unless you're using a Garmin or similar GPS tracker, don't tell me about 17 mph as if that was any sort of average.

I didn't say I averaged 17 mph, Tom. I said that's a typical pace for me
while on flat terrain. I suppose if I were to ride only on dead flat
paths, I might average close to 17. But with climbs and descents plus
flat ground, my overall average speeds are well above 12 mph.

Reading comprehension!

You seem to do more climbing than I do, so we may be comparable in
speed. I don't really know.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That's fine. One of my best riding buddies still rides 19mm tires
inflated to something like 150 psi. He's also an extreme "weight
weenie," the guy who has drilled holes through the middle of some bike
fasteners to save weight. Whild I disagree with the rationale behind
those choices, we still get along great.

But in a purportedly "tech" _discussion_ group, we should be able to
_discuss_ the relevant science, no?

> People should be FREE to choose what they WANT not what some people on the internet tell them they should have.

Ah me! Why is "But ride whatever you like. It doesn't matter to me" so
confusing to certain people?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2023 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> I had assumed that Frank was intelligent enough to understand that
> tires do effect frame design to the extent that any frame designer
> would design a frame to ensure it had clearance for the wheels and
> tires that he, the designer, envisioned would be used with the frame.
> Thus, when narrow tubular's were commonly used why would one design a
> frame to have clearance for a hulking big tire? And, certainly in the
> past, sleek, narrow, tubular tires were the tire of choice of many,
> perhaps most, road riders. I certainly remember, when "Mountain Bikes"
> were first becoming popular that people would comment on the "big
> tires".

As I've patiently explained, for a long, long time it was common to do
one's long training miles on wider, more rugged and less expensive
tires. In addition, in rainy climates, that training was done with
fenders installed. When race day came, fenders and "training" wheels
were removed, and lighter race wheels and tires (probably tubulars) were
installed. Those frames had more clearance, and thus much more
versatility. But you've probably forgotten all that.

I posted some photos showing renowned riders of old racing on frames
that had much more clearance than modern race bikes. You could, I
suppose, write to Eddy Merckx and let him know that he was foolish back
in the day - that he would have won even more if his fork blades and
chain stays barely cleared his tires. I doubt he'd be impressed with
your logic.

And John, since this is supposedly a "tech" group: The disadvantages of
a hard metal restriction on tire size choice seem obvious. Perhaps you'd
like to explain what technical advantage you perceive a rider gets from
that restriction?

Advantages vs. disadvantages. Benefits vs. detriments. So tricky for some!


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/3/2023 7:14 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Some years ago I came up behind an immensely fat rider, from the rear
> his legs seemed wider then my entire body.
> As I rode past I noticed that the tires in his "bike" were at least 4
> inches wide :-)

We attended our first national bike convention in 1978, in Michigan.
Since we were living in a small southern town, it was my first
opportunity to see large numbers of really fine bikes.

The ceremonies began with a huge mass ride from the city's outskirts to
the site of the convention. We listened to a conversation with a guy
praising his brand new bike's incredible lightness. Super light
crankset, super light derailleur, super light frame, super light wheels,
etc. He was obviously deeply in love with his bike, and it was very pretty.

But he appeared to weigh well over 250 pounds, and he was not tall nor
muscular. I remember wondering even back then how his wheels would hold up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:47:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 8/3/2023 3:52 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

So, if it really doesn't matter to you, why do you berate the bikes
with narrow chainstay clearances.

[Catrike Rider]

Risk vs reward. Why is the fact that most people prefer to make
that decision for themselves so tricky for you?

[John B.]

He just can't give up can he :-) But as he says, "The disadvantages of

a hard metal restriction on tire size choice seem obvious."

And of course nearly all vehicles with wheels do restrict the wheel
and tire size in some manner, usually because of hard metal
restriction..

And, as we are talking about bicycles how about the tires from a
"Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29", Cheap at only $6,499 and fitted with
29" x 2.5" wheels and tires. In metric that is... 736 - 63. Will they
fit your made to order bicycle?

Or, perhaps a better choice... the "New 26 x 4.0 Knobby Bicycle Tire,
Mountain Bike, Fat Tire, Universal Use" for only 1,557 Thai Baht
(about $46 in your money).

Or to phrase it a bit differently "You Don't Know What You Are Talking
About!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:53:24 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It appears that Krygoski's primary activity is giving unsolicited
advice about things he knows very little about, don't affect him and
that are clearly none of his business. He follows that by berating
anybody who chooses to ignore his advice and insists that they explain
and defend that choice.

That's so obviously an act by a narcissistic person, intent upon
getting the attention he beleves he deserves.

[John B.]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:23:24 -0400, Catrike Rider

"a narcissistic person"???
Goodness Gracious Sakes Alive!... Whatever are you saying?

Are you telling us that Frank is not the final word on any subject he
cares to comment on? That he is NOT the absolute limit in knowledge
of what he posts?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:51:56 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

https://healthprep.com/mental-health/narcissist-signs/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=567025126&utm_content=1186374750855389&utm_term=narcissistic%20person&msclkid=985b477c558f122411ad23b0b5e2aba1

[AMuzi]

Yes but not only bicycles.

When I was building my 1966 Malibu, a friend gave me a
new-in-box set of chrome reverse wheels intended for his
1970 El Camino. Sadly the wider rims from a 1970 will not
clear under a 1966. Do I condemn Chevrolet's 1966 design
team for that? I do not.

Back to Mr Muro's beautiful new Merlin, good luck selling a
race bike in 2002 with a longer wheelbase or requiring long
calipers. More people wanted legitimate race bikes than
sport frames then.

[Roger Meriman]

I think your personal feelings of Frank are blinding you to what he’s
saying!

That road bikes had gone down race bike and realistically some fairly iffy
science ie light = fast narrow is light and not much more!

Modern road bikes even race bikes are much more flexible than few decades
ago, in summer some of my club mates use some of my tracks as 28/30mm tires
can cope with broken concrete farm tracks.

And he’s right that that didn’t need disk brakes could of done that with
rim brakes with dual pivots up to 32mm would seem so bit less with guards
or your into V brake/Cantilever types which at least in my experience never
worked wonderfully on drop bar bikes.

Where a number of touring type bikes like that, but where generally
sluggish in feel or perception I’m sure that a sprightly feeling rim braked
road bike with clearance for 32mm could of been done, though road tires I
think stopped at 25/28mm and touring tires generally have a duller feel.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Pretending to yourself that you can average faster than me on a bike that on its best days could average 2/3rds what a race bike like mine can is doing nothing more than fooling yourself. Unless you've actually measured it with a Garmin or such, do not pretend that you know what you're talking about. You just make yourself look silly.

[Frank Krygowski]

That happens a lot with internet discussions. It's sad, because forums
like this could otherwise be much more educational.

>
> That road bikes had gone down race bike and realistically some fairly iffy
> science ie light = fast narrow is light and not much more!
>
> Modern road bikes even race bikes are much more flexible than few decades
> ago, in summer some of my club mates use some of my tracks as 28/30mm tires
> can cope with broken concrete farm tracks.
>
> And he’s right that that didn’t need disk brakes could of done that with
> rim brakes with dual pivots up to 32mm would seem so bit less with guards
> or your into V brake/Cantilever types which at least in my experience never
> worked wonderfully on drop bar bikes.
>
> Where a number of touring type bikes like that, but where generally
> sluggish in feel or perception I’m sure that a sprightly feeling rim braked
> road bike with clearance for 32mm could of been done, though road tires I
> think stopped at 25/28mm and touring tires generally have a duller feel.
>
> Roger Merriman

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/4/2023 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> When I was building my 1966 Malibu, a friend gave me a new-in-box set of
> chrome reverse wheels intended for his 1970 El Camino.  Sadly the wider
> rims from a 1970 will not clear under a 1966.  Do I condemn Chevrolet's
> 1966 design team for that? I do not.

I put the widest tires possible on my 1966 Corvair, back in the day.
Yes, it required some minor modification of hidden bodywork. But I don't
think this is a good analogy. A better analogy would be if, for some
reason, Chevrolet for some reason designed a car that required 4" wide
tires. Maybe because they were fashionable?

> Back to Mr Muro's beautiful new Merlin, good luck selling a race bike in
> 2002 with a longer wheelbase or requiring long calipers.  More people
> wanted legitimate race bikes than sport frames then.

Right. Fashion highly influences bike design. If your bike is not
trendy, your sales volume won't be much bigger than Rivendell.

But the clearance we're discussing, right behind the bottom bracket, has
nothing much to do with wheelbase or brake clearance. Those chainstays
absolutely could have been spaced much wider, preventing the clearance
problem actually under discussion.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/4/2023 10:25 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Pretending to yourself that you can average faster than me on a bike that on its best days could average 2/3rds what a race bike like mine can is doing nothing more than fooling yourself.

Tom, no race bike confers such an immense speed advantage over any
decent quality road or touring bike. You're being technically ignorant
again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[andre...@aol.com]

I haven't participated much lately, but just like in the olden times of Jobst etal, a simple technical discussion can easily devolve into an insult feast grounded on old grudges, ideologies, etc. At least there is a little bit of technical information in this thread. Others are merely insult feast between the same ol' characters. Lol!

Andres

[Tom Kunich]

And exactly how would you know Frank? You accept your own ignorance as truth unvarnished. Borrow your "friend's" Garmin and have him set it up for your bike and THEN tell us all the results.

[Tom Kunich]

In the olden days it was Jobst insulting everyone else as rank amateurs. Now it is the rank amateurs telling us that they don't need the slightest evidence of what they say. How many people here actually rode with Jobst? I'd warrant that I'm the only one. Frank says that he averages speeds he probably can't hold as top speeds. That isn't unusual since people that don't use a Garmin or like don't actually understand what average speed actually is. I am sort of surprised that Lou keeps out of a discussion in which a man riding a freewheel touring bike with bar end friction shifters claims to ride at 17 mph (27 kph)

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2023 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> When I was building my 1966 Malibu, a friend gave me a
>> new-in-box set of chrome reverse wheels intended for his

>> 1970 El Camino. Sadly the wider rims from a 1970 will
>> not clear under a 1966. Do I condemn Chevrolet's 1966

>> design team for that? I do not.
>
> I put the widest tires possible on my 1966 Corvair, back in
> the day. Yes, it required some minor modification of hidden
> bodywork. But I don't think this is a good analogy. A better
> analogy would be if, for some reason, Chevrolet for some
> reason designed a car that required 4" wide tires. Maybe
> because they were fashionable?
>
>> Back to Mr Muro's beautiful new Merlin, good luck selling
>> a race bike in 2002 with a longer wheelbase or requiring

>> long calipers. More people wanted legitimate race bikes

>> than sport frames then.
>
> Right. Fashion highly influences bike design. If your bike
> is not trendy, your sales volume won't be much bigger than
> Rivendell.
>
> But the clearance we're discussing, right behind the bottom
> bracket, has nothing much to do with wheelbase or brake
> clearance. Those chainstays absolutely could have been
> spaced much wider, preventing the clearance problem actually
> under discussion.
>

But for reasons we may or may not fully appreciate, the
designer did it that way, it sold well, people raced them
successfully and there were scores of nearly identical race
frames with the same clearances in the market simultaneously.

So whatever 'disadvantages' may be evident to you, they
weren't weighed as such by actual customers and actual
riders at that time. People who wanted wider tires bought
other frames.

[Tom Kunich]

In 2002 no one used wider tires. 23 mm high pressure tires was the name of the game and you know that. Stop humoring Frank because he has a touring bike. It is time he stops his BS and learns that racers are different than touring bikes. Do you for one second think that he uses a Continental GP5000? He said that he could hold 17 mph on his touring bike. He couldn't do that in free fall.

I'm not knocking his bike or his components. But touring bikes simply are not in the same category as a racer and he doesn't know that.

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2023 12:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:30:12 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 11:03 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2023 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When I was building my 1966 Malibu, a friend gave me a
>>>> new-in-box set of chrome reverse wheels intended for his

>>>> 1970 El Camino. Sadly the wider rims from a 1970 will
>>>> not clear under a 1966. Do I condemn Chevrolet's 1966

>>>> design team for that? I do not.
>>>
>>> I put the widest tires possible on my 1966 Corvair, back in
>>> the day. Yes, it required some minor modification of hidden
>>> bodywork. But I don't think this is a good analogy. A better
>>> analogy would be if, for some reason, Chevrolet for some
>>> reason designed a car that required 4" wide tires. Maybe
>>> because they were fashionable?
>>>
>>>> Back to Mr Muro's beautiful new Merlin, good luck selling
>>>> a race bike in 2002 with a longer wheelbase or requiring

>>>> long calipers. More people wanted legitimate race bikes

>>>> than sport frames then.
>>>
>>> Right. Fashion highly influences bike design. If your bike
>>> is not trendy, your sales volume won't be much bigger than
>>> Rivendell.
>>>
>>> But the clearance we're discussing, right behind the bottom
>>> bracket, has nothing much to do with wheelbase or brake
>>> clearance. Those chainstays absolutely could have been
>>> spaced much wider, preventing the clearance problem actually
>>> under discussion.
>>>
>> But for reasons we may or may not fully appreciate, the
>> designer did it that way, it sold well, people raced them
>> successfully and there were scores of nearly identical race
>> frames with the same clearances in the market simultaneously.
>>
>> So whatever 'disadvantages' may be evident to you, they
>> weren't weighed as such by actual customers and actual
>> riders at that time. People who wanted wider tires bought
>> other frames.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> In 2002 no one used wider tires. 23 mm high pressure tires was the name of the game and you know that. Stop humoring Frank because he has a touring bike. It is time he stops his BS and learns that racers are different than touring bikes. Do you for one second think that he uses a Continental GP5000? He said that he could hold 17 mph on his touring bike. He couldn't do that in free fall.
>
> I'm not knocking his bike or his components. But touring bikes simply are not in the same category as a racer and he doesn't know that.
>

In 2002, no one _racing_ used wider tires.

Bruce Gordon was selling his Rock-N-Road and also BLT bikes
then:
https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/3174238/

of which he produced about as many per year altogether as a
healthy single store pro shop sold race bikes.

[Roger Meriman]

Road bikes be they Race/Touring/Gravel etc are all fairly closely packed.
Some touring/Gravel bikes will have more relaxed riding positions but it’s
still fairly wind cheating, it’s not a upright Dutch bike into a headwind
for example!

Weight is within reason not a huge factor, assuming pannier bags at least
are removed it will be close enough, tires while road tires are faster, and
the iconic Marathons give a fairly dull sluggish feel they still clip along
nicely it’s more than marginal gains but again close enough.

Clothing and so on probably has biggest effect ie aerodynamics, be that DH
MTB or a road climb TT skin suits are the fastest falling off to flappy
casual clothing.

I’m assuming neither wear skin suits!

I notice the difference between the gravel and MTB between the various road
bikes and the Gravel bike etc, in terms of speed it’s really all close.

Roger Merriman

[Lou Holtman]

I did 18.3 mph (29.4 km/hr) today over 83 km with no stops on my ‘slow’ climbing bike.

Lou

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:14:03 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>
wrote:

I understand exctly what Keygowski is saying. You see I really do
think people ought to ride whatever they want to ride and I wonder
whatever happened to "I'd choose a different bike," instead of, "your
bike is all wrong."

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 11:54:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski

There are things I've learned in this forum, but certainly, not from
you, Krygoski. It didn't take me very long to figure out that you had
nothing of value to say, ......other, than, that is, the entertainment
I get from reading your self-serving nonsense.

[Tom Kunich]

You couldn't be insinuating that that Bruce Gordon could have kept up with the Trek's that Discovery was using at that time?

[Tom Kunich]

Of course I don't really think that there is anything wrong with what Frank wants to ride. But I do object to his invention of the idea that his bike could keep up with a racing bike. A Catrike is a recumbent and if desired they can ride much faster than other bikes. A friend who was very fast to begin with works in LA and commutes along the River bike path and tells me that he rides along at a constant 40 mph. He has a 2 wheel recumbent so his frontal area is greatly reduced. I'm not sure that I believe those kinds of speeds but that is what he said and he is normally very reliable.

[Roger Meriman]

He wasn’t personally attacking individuals or individual bikes, but noting
that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let’s say poorly
understood engineering.

That’s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where
able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.

The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
broadly accepted.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 20:07:21 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>

>>> I think your personal feelings of Frank are blinding you to what he?s

>>> saying!
>>>
>>> That road bikes had gone down race bike and realistically some fairly iffy
>>> science ie light = fast narrow is light and not much more!
>>>
>>> Modern road bikes even race bikes are much more flexible than few decades
>>> ago, in summer some of my club mates use some of my tracks as 28/30mm tires
>>> can cope with broken concrete farm tracks.
>>>

>>> And he?s right that that didn?t need disk brakes could of done that with

>>> rim brakes with dual pivots up to 32mm would seem so bit less with guards
>>> or your into V brake/Cantilever types which at least in my experience never
>>> worked wonderfully on drop bar bikes.
>>>
>>> Where a number of touring type bikes like that, but where generally

>>> sluggish in feel or perception I?m sure that a sprightly feeling rim braked

>>> road bike with clearance for 32mm could of been done, though road tires I
>>> think stopped at 25/28mm and touring tires generally have a duller feel.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> I understand exctly what Keygowski is saying. You see I really do
>> think people ought to ride whatever they want to ride and I wonder
>> whatever happened to "I'd choose a different bike," instead of, "your
>> bike is all wrong."
>>
>He wasn’t personally attacking individuals or individual bikes,

Well, yes, he was... It's what he does....

>but noting
>that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let’s say poorly
>understood engineering.

There's just as much bicycle fashion today. Group think will never go
away.

>That’s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where
>able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.
>
>The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
>on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
>broadly accepted.

Road bikes are pretend race bikes.

>Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

There is so little "engineering" in bicycles that you have to wonder why anyone ever uses that term. Check out this Trek: https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/road-bikes/performance-road-bikes/madone/madone-slr/madone-slr-9-axs-gen-7/p/37420/?colorCode=blue Did anyone ever think to ask and engineer about that?

Even worse - https://www.specialized.com/us/en/sirrus-x-5-0/p/200214?color=322033-200214

Now try and convince me that there is even a hint of engineering in bicycle companies.

[Roger Meriman]

Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Even worse - https://www.specialized.com/us/en/sirrus-x-5-0/p/200214?color22033-200214

>
> Now try and convince me that there is even a hint of engineering in bicycle companies.
>

It’s different looking but even with road bikes frames have been modified,
not as much as MTB which no longer are essentially overbuilt road frames.

Most road bikes have sloping top tubes now and so on. For the
commute/utility market partially with rise of electric bikes and cargo
bikes getting a few alternatives to the diamond frames.

I’d expect road bikes with UCI and it’s generally much more conservative
mindset to have less change.

Roger Merriman

[John B.]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:40:37?AM UTC-7, andre...@aol.com wrote:

But Tommy, the average sped for a ride is easy to calculate... The
time you get home minus the time you started and the number of miles
that you traveled.

You don't need some expensive gizmo to calculate that?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:25:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 6:41:22?PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 8/3/2023 3:11 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> > On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 11:52:13?AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 8/3/2023 1:23 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> These days when I'm feeling really good on a flat ride I seldom exceed a 12 mph average so it isn't as if I'm fast.
>> >>
>> >> I ride 28s most of the time, 32s on our tandem and utility bikes. And
>> >> when I'm on solo rides, my average speeds are definitely above 12 mph. I
>> >> still typically do 17 mph or more on flat terrain.
>> >
>> > Frank, we are talking apples and oranges. Unless you're using a Garmin or similar GPS tracker, don't tell me about 17 mph as if that was any sort of average.
>> I didn't say I averaged 17 mph, Tom. I said that's a typical pace for me
>> while on flat terrain. I suppose if I were to ride only on dead flat
>> paths, I might average close to 17. But with climbs and descents plus
>> flat ground, my overall average speeds are well above 12 mph.
>>
>> Reading comprehension!
>>
>> You seem to do more climbing than I do, so we may be comparable in
>> speed. I don't really know.
>
>Pretending to yourself that you can average faster than me on a bike that on its best days could average 2/3rds what a race bike like mine can is doing nothing more than fooling yourself. Unless you've actually measured it with a Garmin or such, do not pretend that you know what you're talking about. You just make yourself look silly.

Goodness! I hadn't realized that ace bike" was actually faster. You
mean that all I have to do is buy one of them expensive "race" bikes
and I'll be faster.
Or maybe you mean that Tom is a Fool!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Meriman]

Gone back to reread the thread, he calls the bike poor design as it’s
rubbing 23mm tires which are the narrowest tires you can get now? Can’t see
sub 23mm tires any more.

Which was based on it rubbing the frame, appears to have been the wheels
slightly off centre. It’s a bit blunt perhaps but it’s not a personal
attack, it seems a fairly lovely looking bike, but like all bikes of its
era road bikes at least had narrow clearances.

>
>> but noting
>> that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let’s say poorly
>> understood engineering.
>
> There's just as much bicycle fashion today. Group think will never go
> away.
>
>> That’s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where
>> able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.
>>
>> The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
>> on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
>> broadly accepted.
>
> Road bikes are pretend race bikes.

Well no some are real ie raced ie folks pin a number and so on. Hence
frames being uci legal or not

But UCI did many things but I’m not aware of any involvement with tire
clearances bar I guess CX max tire size though to best of my understanding
the frame can have larger clearances after all mud means you want max
clearance to prevent wheel jamming.
>
>> Roger Merriman
>

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 23:07:15 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>

>>> He wasn?t personally attacking individuals or individual bikes,

>>
>> Well, yes, he was... It's what he does....
>
>Gone back to reread the thread, he calls the bike poor design as it’s
>rubbing 23mm tires which are the narrowest tires you can get now? Can’t see
>sub 23mm tires any more.
>
>Which was based on it rubbing the frame, appears to have been the wheels
>slightly off centre. It’s a bit blunt perhaps but it’s not a personal
>attack, it seems a fairly lovely looking bike, but like all bikes of its
>era road bikes at least had narrow clearances.

This was not a personal attack, like he so often does, but it was an
attack on the gentleman's bicycle, that he was likely very proud of.
It wasn't just an attack on that bike, but on the bicycle engineers
and designers of that era.

>>> but noting
>>> that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let?s say poorly

>>> understood engineering.
>>
>> There's just as much bicycle fashion today. Group think will never go
>> away.
>>

>>> That?s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where

>>> able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.
>>>
>>> The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
>>> on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
>>> broadly accepted.
>>
>> Road bikes are pretend race bikes.
>
>Well no some are real ie raced ie folks pin a number and so on. Hence
>frames being uci legal or not

The road bikes that are not real race bikes are pretend race bikes.

There's still a lot of bicycle fashion going on. There's always will
be.

[andre...@aol.com]

FYI, I don't take offense on people criticizing the bike. I do like it, but did not expect such narrow gap between chainstays. Had I known that the gap was going to be so small, I may have not gotten the frame. Have to say, that I Iove how it rides, however, I will be forever buying the narrowest of the 23mm tires that I will be able to find. I will also have to keep the wheels very true. I hope that they keep making narrow profile wheels and tires to use with the frame.

[Catrike Rider]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 16:46:11 -0700 (PDT), "andre...@aol.com"
<andre...@aol.com> wrote:

I'm glad you're happy with it. I hope you ride many happy miles..

[John B.]

I suspect that marketing and thus production of any product is, like
democracy, not dependent on the bigoted opinions of a single demented
old man, but rather on what the masses desire (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2023 6:46 PM, andre...@aol.com wrote:

>>> Gone back to reread the thread, he calls the bike poor design as it’s
>>> rubbing 23mm tires which are the narrowest tires you can get now? Can’t see

>>> sub 23mm tires any more.
>>>
>>> Which was based on it rubbing the frame, appears to have been the wheels

>>> slightly off centre. It’s a bit blunt perhaps but it’s not a personal

>>> attack, it seems a fairly lovely looking bike, but like all bikes of its
>>> era road bikes at least had narrow clearances.
>> This was not a personal attack, like he so often does, but it was an
>> attack on the gentleman's bicycle, that he was likely very proud of.
>> It wasn't just an attack on that bike, but on the bicycle engineers
>> and designers of that era.
>>
>>>>> but noting
>>>>> that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let?s say poorly
>>>>> understood engineering.
>>>>
>>>> There's just as much bicycle fashion today. Group think will never go
>>>> away.
>>>>
>>>>> That?s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where
>>>>> able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
>>>>> on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
>>>>> broadly accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Road bikes are pretend race bikes.
>>>
>>> Well no some are real ie raced ie folks pin a number and so on. Hence
>>> frames being uci legal or not
>> The road bikes that are not real race bikes are pretend race bikes.
>>
>> There's still a lot of bicycle fashion going on. There's always will
>> be.

>>> But UCI did many things but I’m not aware of any involvement with tire

>>> clearances bar I guess CX max tire size though to best of my understanding
>>> the frame can have larger clearances after all mud means you want max
>>> clearance to prevent wheel jamming.
>>>>
>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>
> FYI, I don't take offense on people criticizing the bike. I do like it, but did not expect such narrow gap between chainstays. Had I known that the gap was going to be so small, I may have not gotten the frame. Have to say, that I Iove how it rides, however, I will be forever buying the narrowest of the 23mm tires that I will be able to find. I will also have to keep the wheels very true. I hope that they keep making narrow profile wheels and tires to use with the frame.
>

My most-ridden bike nowadays is fixed gear, short, yet not
quite as tight as yours. But I have squeezed and wiggled
steel mudguards into it. Tire clearance is minimal with
just under 23mm tubs. That has not been an actual problem
the past 25 years or so.

[John B.]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 20:07:21 GMT, Roger Meriman <ro...@sarlet.com>

>>> I think your personal feelings of Frank are blinding you to what he?s

>>> saying!
>>>
>>> That road bikes had gone down race bike and realistically some fairly iffy
>>> science ie light = fast narrow is light and not much more!
>>>
>>> Modern road bikes even race bikes are much more flexible than few decades
>>> ago, in summer some of my club mates use some of my tracks as 28/30mm tires
>>> can cope with broken concrete farm tracks.
>>>

>>> And he?s right that that didn?t need disk brakes could of done that with

>>> rim brakes with dual pivots up to 32mm would seem so bit less with guards
>>> or your into V brake/Cantilever types which at least in my experience never
>>> worked wonderfully on drop bar bikes.
>>>
>>> Where a number of touring type bikes like that, but where generally

>>> sluggish in feel or perception I?m sure that a sprightly feeling rim braked

>>> road bike with clearance for 32mm could of been done, though road tires I
>>> think stopped at 25/28mm and touring tires generally have a duller feel.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> I understand exctly what Keygowski is saying. You see I really do
>> think people ought to ride whatever they want to ride and I wonder
>> whatever happened to "I'd choose a different bike," instead of, "your
>> bike is all wrong."
>>
>He wasn’t personally attacking individuals or individual bikes, but noting
>that for quite some time due to fashion/being kind let’s say poorly
>understood engineering.
>
>That’s one of the reasons folks like Mike Burrows and Graeme Obree where
>able to compete if not out of Garage hardly big operations.
>
>The idea that road bikes needed thin tires and clearances was at best based
>on not understanding everything, and that is hardly controversial idea is
>broadly accepted.
>
>Roger Merriman

It's a little more complex then just rear wheel clearance though.

I did, quite some years ago, design and build a bike from the basic
tubes and "braze on's" and did make a study of bike design... For
example, a slightly lower bottom bracket makes the center of gravity
of the bike lower and thus the bike is more stable... but the lower
bottom bracket also restricts the maximum length of the crank arms
which in turn changes the turning force exerted on the crank axle and
front sprocket for any specific foot pressure. A shorter wheel base
makes for a quicker maneuverable bike and may be done by moving the
rear wheel forward which reduces the tire clearance between the chain
stays, but also makes for frame stiffer. Wheel base can also be
altered by the front fork angle and curvature which has a very large
effect on "handling" but also reduces the "shock" applied to the
handle bars when a bump is hit and so on and so forth...



--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 07:34:38 -0400, Catrike Rider
<sol...@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 17:51:56 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 04:23:24 -0400, Catrike Rider
>><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 14:53:24 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 02:56:47 -0400, Catrike Rider
>>>><sol...@drafting.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 22:09:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 8/3/2023 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had assumed that Frank was intelligent enough to understand that
>>>>>>> tires do effect frame design to the extent that any frame designer
>>>>>>> would design a frame to ensure it had clearance for the wheels and
>>>>>>> tires that he, the designer, envisioned would be used with the frame.
>>>>>>> Thus, when narrow tubular's were commonly used why would one design a
>>>>>>> frame to have clearance for a hulking big tire? And, certainly in the
>>>>>>> past, sleek, narrow, tubular tires were the tire of choice of many,
>>>>>>> perhaps most, road riders. I certainly remember, when "Mountain Bikes"
>>>>>>> were first becoming popular that people would comment on the "big
>>>>>>> tires".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I've patiently explained, for a long, long time it was common to do
>>>>>>one's long training miles on wider, more rugged and less expensive
>>>>>>tires. In addition, in rainy climates, that training was done with
>>>>>>fenders installed. When race day came, fenders and "training" wheels
>>>>>>were removed, and lighter race wheels and tires (probably tubulars) were
>>>>>>installed. Those frames had more clearance, and thus much more
>>>>>>versatility. But you've probably forgotten all that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I posted some photos showing renowned riders of old racing on frames
>>>>>>that had much more clearance than modern race bikes. You could, I
>>>>>>suppose, write to Eddy Merckx and let him know that he was foolish back
>>>>>>in the day - that he would have won even more if his fork blades and
>>>>>>chain stays barely cleared his tires. I doubt he'd be impressed with
>>>>>>your logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And John, since this is supposedly a "tech" group: The disadvantages of
>>>>>>a hard metal restriction on tire size choice seem obvious. Perhaps you'd
>>>>>>like to explain what technical advantage you perceive a rider gets from
>>>>>>that restriction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Advantages vs. disadvantages. Benefits vs. detriments. So tricky for some!
>>>>>
>>>>>Risk vs reward. Why is the fact that most people prefer to make
>>>>>that decision for themselves so tricky for you?
>>>>
>>>>He just can't give up can he :-) But as he says, "The disadvantages of
>>>>a hard metal restriction on tire size choice seem obvious."
>>>>
>>>>And of course nearly all vehicles with wheels do restrict the wheel
>>>>and tire size in some manner, usually because of hard metal
>>>>restriction..
>>>>
>>>>And, as we are talking about bicycles how about the tires from a
>>>>"Giant Reign Advanced Pro 29", Cheap at only $6,499 and fitted with
>>>>29" x 2.5" wheels and tires. In metric that is... 736 - 63. Will they
>>>>fit your made to order bicycle?
>>>>
>>>>Or, perhaps a better choice... the "New 26 x 4.0 Knobby Bicycle Tire,
>>>>Mountain Bike, Fat Tire, Universal Use" for only 1,557 Thai Baht
>>>>(about $46 in your money).
>>>>
>>>>Or to phrase it a bit differently "You Don't Know What You Are Talking
>>>>About!"
>>>
>>>It appears that Krygoski's primary activity is giving unsolicited
>>>advice about things he knows very little about, don't affect him and
>>>that are clearly none of his business. He follows that by berating
>>>anybody who chooses to ignore his advice and insists that they explain
>>>and defend that choice.
>>>
>>>That's so obviously an act by a narcissistic person, intent upon
>>>getting the attention he beleves he deserves.
>>
>>"a narcissistic person"???
>>Goodness Gracious Sakes Alive!... Whatever are you saying?
>>
>>Are you telling us that Frank is not the final word on any subject he
>>cares to comment on? That he is NOT the absolute limit in knowledge
>>of what he posts?
>
>https://healthprep.com/mental-health/narcissist-signs/?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=567025126&utm_content=1186374750855389&utm_term=narcissistic%20person&msclkid=985b477c558f122411ad23b0b5e2aba1

Or, as my old Granny would have said "crazy old coot" (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your post certainly does demonstrate that any claim you have made
about being an "engineer" is pure and unadulterated Bull Shit.

Just looking at it as a structure design I can see a certain amount of
"engineering" is required and that is only for the structure itself.
Next we get into the handling and....

You are getting more like Frank every day.... "I don't like it so it
must be bad".

--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Yes, that's all correct and a subset of frame design
considerations. Every change affects everything else so
every decision has a design cost somewhere else. Which is
why frame design is artful, not a science. Competent guys
make decent frames. Gifted builder make wonderful frames.

pet peeve-
I get asked regularly to change one aspect of a frame in for
repairs. Completely unrealistic in almost every case but
it's a common enough request and no one wants to hear why not.

[Radey Shouman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 7:01:15 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 8/2/2023 4:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > On 8/2/2023 4:56 PM, andre...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> Here is an album with the bike and the chainstays:
>> >>
>> >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/25224248@N05/albums/72177720310224949
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> here is a video showing the wheel spinning true:
>> >>
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/shorts/h5df2x908DM
>> >
>> > I'd call that frame a bad design. I don't see any reason the
>> > chainstay spacing should be that small. There was room on
>> > the bottom bracket shell to space them wider, and there's no
>> > clearance problem with cranks or chainrings. Your tire
>> > choices were needlessly restricted.
>> >
>> > I don't think the frame is suitable for 23mm tires. At the
>> > other end of the tire width scale, I started a tour with
>> > 32mm wide (nominal 37mm) tires on my touring bike, since we
>> > were riding the C&O Canal towpath fully loaded. I had more
>> > chainstay clearance than you have in your video, 37mm, maybe
>> > 37.5mm, but by ~200 miles the tire was scraping. The tire
>> > had actually increased in width from 32mm to 35mm, something
>> > that I didn't know could happen.
>> >
>> > Again, I think the chainstays could be dimpled on the inner
>> > surfaces to add more clearance. If you're interested, I can
>> > give details of how I've done that. I'm sure Andrew can do
>> > the same.
>> >
>> It's very typical of race bikes when it was built. Not
>> excessive. And since you were not a customer for that sort
>> of thing then, you probably never seriously considered one.
>> Which is fine, people ought to ride what they like.
>>
>> Once Merlin assumed a sub-one meter wheelbase and popular
>> racing tires of that period, designer was able to use
>> thinner lighter chainstays in fat ovals than he could with
>> dents. It's not illogical given management and sales
>> department directives to the designer. Merlin did build
>> cyclocross (32mm tire clearance) frames, which also sold as
>> well as anything in their price class.
>
> ISTM you're talking about fashion: "It's very typical..." I'm talking about engineering.
> Popular or not, it was a design choice that confers no practical benefit, and
> significant practical detriment. Yes, I'm sure it was dictated by "management and
> sales department" not by engineering.

The goal of engineering, like the goal of management and sales, is
moving product out the door in a profitable manner. It's nice if the
products are useful and make the world a better place, but if they don't
sell then everybody has to look for new jobs.

> Now the fashion for rock hard, ultra narrow tires is finally passing. Good! But
> people are still stuck with frames that require the bad old fashion.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

--

[John B.]

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 16:46:11 -0700 (PDT), "andre...@aol.com"
<andre...@aol.com> wrote:

Currently, anyway, just about every maker is selling 23 tires. See
"Amazon "Bicycle Tire+700-23".

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Just out of curiosity what frame changes do people ask for?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 8/4/2023 8:29 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> writes:
>

Nice observation.
Or as business management guru Peter Drucker phrased it,
"Nothing gets done until someone sells something."