135mm spacing for road bikes?
jcole
confuse me. Why 130mm spacing for road bikes and 135mm for MTB's? Will
road bikes shift to 135mm spacing in the near future? Is there a
particular advange for one over the other? I realize as far as
touring applications go there are probably more suitable parts designed
around the 135mm spacing configuration than 130mm. Any help or comments
would be greatly appreciated...THANKS!!!
Jim Cole
Memphis, TN
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
alex wetmore
news:8tmngr$q39$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Ok, I'm exploring the world of modern road bikes and a few things
> confuse me. Why 130mm spacing for road bikes and 135mm for MTB's?
Will
> road bikes shift to 135mm spacing in the near future? Is there a
> particular advange for one over the other? I realize as far as
> touring applications go there are probably more suitable parts
designed
> around the 135mm spacing configuration than 130mm. Any help or
comments
> would be greatly appreciated...THANKS!!!
Touring bikes are usually built for 135mm spacing (CoMotion builds their
touring bike for 145mm spacing). Trek, Cannondale, Bruce Gordon, and I
think Bianchi are major manufacturers of touring bikes who use 135mm
spacing and MTB hubs.
130mm spacing allows for a lower Q-factor or tread (distance between the
pedals) if you have an optimal chainline, and can allow the inner ring
to be closer to the chainstays without having to indent the chainstays.
Otherwise there isn't a big difference.
alex
Sheldon Brown
>
> Ok, I'm exploring the world of modern road bikes and a few things
> confuse me. Why 130mm spacing for road bikes and 135mm for MTB's? Will
> road bikes shift to 135mm spacing in the near future? Is there a
> particular advange for one over the other? I realize as far as
> touring applications go there are probably more suitable parts designed
> around the 135mm spacing configuration than 130mm. Any help or comments
> would be greatly appreciated...THANKS!!!
The wider, 135 mm spacing makes for stronger wheels, because there's
less tension difference between the left and right spokes. This is more
of an issue with mtbs and touring bikes than it is for sporty
road-racing bikes. Tandems go even wider, 145 or 160 mm!
The wider spacing also moves the cassette, and thus, the chainline
outboard a bit. This is desirable for mtbs onacounta the tire knob
clearance in the lowest gear, and the fact that the wide chainstays used
on mtbs place the chainrings farther outboard for better clearance.
Some riders find the resulting wider pedal tread (sometimes called "Q
factor") undesirable biomechanically.
Sheldon "Space-The Final Frontier" Brown
+----------------------------------------+
| A Nader vote is a Republican vote... |
| ...unless you swap! |
| http://www.nadertrader.org/ |
+----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Matt O'Toole
"alex wetmore" <al...@phred.org> wrote in message
news:8tmpab$iif$0...@216.39.149.191...
> 130mm spacing allows for a lower Q-factor or tread (distance between the
> pedals) if you have an optimal chainline, and can allow the inner ring
> to be closer to the chainstays without having to indent the chainstays.
5mm difference equals 2.5mm per side. That's practically nothing. Anyone
who claims to feel this difference in Quack factor is full of duck doo doo.
I think the only reason they haven't standardized is for product
differentiation. Popularity and competition has driven down mountain bike
prices. Shimano has managed to maintain higher price points with road bike
parts, compared to mountain bike parts of the same quality. If there was a
universal standard, product managers and bike hackers everywhere would be
putting $20 mountain bike hubs and $15 cassettes on road bikes, instead of
zootier "road" units that don't function any differently; and Shimano would
be making less money.
Matt O.
B2723m
standard on all roadies. The recent trend for more gears may require it.
Threadless headsets are now as (more?) common as threaded headsets.
Brad
rjk3
Current UCI regulations for road racing limit teh rear axle to 130 mm.
I had a custom road bike with 135 spacing. My heel rubbed the chain
stay. Not a problem on mountain bikes, with longer stays. Nor a
problem if your have small feet, either.
TBGibb
Anyone want to guess how many cogs they'd put on back if there was 135 mm to
fill?
Tom Gibb <TBG...@aol.com>
Scott L.
done with 126mm->130mm? Maybe not a good idea for a Trek 5200, or a
superlight aluminum frame, but I would think a steel or Ti frame would be OK
with it.
I have another good reason why 135mm might become a road bike standard:
disk brakes. They are inevitable. A small disk setup can be made almost
as light as a rim brake, especially when the manufacturers wake up and smell
the carbon fiber. They could integrate a carbon disk into the hub. CF disks
are used in race cars, and using disks would allow really light aero wheels
without the worry of how you keep the pads from ruining the carbon rim.
Think of a Spinergy Rev-X that is a 'one piece' wheel, with integrated hub,
disk, spokes and rim. The only metal would be the bearings. Of course the
UCI would have a fit, but they are becoming so goofy that I wouldn't be
surprised to see them ban 130mm spacing and 9-speed cassettes in favor of
120mm spacing and 5-speed freewheels, 'cause that's what real men(in their
minds, them) rode in the 60's. I see triathalon-legal bikes owning a
bigger chunk of the market eventually, and UCI legal bikes becoming a fringe
item.
Scott L.
Lindsay Rowlands
: Why not take your 130mm road bike and spread it out to 135mm, just like was
: done with 126mm->130mm? Maybe not a good idea for a Trek 5200, or a
: superlight aluminum frame, but I would think a steel or Ti frame would be OK
: with it.
: I have another good reason why 135mm might become a road bike standard:
: disk brakes. They are inevitable. A small disk setup can be made almost
: as light as a rim brake, especially when the manufacturers wake up and smell
: the carbon fiber. They could integrate a carbon disk into the hub. CF disks
: are used in race cars, and using disks would allow really light aero wheels
: without the worry of how you keep the pads from ruining the carbon rim.
: Think of a Spinergy Rev-X that is a 'one piece' wheel, with integrated hub,
: disk, spokes and rim. The only metal would be the bearings. Of course the
: UCI would have a fit, but they are becoming so goofy that I wouldn't be
: surprised to see them ban 130mm spacing and 9-speed cassettes in favor of
: 120mm spacing and 5-speed freewheels, 'cause that's what real men(in their
: minds, them) rode in the 60's. I see triathalon-legal bikes owning a
: bigger chunk of the market eventually, and UCI legal bikes becoming a fringe
: item.
I just wanted to point out that carbon fibre disks on race cars operate
at temperatures way above anything that could be achieved on a bicycle. I
mean, haven't you seen the shots of them glowing red hot, and heard the
commentators talking about bringing tyres and brakes up to operating
temperature?
The other thing to consider is that all these fandangly radially laced
wheels won't work with disk brakes - think about how the stress of
braking is transferred through the tyre, rim, spokes, hub and disk.
Cheerz,
Lynzz
john__...@my-deja.com
$dT2.2...@news.pacbell.net...
> 5mm difference equals 2.5mm per side. That's practically
> nothing. Anyone who claims to feel this difference in Quack
> factor is full of duck doo doo.
I can certainly feel it, but longer BB axles are sometimes needed to
get clearance between triple chainsets and chainstays that curve out
around fat tyres.
> I think the only reason they haven't standardized is for product
> differentiation. Popularity and competition has driven down
> mountain bike prices. Shimano has managed to maintain
> higher price points with road bike parts, compared to mountain
> bike parts of the same quality.
I don't think that's true. Ultegra and XT hubs are comparably priced,
as are LX and 105. MTB STI shifters are cheaper.
> If there was a universal standard, product managers and bike
> hackers everywhere would be putting $20 mountain bike hubs
> and $15 cassettes on road bikes, instead of zootier "road"
> units that don't function any differently; and Shimano would
> be making less money.
An mtb cassette will already go on a road hub, but comparable cassettes
are not cheaper. Cutting down an mtb hub to 130mm is tricky because of
the large rubber seals, but it can be done. I use Ultegra hubs spaced
to 135mm on a touring bike.
--
John Laird
Jim West
>
>I just wanted to point out that carbon fibre disks on race cars operate
>at temperatures way above anything that could be achieved on a bicycle. I
>mean, haven't you seen the shots of them glowing red hot, and heard the
>commentators talking about bringing tyres and brakes up to operating
>temperature?
If he is from the States he probably hasn't ever seen the red-hot glow.
We get terrible coverage of F1 here, and carbon fiber disks are banned
in the US ChampCar (formerly IndyCar) series on road courses (allowed
on superspeedway ovals for safety, but they don't brake much on those).
Not that many people watch ChampCar here anyway. But back on topic, you
are certainly correct that just because it works well on a race car
does not mean it will work on a bicycle.
--
James C. West (Jim) jw...@okstate.edu
Professor jw...@emag.ecen.okstate.edu
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University
Helmut Springer
> I just wanted to point out that carbon fibre disks on race cars
> operate at temperatures way above anything that could be achieved
--
MfG/best regards, helmut springer
Scott L.
bike in order for it to work. The right combination of pad and disk for the
specific needs of the bicycle would probably not be anything like what is needed
to bring a car to a stop from 200 mph.
Radially laced wheels are a fashion trend, and nothing more.
BTW, I read last night in VeloNews (US racing magazine) that a company has created
a 75 gram MMC disk for mountain bikes.
The disk brake on road bike argument is shaping up to be exactly like the aluminum
frame argument, the carbon fork argument, the threadless steerer argument, the
suspension fork on mountain bike argument, the rear suspension on mountain bike
argument, the integrated headset argument........ect.ect.ect. Lots of naysayers
at the beginning, followed by a market flooded with products.
Lets face it, even if 99% of people wouldn't notice a difference in performance,
they'll notice the difference in the showroom, and that's what really sells
bikes. If performance sold bikes, we'd never have advanced past mid-1970's
technology, since it is 98% of the performance of today's equipment at half the
cost and twice the reliability.
Scott L.
Izzy...
Scott L. <sco...@lasal.net> wrote in message
news:3A0179DB...@lasal.net...
> I'd be willing to bet that it would not be necessary to heat up a CF disk
on a
> bike in order for it to work. The right combination of pad and disk for
the
> specific needs of the bicycle would probably not be anything like what is
needed
> to bring a car to a stop from 200 mph.
Thing is CF disks DON'T bring cars to a stop from 200mph.
They slow it down to 130mph... then the car speeds up... then they slow it
down
to 30mph... then the car speeds up... then it brakes hard again... over and
over
again for many hours. Bicycle brakes would NEVER see this much abuse unless
you are two very fat people on a tandem riding down an infinitely long
mineshaft.
> BTW, I read last night in VeloNews (US racing magazine) that a company has
created
> a 75 gram MMC disk for mountain bikes.
IIRC it's not the disk that makes the weight, it's the caliper assembly that
must be
strong enough to not flex when applying huge loads to the tiny disk.
> The disk brake on road bike argument is shaping up to be exactly like the
aluminum
> frame argument, the carbon fork argument, the threadless steerer argument,
the
> suspension fork on mountain bike argument, the rear suspension on mountain
bike
> argument, the integrated headset argument........ect.ect.ect. Lots of
naysayers
> at the beginning, followed by a market flooded with products.
Disk brakes on 90% of the road bikes DOESN'T make sense. You'd have to
have a stronger front fork, you have to remove a lightweight caliper and
install
a non-lightweight caliper AND a "second" disk to the wheel.
The other 10%... being tandems or heavily loaded tourers in mountainous
areas... I can see that. (As long as you don't have meltable lowrider
panniers!)
Jon Isaacs
>aluminum
>frame argument, the carbon fork argument, the threadless steerer argument,
>the
>suspension fork on mountain bike argument, the rear suspension on mountain
>bike
>argument, the integrated headset argument........ect.ect.ect. Lots of
naysayers at the beginning, followed by a market flooded with products.
Is the rec.bicycles.marketing ??? I thought the purpose of this group was to
discuss the technical merits of bicycles.
Certainly one might sell disk brakes on road bikes, though I suspect it will be
harder than you think since they are rather ugly and it would be difficult to
have the system as light as a conventional brake and it is unlike that the the
aerodynamics would be favorable either. It is likely to that making a quick
wheel change becomes more difficult with disks and certainly "neutral wheel
support" would be unlikely to include disks. These factors, added to the fact
that current brakes are apparently more than sufficient for top level riders,
mean that it is unlikely that disks would be of practical value for real racing
bicycles and in fact would likely be a detriment.
This makes marketing much more difficult since if it not going to show up on
Lance's racing bike, your market becomes limited to touring bikes and such
pragmatic folks.
jon isaacs
Scott L.
very same arguments against disks on road bikes can be made against disks on
mountain bikes. Already about 50% of 2001 mountain bikes have disks. STI/Ergo
doesn't make any sense either, since no one 'needs' it, it adds unnecessary
weight and complexity to a bike, it is more unreliable than downtube shifters,
and in the case of STI, cannot even be repaired. So why is it that 99.9% of
bikes now have this feature?
135mm rear spacing(or maybe even some stoopid new size like 138mm to prevent
road bikes from utilizing cheaper MTB parts) will be on road bikes within 5
years. One of the main drivers of this will be disk brakes for road bikes.
I'll look like Nostrodamus on deja.com in five years.
Scott L.
Phil Brown
road bikes?
Phil Brown
Scott L.
1 ) Ugly factor - STI is one of the ugliest things ever stuck on a bike. Doesn't
seem to matter though.
2) Weight - STI is one of the most expensive weight to function ratio doodads ever
invented. Doesn't seem to matter though.
3) Aerodynamics - STI is one of the least aero...see above. Also, the disk caliper
mounts behind the fork. And the disk itself has almost no frontal area. There
can't be any significant aero disadvantage, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an
advantage to disks when the cable routing is considered. And if you take it to its
logical development conclusion, calipers could easily be integrated into the fork
blade, especially on a carbon fork.
4) Quick wheel change - I have a disk on the rear of my mountain tandem, and the
disk is not a problem at all. It slides right out and right back in. And there is
no QR to worry about. And tire size doesn't matter. And neither does the rim
width. You don't have to fiddle with the brake after a wheel change.
5) Neutral support - Lets see, today you have people racing on 8-speed Campy and
Shimano, 9-speed Campy and Shimano, and 10 speed Campy. Five different systems.
Has this been a barrier to the adoption of the new technology?
6) Current brakes - I recall Ullrich changing wheels in the Tour this year because
his brakes didn't work well enough on his carbon rims. Removing the requirement of
having a braking surface on the rim of a wheel (where weight makes the most
difference) frees the wheel designer to make the entire wheel lighter and more
importantly, more aero. They are already trying to get away with this, take a look
at the new Dura Ace carbon wheels that require a special cork brake pad. What
happens in a race if you flat on one of these and your neutral support gives you a
regular rimmed wheel? Do your cork brake pads disintegrate on a metal rim? With
disks there would not be this problem.
135mm(or wider) spacing on road bikes within 5 years. Driven by disk brakes on
road bikes. And the possibility of 12 speed cassettes. Take it to the bank. The
marketing machines will make it happen just like they made STI, carbon forks,
clincher tires, splined bottom brackets, 9 and 10 speed cassettes and other
'unneccesary' changes.
Scott L.
Scott L.
rim, one of the most important elements on a bicycle, for both weight and
aerodynamics. Removing the braking surface from the rim can mean lighter and
more aero wheels.
Izzy...
> You guys are missing the point. Whether it makes sense is not the issue.
The
> very same arguments against disks on road bikes can be made against disks
on
> mountain bikes. Already about 50% of 2001 mountain bikes have disks.
Discs make sense on mountain bikes. They require more precise braking, they
already have beefy front forks (well, on suspension models, but what isn't
suspended anymore?), cantis of all types are known for losing braking
ability
when coated in glop, rear suspension and to some extent front suspension
designs have to be compromised in order to mount cantilevers... all that
are
not ordinarily problems to be solved on road bikes.
>STI/Ergo
> doesn't make any sense either, since no one 'needs' it, it adds
unnecessary
> weight and complexity to a bike, it is more unreliable than downtube
shifters,
> and in the case of STI, cannot even be repaired. So why is it that 99.9%
of
> bikes now have this feature?
I wish I had it sometimes. It is valid - it allows shifting from the hoods
or the
drops without moving the hands. You can easily shift while standing and
pedaling, as, say, flying up a short hill. I dunno about you, but I have to
practically stop pedaling to shift the downtube shifters, although I am
learning
to shift with the wrong hand (left hand for rear derailer and vice-versa).
My
knees get in the way!
> 135mm rear spacing(or maybe even some stoopid new size like 138mm to
prevent
> road bikes from utilizing cheaper MTB parts) will be on road bikes within
5
> years. One of the main drivers of this will be disk brakes for road
bikes.
>
> I'll look like Nostrodamus on deja.com in five years.
Why haven't mountain bikes movd to 140mm, is what I want to know.
Hmm... we have cassettes to allow the right side axle bearing to be placed
far outboard to prevent chain torque from bending the axle. I wonder if
axle bending will become a problem with disk brakes?
garv
Jon Isaacs
>> doesn't make any sense either, since no one 'needs' it, it adds
>unnecessary
>> weight and complexity to a bike, it is more unreliable than downtube
>shifters,
>> and in the case of STI, cannot even be repaired. So why is it that 99.9%
>of
>> bikes now have this feature?
It is about performance. The few ounces that STI adds is more than made up for
by ease of shifting, especially when climbing.
However for those more mundane riders such as myself, the real advantage is
shifting in traffic, preparing for turns etc without taking my hands off the
bars.
Just because Shimano or Campy put something on the market does not mean it will
sell. Cyclists really do have some common sense.
I believe I get much more reliable shifting from STI than downtube shifters for
the simple reason that any adjustments or mis-shifts can be taken care of
without moving ones hands from the bars.
Jon Isaacs
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> Lets face it, even if 99% of people wouldn't notice a difference in
> performance,
> they'll notice the difference in the showroom, and that's what really sells
> bikes. If performance sold bikes, we'd never have advanced past mid-1970's
> technology, since it is 98% of the performance of today's equipment at half
> the
> cost and twice the reliability.
Well, that about sums it up.
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> You guys are missing the point. Whether it makes sense is not the issue. The
> very same arguments against disks on road bikes can be made against disks on
> mountain bikes. Already about 50% of 2001 mountain bikes have disks.
100%, since all rim brakes already are disk brakes. Bicycles have had
disk brakes for about a century or so.
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:021120002024372559%tim...@mr.net...
(about 1970s equiptment)
>today's equipment at half
> > the
> > cost and twice the reliability.
>
> Well, that about sums it up.
What is going on with your bikes? Are new bikes snapping left and right
while older stuff was that much more durable. I got into bikes in the early
1980s, though my father had a mid-level bike from the 1970s. It sure didn't
look more robust than what would be comparable today. What is so weak about
today's bikes.
BTW, adjusted for inflation, decent bikes in terms of performance (I'll
leave the issues of reliability to you since you are more knowledgeable) are
far cheaper today. Most everything is.
JT
--
****************************************
Note: reply-to address is munged
****************************************
http://www.jt10000.com/
***************************************
David L. Johnson
> >STI/Ergo
> > doesn't make any sense either, since no one 'needs' it, it adds
> unnecessary
> > weight and complexity to a bike, it is more unreliable than downtube
> shifters,
> > and in the case of STI, cannot even be repaired. So why is it that 99.9%
> of
> > bikes now have this feature?
>
> I wish I had it sometimes. It is valid - it allows shifting from the hoods
> or the
> drops without moving the hands. You can easily shift while standing and
> pedaling, as, say, flying up a short hill.
Gotta agree with this. My Ergo bristers are the best "innovation" I have
added.
--
David L. Johnson
You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what canst
thou say? -- George Fox.
David L. Johnson
>
> Disk brakes whose braking surface rides directly on a structural part of the
> rim, one of the most important elements on a bicycle, for both weight and
> aerodynamics. Removing the braking surface from the rim can mean lighter and
> more aero wheels.
Not by much. I have a track rim that has no braking flats, and it was only a
few grams lighter than the same model with the flats. That is far less
significant than the addition of all that unnecessary hardware, especially
since it's mechanically inferior. Putting separate disks on a road bike is a
solution for a nonexistent problem.
Jon Isaacs
>equipment, and it certainly is lighter, but a mid-70's quality steel frame
>with
>standard Super Record (not the Ti SR stuff) is much more durable and
>reliable,
>and provides 98% of the performance of today's high end racing bikes.
>
>Scott L.
>
>
I suggest that many of those components are not as reliable as their modern
counter parts. The two most noticeable areas are the hubs and BB bearings.
The old bearing were unsealed and subject to rapid contamination if ridden in
adverse conditions.
Then one could think about the reliablity of the shifting and the famous
mystery shifting that was common with those bikes when climbing.
> Ever hear of anyone wearing out
>or jamming a downtube shifter?
Ever hear of one that would not stay tight and in position? I think that is
called "wearing out." Pretty common, much more common than an STI wearing
out.
Jon Isaacs
Scott L.
never went stiff on you unless you really abused them. And unlike today's
components, you could actually rebuild every aspect of a Super Record or C-Record
group. If you scored the races in your hubs, or your cones, or bent an axle, you
could actually get new ones. A really good shop would even have them in stock.
If your DA or Ultegra BB or hub goes bad, can you do anything but replace it in
it's entirety? Which means replacing the entire wheel in the case of a hub. And
speaking of BB's, the current Dura Ace BB is well known for going to hell in just
a few rainy rides.
'Mystery shifting' was no mystery at all. If you misaligned the derailleur after
a shift, you might get a 'mystery shift' later. But Jeez, I'm half deaf and even
I can tell when my derailleur is misaligned. You have to really hose a shift
with a 5 or 6 speed freewheel to be at any risk.
Actually of the 2 Super Record, one Superbe, one Dura Ace friction shift, and one
C-Record friction shift bikes I've owned, I've never had a lever not be able to
stay tight. I still own three of the aforementioned bikes. They all shift
great. But since you mentioned it, Campy would have sold you the shifter inserts
and washers individually if you needed them. My wife still rides the C-Record
Serotta as her primary road bike, and refuses to 'upgrade'. The late 80's,
pre-index C-Record stuff is the pinnacle of 'old school' road components, IMHO.
Cobalto brakes, of course.
But that doesn't mean that 135mm spaced, disk braked, full carbon rimmed, full
suspension road bikes are not on the horizon. In fact, you could build one
today, and it would weigh under 20 lbs. Get Merlin to put rear disk mounts and
135mm spacing on one of their Century frames which uses Cannondale Silk Road
suspension forks. Swap the stock fork for a Cdale Fatty MTB fork with disk
mounts. Use cable actuated Avid disks on Chris King hubs with Zipp rims. Fill
it out with the usual suspects. Voila!!
Scott L.
alex wetmore
> If your DA or Ultegra BB or hub goes bad, can you do anything but
replace it in
> it's entirety?
You can easily replace the cones in any Shimano hub. Most shops have
them in stock. The cup in the freehub can be replaced as well.
The DA bottom bracket is rebuildable (from what I understand...I've
never used one). If you prefer cup and cone bottom brackets they are
still available from QBP.
alex
Matt O'Toole
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001103131159...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >You can argue all you want about whether the function is better on
today's
> >equipment, and it certainly is lighter, but a mid-70's quality steel
frame
> >with
> >standard Super Record (not the Ti SR stuff) is much more durable and
> >reliable,
> >and provides 98% of the performance of today's high end racing bikes.
> I suggest that many of those components are not as reliable as their
modern
> counter parts. The two most noticeable areas are the hubs and BB
bearings.
> The old bearing were unsealed and subject to rapid contamination if ridden
in
> adverse conditions.
> Then one could think about the reliablity of the shifting and the famous
> mystery shifting that was common with those bikes when climbing.
> > Ever hear of anyone wearing out
> >or jamming a downtube shifter?
> Ever hear of one that would not stay tight and in position? I think that
is
> called "wearing out." Pretty common, much more common than an STI
wearing
> out.
I agree. I know people who have tens of thousands of miles on "cheap" RSX
shifters, with nary a hiccup. And I also remember the bad old days, when
you couldn't get those damned downtube shifters to hold. Unless you bought
top of the line back then, which was relatively way more expensive than it
is now, you got crap. And I mean crap.
Light weight fads have been with us as long as I can remember. I remember
people drilling their bikes full of holes, and riding frames so flexy they
wouldn't stay in gear, or track through corners safely at speed. Of course,
riders justified their crappy bikes by kidding themselves about what real
men they were because they could "handle" their lightweight "thoroughbreds."
About frames: I'll take my chances with a modern frame any day. They're
produced in the millions by huge companies who can afford to pay real
engineers to make sure they don't come apart and kill people, or otherwise
generate lawsuits. I knew plenty of racers in the 80s who wouldn't dare use
a frame more than a season, not because it "went soft," but because they
were afraid it would break. This fear was not born of superstition, but of
having seen and heard of it happening over and over among their peers. I've
seen tubes on these "Itailan classics" pull out of lugs, wrinkle in minor
incidents, and crack from fatigue. I've seen fork blades buckle at the
crown over minor bumps, once almost killing my own sister. So, I'll take
something designed by someone who went to college over "we make-a dem dis-a
way" any day. And don't even get me started on Super Record cranks...
Trust me, these are the good old days, and getting better all the time.
Matt O.
Jon Isaacs
>> > the
>> > cost and twice the reliability.
>>
>> Well, that about sums it up.
>
>What is going on with your bikes? Are new bikes snapping left and right
>while older stuff was that much more durable. I got into bikes in the early
>1980s, though my father had a mid-level bike from the 1970s. It sure didn't
>look more robust than what would be comparable today. What is so weak about
>today's bikes.
Good point John. Certainly cassette style rear hubs with real seals are an
example of a something more reliable and durable. I certainly don't find any
problems with things breaking on my bikes tht are equipped with the modern
stuff.
>
>BTW, adjusted for inflation, decent bikes in terms of performance (I'll
>leave the issues of reliability to you since you are more knowledgeable) are
>far cheaper today. Most everything is.
>
Another good point. In the Mid 80's a decent road bike cost $700+, and that
would be something like an SR Maxima, or a Centurion Ironman Master. Those
would be entry level bikes today. And then with inflation, those $700 prices
would be well over $1000 in todays dollars.
Jon Isaacs
Scott L.
A survey of three riders I ride with reveals the following:
1) One guy has cracked three, count 'em, three Litespeeds in the last ten
years. They keep fixing or replacing them, so he's happy.
2) I had a derailleur hanger snap off an aluminum frame in a crash. Wouldn't
have happened in 1975 unless you were riding an Alan or an Exxon or a Teledyne.
3) I never cracked or bent a Cinelli handlebar, but my Scott handlebars bent
from use.
4) Two of the three riders have had their Ultegra STI levers wear out. They just
don't shift right after a while. Of course, Shimano won't supply parts or
officially sanction the rebuild of these in any way. My 8-speed Ergo levers
jammed constantly after just two years of use. Ever hear of anyone wearing out
or jamming a downtube shifter? Neither have I.
5) I quit using Look pedals because two trips across a parking lot wore off so
much of the red cleat that they were sloppy and clicked in the pedal. I used
the same set of TA Criterium cleats on two different pairs of shoes over five
years back in the 70's.
You can argue all you want about whether the function is better on today's
equipment, and it certainly is lighter, but a mid-70's quality steel frame with
standard Super Record (not the Ti SR stuff) is much more durable and reliable,
and provides 98% of the performance of today's high end racing bikes.
Scott L.
Benz OuYang
wrote:
> Let's address your concerns one at a time:
>
> 1 ) Ugly factor - STI is one of the ugliest things ever stuck on a bike.
> Doesn't seem to matter though.
That's personal preference. I find Ergo to be quite beautiful and STI
levers are not an eye-sore either.
> 2) Weight - STI is one of the most expensive weight to function ratio
> doodads ever invented. Doesn't seem to matter though.
Actually, if you've ever been to a fast-paced group ride, you'll know,
intimately, the benefits of having integrated shifting the moment the
breakaway starts coming from all sides. At least I did.
> 3) Aerodynamics - STI is one of the least aero...see above. Also, the
> disk caliper mounts behind the fork. And the disk itself has almost
> no frontal area. There can't be any significant aero disadvantage, and
> I wouldn't be surprised to see an advantage to disks when the cable
> routing is considered. And if you take it to its logical development
> conclusion, calipers could easily be integrated into the fork blade,
> especially on a carbon fork.
STI is the least aero, perhaps. But by how much over a conventional
"aero" lever? Just the same, disk brakes probably won't increase drag
much if the calipers are integrated into the fork. But in order to have
this integration, you'll need cooperation from fork and brake
manufacturers. Then it's more cost to everyone concerned.
> 4) Quick wheel change - I have a disk on the rear of my mountain
> tandem, and the disk is not a problem at all. It slides right out
> and right back in. And there is no QR to worry about. And tire size
> doesn't matter. And neither does the rim width. You don't have to
> fiddle with the brake after a wheel change.
Although I don't own a disk brake-equiped bike, I've fiddle with many
before. All I noticed is that it's harder to get the disk to fit into
that little slot between the brake pads. It is much easier to fit a
wheel in between brake caliper arms. And wrt racing, a 23mm-section
tire should be narrow enough to fit without requiring adjustment on the
brake caliper QR; I think you're confusing this with MTB wheels where
rims are 22mm across and tires are 55mm+ across. Those you need to do
the QR thingy.
> 5) Neutral support - Lets see, today you have people racing on 8-speed
> Campy and Shimano, 9-speed Campy and Shimano, and 10 speed Campy.
> Five different systems. Has this been a barrier to the adoption of
> the new technology?
Not a lot of people I know races on 8-speed anymore. Heck, except for
me, I don't know anyone who races on a 8-speed machine. But you're
right. If the manufacturer wants to sell the system, it'll have to
support it during "official races".
> 6) Current brakes - I recall Ullrich changing wheels in the Tour this
> year because his brakes didn't work well enough on his carbon rims.
> Removing the requirement of having a braking surface on the rim of a
> wheel (where weight makes the most difference) frees the wheel
> designer to make the entire wheel lighter and more importantly, more
> aero. They are already trying to get away with this, take a look
> at the new Dura Ace carbon wheels that require a special cork brake pad.
> What happens in a race if you flat on one of these and your neutral
> support gives you a regular rimmed wheel? Do your cork brake pads
> disintegrate on a metal rim? With disks there would not be this problem.
I don't think removing the braking surface from the rim will affect the
rim weights much. Look at those new-fanged disk brake specific rims.
They don't weigh all that much less than their rim brake cousins. In
any case, if you want a durable wheel, one of the concerns is rim
strength and you certainly won't get a stronger rim with less of the
same material.
But this is weight argument is a moot point anyhow. I refer you to a
discussion not that many months ago (by Jobst Brandt et al) where he
basically stated that differences in wheel mass (within reason) don't
matter much in a system such as bicycles because we don't particularly
accelerate much. This can be proven to yourself by actually cranking
your bike with your arms, which are much weaker than your legs, and
observing the rear wheel spin rapidly up to a speed which would normally
have you puffing like a steam locomotive.
> 135mm(or wider) spacing on road bikes within 5 years. Driven by disk
> brakes on road bikes. And the possibility of 12 speed cassettes.
> Take it to the bank. The marketing machines will make it happen just
> like they made STI, carbon forks, clincher tires, splined bottom
> brackets, 9 and 10 speed cassettes and other 'unneccesary' changes.
I don't think you should lump STI and clincher tires with the other
unneccesary changes. STI/Ergo revolutionized racing and improved
safety/confidence (you don't need to move your hand from the handlebars
to shift). Clincher tires made punctures much less painful because they
are much easier to change on the road, and patching clincher inner tubes
are less of a hassle than just trying to sew up a patched tubular tire.
Look, I do resign to sad fact that the marketing geniuses are eventually
going to get us with all the unneccesary "innovations" but trying to
justify the technical advantage of disk brakes for road bike use is,
IMHO, a rather futile objective.
Cheers,
Benzzoy
--
Benz OuYang
ben...@NOSPAMPLEASE.mac.com
A Muzi
One to the current models as well as all the axle parts. At least one company still
makes some stuff to last and kept in service rather than being designed to be
disposable. Too bad their BB sets are throw-away.
"Scott L." wrote:
> Well, you did have to spend an hour a year repacking hubs and BBs. But they
> never went stiff on you unless you really abused them. And unlike today's
> components, you could actually rebuild every aspect of a Super Record or C-Record
> group. If you scored the races in your hubs, or your cones, or bent an axle, you
> could actually get new ones. A really good shop would even have them in stock.
> If your DA or Ultegra BB or hub goes bad, can you do anything but replace it in
> it's entirety? Which means replacing the entire wheel in the case of a hub. And
> speaking of BB's, the current Dura Ace BB is well known for going to hell in just
> a few rainy rides.
>
> 'Mystery shifting' was no mystery at all. If you misaligned the derailleur after
> a shift, you might get a 'mystery shift' later. But Jeez, I'm half deaf and even
> I can tell when my derailleur is misaligned. You have to really hose a shift
> with a 5 or 6 speed freewheel to be at any risk.
>
> Actually of the 2 Super Record, one Superbe, one Dura Ace friction shift, and one
> C-Record friction shift bikes I've owned, I've never had a lever not be able to
> stay tight. I still own three of the aforementioned bikes. They all shift
> great. But since you mentioned it, Campy would have sold you the shifter inserts
> and washers individually if you needed them. My wife still rides the C-Record
> Serotta as her primary road bike, and refuses to 'upgrade'. The late 80's,
> pre-index C-Record stuff is the pinnacle of 'old school' road components, IMHO.
> Cobalto brakes, of course.
>
> But that doesn't mean that 135mm spaced, disk braked, full carbon rimmed, full
> suspension road bikes are not on the horizon. In fact, you could build one
> today, and it would weigh under 20 lbs. Get Merlin to put rear disk mounts and
> 135mm spacing on one of their Century frames which uses Cannondale Silk Road
> suspension forks. Swap the stock fork for a Cdale Fatty MTB fork with disk
> mounts. Use cable actuated Avid disks on Chris King hubs with Zipp rims. Fill
> it out with the usual suspects. Voila!!
>
> Scott L.
>
> Jon Isaacs wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I suggest that many of those components are not as reliable as their modern
> > counter parts. The two most noticeable areas are the hubs and BB bearings.
> > The old bearing were unsealed and subject to rapid contamination if ridden in
> > adverse conditions.
> >
> > Then one could think about the reliablity of the shifting and the famous
> > mystery shifting that was common with those bikes when climbing.
> >
> > > Ever hear of anyone wearing out
> > >or jamming a downtube shifter?
> >
> > Ever hear of one that would not stay tight and in position? I think that is
> > called "wearing out." Pretty common, much more common than an STI wearing
> > out.
> >
> > Jon Isaacs
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
http://www.execpc.com/yellowje
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Orin Eman
>
> > > Ever hear of anyone wearing out
> > >or jamming a downtube shifter?
>
> > Ever hear of one that would not stay tight and in position? I think that
> is
> > called "wearing out." Pretty common, much more common than an STI
> wearing
> > out.
>
> I agree. I know people who have tens of thousands of miles on "cheap" RSX
> shifters, with nary a hiccup. And I also remember the bad old days, when
> you couldn't get those damned downtube shifters to hold. Unless you bought
> top of the line back then, which was relatively way more expensive than it
> is now, you got crap. And I mean crap.
On the subject of downtube shifters, I had an RSX 7 speed SIS shifter which
kept coming loose. Whereas it couldn't slip when loose, it wobbled with
much the same effect. A good dose of blue Loctite finally cured it!
Orin.
Alex Rodriguez
>But that doesn't mean that 135mm spaced, disk braked, full carbon rimmed, full
>suspension road bikes are not on the horizon. In fact, you could build one
>today, and it would weigh under 20 lbs. Get Merlin to put rear disk mounts
and
>135mm spacing on one of their Century frames which uses Cannondale Silk Road
>suspension forks. Swap the stock fork for a Cdale Fatty MTB fork with disk
>mounts. Use cable actuated Avid disks on Chris King hubs with Zipp rims.
Fill
>it out with the usual suspects. Voila!!
Sounds like an interesting bike, but I doubt such a bike would weigh in
under 20 lbs.
_________________
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)