Felt F55X

[Tom Kunich]

I am pretty impressed with this Felt gravel bike. So much so that I intend to buy one of their road offerings in Aluminum. They do make an aluminum model with a steel fork. Since the frameset is really cheap I will probably buy one after I sell the gravel bike. I am still planning on the Waterford, but that has to wait until the Treks and the Colnago sells. I have enough parts around to build another campy 10 speed bike and the Waterford would be a wireless Di2. I am simply returning to aluminum wheels after seeing the rather shocking difference in rim braking power over carbon fiber. Furthermore, superlight deep carbon rims are breaking like the old heavier versions. No thanks. Although they don't come apart, the tubeless goes flat instantly. That doesn't seem very attractive in a $2,000 wheel. So I will return to the days of heavier but safer bikes and rims. None of the parts on the gravel bike are light but it isn't supposed to be a hill climber so who cares? I would be interested in seeing how light I could make a road, aluminum Felt. I'd be willing to bet I could make it lighter than the Lemond. And in summer shape I've taken the Lemond up some pretty hard stuff. (16% 1/4th mile). No it wouldn't be as light as the Look KG585, but I haven't set a single loop time with a lot of climbing in it with the Look. Though I think I returned with less fatigue. Isn't the entire point of riding to tire yourself out?

Let's see what happens.

[Tom Kunich]

Parts are trickling in slowly. Local parts I can obtained off of Craigs list now are so overpriced that it is out of question to pay $60 for a bolt-on disk. There is a guy that sells Chinese parts that are cheap enough and with the bolts included but he is almost impossible to get him to respond so I gave up. I'm sure he is paying his way through Cal State Hayward with the money but no response, no sale and now it costs as much to get a single disk from eBay as four from him.

The headset tool won't arrive for another couple of weeks but since there are four other minor parts that are going to take that long no sense in worrying about it. The BB386 us going to take that long as well and it doesn't matter if the work isn't installed if the crank can't be fitted. The 32 tooth 10 speed cassette came in and I installed that yesterday as the hunchback. since the rear disk hydraulic line was mounted a rather long way it should fit on the 2 cm larger frameset without problem. The say with the front line. It is internal on this fork but was external on the other. So I will have to strip off the bead and cap on the lever end and stick it up from the bottom side. in order to lose the lease fluid and make it easier to bleed afterwards. It appears that flat bar gravel bikes are getting popular so this one should move a lot faster than the Emonda or Modone. The last guy to query about the Emonda must have been a monkey, after exchanges for three days he said that he wouldn't fit the bike. He is three inches shorter than I am but claims his arms are 37" long. Maybe he is measuring from the middle of his back because from shoulder to fingertip my arms are 26".

The tires are 3 mm wider than I would like but there is more than plenty of room with these triangles. It is surprising how easy gravel tires roll on hard surfaces. But gravel bikes have lower gear ratios and the 11/42 high gear isn't going to rush anyone down the road. If I can get this together there is another Felt road bike that I will buy and build into a 10 speed Campy Record. The parts I have look brand new, though I will be looking for a compact two piece crank. That will require a compact front derailleur that will come from the Campy warehouse.

I was standing upright for the first half hour of this morning so I am recovering from that stained back if a lot more slowly than I would like.

I wonder how you tell what sort of hydraulic fluid is in this Avid setup. It could use either Shimano mineral oil or DOT 5.1 which needs replacing every year if that makes any sense. When was the last time you replaced your car brake fluid?

[jbeattie]

Six-bolt disc rotors are common as fleas. $20 for a Deore six-bolt of Amazonian. https://tinyurl.com/4nzbb92v What headset tool do you need? It's an integrated HS. Do need a crown seat setting tool? And are you switching to an Avid set up from Shimano? They're not cross-compatible. Avid/SRAM uses DOT fluid, and I'm not sure if the Shimano hose is happy with DOT fluid, and its ID may be incompatible with the Avid brakes as well. The levers definitely take different olives and nuts. Even if you could use the Shimano hose, you'd have to bob the ends, remove the barb, olive and nut, to get it through your frame -- unless it has giant openings. Go get some Avid/SRAM hoses.

BTW, the F55X is not a gravel bike. It is a CX bike. You have a slightly different version of the Redline Conquest you spent so long unloading.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

DOT 5.1. Do not substitute another fluid.

Any auto parts store or with a SRAM/Avid label.

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

[Tom Kunich]

I suggest you actually learn to ride before you tell me what is a gravel and what is a CX bike since they handle totally different. You spend most of your time now being disagreeable for no other reason than you are a Democrat that is seeing your world crumble before your eyes and are loath to admit that you were told so, so many times that all you can do is attempt to refute it like a child. "Nuh uh".

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:04:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>
> DOT 5.1. Do not substitute another fluid.
>
> Any auto parts store or with a SRAM/Avid label.

Not that I think that there is any reasonable difference but I will accept your advice since I probably have a can in the shop anyway.

[Tom Kunich]

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:04:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

By the way, Andrew, Mineral oil is a light petroleum based lubricant derived from petroleum. DOT 5.1 is largely solvents used to lighten the Polyglycols that are used in the fluid. Polyglycols are also derived from petroleum and are a very heavy lubricant. Polyglycols are used mostly in lubricating very high load gear trains and worm gears that carry very heavy loads. It isn't clear to me why you would use this lubricant cut 70% or more by solvents rather than a lighter lubricating oil like mineral oil one such a lightly loaded use such as a bicycle disk brake whose loading is almost nothing. There are sometimes additives that are supposed to slow the evaporation of the solvents from the brake fluid.

[AMuzi]

DOT3 and DOT 4 are pretty much the same thing.
DOT 5.1 is an unique fluid.

[AMuzi]

It's often noted here on RBT that frequently the largest
part of a problem is 'you don't know what you don't know'.

This may be a case of that. Use DOT 5.1 and no other.

I don't know the chemistry of the seals and piston materials
and I'm pretty sure you don't either. I'm fairly confident
the designers and engineers do, or at least did when they
specified a particular fluid.

[jbeattie]

WTF are you talking about? The Felt F55X is a CX bike. Google it. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0021/5701/9254/files/2017_Felt_Dealer_Book_Full_v1_62816.pdf?5418753827344467882

This is not an opinion. I own a CX bike and a gravel bike and am well aware of the differences. The F55X is not marketed as a gravel bike and is geometrically different from a gravel bike. It is a CX bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

Thank you for the cut-and-paste recitation. The bottom line is that your Avid/SRAM system is entirely incompatible with the Shimano system. Just look at the reservoir cap on the Avid brakes. It tells you exactly what you can use, and it is not mineral oil. From SRAM: "DOT 5.1 is the recommended fluid for SRAM hydraulic disc brakes. DO NOT use DOT 5 or mineral oil. These will destroy the brake’s seals and require replacement of the entire brake assembly."

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

I do know that you have to replace this fluid supposedly every year (I doubt anyone does that) and that is because it is 70% solvents to cut down the very heavy lubrication grease. Mineral oil doesn't degrade ANY seals that can take those DOT solvents. Though I will follow your advice and use the cheaper brake fluid.

[Tom Kunich]

Jay, they can call it anything they like. A cross bike uses a short wheelbase and a gravel bike a longer. The wheelbase on this thing is 43" A cross bike would be around 39".

[Tom Kunich]

If you want to believe that is cut and paste it only shows you never took any chemistry at all. You make phony claims and then try to back them up with bluster.

[Tom Kunich]

By the way, I just looked up mineral oil as opposed to DOT 5.1 and it has better properties in all cases. The only difference appears to be that the DOT brake fluid doesn't absorb as much moisture which can damage the antilock braking systems on a car. But mineral oil is almost as good as they claim it to have the same properties. But DOT5.1 was specifically formulated to protect the ABS systems on a car. What ABS system do you have on your bike?

[News 2021]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:22:52 -0800, Tom Kunich scribed:

isn't that function of the frame size, which is logically determined by
the dimensions of the rider.

[John B.]

https://epicbleedsolutions.com/blogs/faq/whats-the-difference-between-dot-4-and-dot-5-1-brake-fluid#
Actually DOT 5.1 is a glycol-based brake fluid and is compatible with
DOT 3 and DOT 4 systems and not compatible with DOT 5, Shimano, Magora
Royal or LHM+Mineral Oil.

Note: DOT 3 has a dry boiling point of 205 degrees (C), DOT 4, 230
degrees and DOT 5.1, 270 degrees.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

On 2/25/2021 6:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 4:24:44 PM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 11:27:10 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:10:55 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 2:04:33 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2021 2:59 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> Parts are trickling in slowly. Local parts I can obtained off of Craigs list now are so overpriced that it is out of question to pay $60 for a bolt-on disk. There is a guy that sells Chinese parts that are cheap enough and with the bolts included but he is almost impossible to get him to respond so I gave up. I'm sure he is paying his way through Cal State Hayward with the money but no response, no sale and now it costs as much to get a single disk from eBay as four from him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The headset tool won't arrive for another couple of weeks but since there are four other minor parts that are going to take that long no sense in worrying about it. The BB386 us going to take that long as well and it doesn't matter if the work isn't installed if the crank can't be fitted. The 32 tooth 10 speed cassette came in and I installed that yesterday as the hunchback. since the rear disk hydraulic line was mounted a rather long way it should fit on the 2 cm larger frameset without problem. The say with the front line. It is internal on this fork but was external on the other. So I will have to strip off the bead and cap on the lever end and stick it up from the bottom side. in order to lose the lease fluid and make it easier to bleed afterwards. It appears that flat bar gravel bikes are getting popular so this one should move a lot faster than the Emonda or Modone. The last guy to query about the Emonda must have been a monkey, after exchanges for three days he said th
at he
>>>>> wouldn't fit the bike. He is three inches shorter than I am but claims his arms are 37" long. Maybe he is measuring from the middle of his back because from shoulder to fingertip my arms are 26".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The tires are 3 mm wider than I would like but there is more than plenty of room with these triangles. It is surprising how easy gravel tires roll on hard surfaces. But gravel bikes have lower gear ratios and the 11/42 high gear isn't going to rush anyone down the road. If I can get this together there is another Felt road bike that I will buy and build into a 10 speed Campy Record. The parts I have look brand new, though I will be looking for a compact two piece crank. That will require a compact front derailleur that will come from the Campy warehouse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was standing upright for the first half hour of this morning so I am recovering from that stained back if a lot more slowly than I would like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how you tell what sort of hydraulic fluid is in this Avid setup. It could use either Shimano mineral oil or DOT 5.1 which needs replacing every year if that makes any sense. When was the last time you replaced your car brake fluid?
>>>>>>
>>>>> DOT 5.1. Do not substitute another fluid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any auto parts store or with a SRAM/Avid label.
>>>> By the way, Andrew, Mineral oil is a light petroleum based lubricant derived from petroleum. DOT 5.1 is largely solvents used to lighten the Polyglycols that are used in the fluid. Polyglycols are also derived from petroleum and are a very heavy lubricant. Polyglycols are used mostly in lubricating very high load gear trains and worm gears that carry very heavy loads. It isn't clear to me why you would use this lubricant cut 70% or more by solvents rather than a lighter lubricating oil like mineral oil one such a lightly loaded use such as a bicycle disk brake whose loading is almost nothing. There are sometimes additives that are supposed to slow the evaporation of the solvents from the brake fluid.

>>> Thank you for the cut-and-paste recitation. The bottom line is that your Avid/SRAM system is entirely incompatible with the Shimano system. Just look at the reservoir cap on the Avid brakes. It tells you exactly what you can use, and it is not mineral oil. From SRAM: "DOT 5.1 is the recommended fluid for SRAM hydraulic disc brakes. DO NOT use DOT 5 or mineral oil. These will destroy the brake’s seals and require replacement of the entire brake assembly."

>> If you want to believe that is cut and paste it only shows you never took any chemistry at all. You make phony claims and then try to back them up with bluster.
> By the way, I just looked up mineral oil as opposed to DOT 5.1 and it has better properties in all cases. The only difference appears to be that the DOT brake fluid doesn't absorb as much moisture which can damage the antilock braking systems on a car. But mineral oil is almost as good as they claim it to have the same properties. But DOT5.1 was specifically formulated to protect the ABS systems on a car. What ABS system do you have on your bike?
>

We saw failures with the Italian made Formula disc system on
Santanas when owners made that assumption and used not-DOT
5.1 fluids in them.

Your average human would look at, taste and smell GM Dextron
and Ford Type F ATF and assume they're pretty much the same
thing. They are pretty much the same thing. But they differ
enough to wreck a slushbox of the other type.

[jbeattie]

Well, sure, they could call it a touring bike, or a road racing bike, but that would be a lie -- and it would undercut the whole idea of building a CX bike. No?

I don't know where the F55X falls in the CX design world, which seems to oscillate back and forth in terms of steering geometry and chain stay length, but it will certainly have a lower stack height, higher BB and less features for use on the road, although some entry level CX bikes will have fender mounts. My CAADX does. The CAADX also has a dreadful, slack HT with lots of fork offset for a really heavy feeling front end on the road. I much prefer the more roadie feel of my Norco Search gravel bike.

The bottom line is that if you're building this for resale, you're looking at a tougher resale than just a real gravel bike with drop bars. You're building a coffee shop racer with flat bars and big tires. Maybe that sells in the Bay Area. Avid hydros also have a bad reputation, or they did. Maybe it has improved.

And depending on what you're going to try to sell if for, you're up again a really great bargain gravel bike -- the Trek Checkpoint ALR. The CF version was Velo News' bicycle of the year. https://www.velonews.com/gear/gravel-gear/bike-of-the-year-trek-checkpoint-sl-5/ I'd get one of those, but I think I've gotten my limit of pro-deals from Trek.

Plus, I already have my Norco Search, which I got on sale from Western Bikeworks for $1500. This one: https://www.norco.com/bike-archives/2017/search-c-105/ With my custom-applied ho-made frame guards: https://photos.app.goo.gl/PhLwf6MRK8TfPAJYA It's a fun bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

Nope Jay, you obviously called it wrong. I mean, after all, Felt
calls it a "Cyclocross" and you call it a "Cyclocross" but Tommy calls
it a "Gravel Bike", thus logically it must be a gravel bike.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:38:37 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>By the way, I just looked up mineral oil as opposed to DOT 5.1
>and it has better properties in all cases. The only difference
>appears to be that the DOT brake fluid doesn't absorb as much
>moisture which can damage the antilock braking systems on a car.
>But mineral oil is almost as good as they claim it to have the
>same properties. But DOT5.1 was specifically formulated to
>protect the ABS systems on a car. What ABS system do you have
>on your bike?

Look again. Wikipedia has a nice description of the differences
between various brake fluid formulation:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid>
As I see it:
DOT 2 Castor oil based
DOT 3 Glycol based
DOT 4 Glycol based
DOT 5 Silicone based
DOT 5.1 Glycol based

Cut-n-pasted:
DOT 5.1 is the non-silicone version of DOT 5, defined by
FMVSS 116 as being less than 70% silicone. Above that
threshold makes it DOT 5.
In other words, it's possible to buy DOT 5.1 with both glycol and
silicon oil in the recipe.

In chart at:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Boiling_point>
note that the "Citroën LHM mineral oil" has about 4 times the
viscosity as the other DOT flavors. It's main advantage is corrosion
resistance and little else.

Also note that
Lack of acceptance of silicone-based fluids led to the
development of DOT 5.1...
For details, see:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_fluid#Viscosity>

TRW Brake Fluid Brochure:
<https://www.trwaftermarket.com/globalassets/en/trw_fluid_brochure_en.pdf>
(23.6MBytes). Probably more than you wanted to know, but does have
readable graphs and charts with various brake fluid characteristics.
See Pg 8 for DOT 4 vs DOT 5.1 ESP viscosity/temperature graph. Notice
that TRW does not make DOT 5 brake fluid. I would guess(tm) that TRW
is one of the companies that didn't provide "acceptance" for DOT 5
(silicone).

I have no idea why bicycle hydraulic brake system manufacturers would
specify DOT 5.1 except possibly better performance at -40C (-40F).

Actually, a water/antifreeze mix works as well as DOT X:
EB15: Brake Force One H2O disc brake trades mineral oil for water
<https://bikerumor.com/2015/08/29/eb15-brake-force-one-h2o-disc-brake-trade-mineral-oil-for-water/>
More:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=brake+force+one+hto>
Soon, everyone will be riding bicycles with water brakes.

Wow. The Brake Force One H2O video in 3D is really cool looking:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeWtoSxu8XY> (2:56)
Buy yourself some anaglyph 3D red/blue glasses and try it out. The
cardboard version is fine and works nicely with prescription glasses:
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=anaglyph+3d+glasses+cardboard>
Soon, everyone will be watching product demonstrations in 3D.



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

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/25/2021 8:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that if you're building this for resale, you're looking at a tougher resale than just a real gravel bike with drop bars. You're building a coffee shop racer with flat bars and big tires. Maybe that sells in the Bay Area.

I confess, Tom's constant churning of his fleet puzzles me.

I tend in the opposite direction. I think very heavily before acquiring
something to make really sure that it's something I'll want to keep;
than I tend to keep those things a very long time. That applies to
bikes, cars, my motorcycle, my home, jobs, tools, and more. Heck, I'm
still on my first wife!

Everyone's different, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

To tell you the truth I don't see any difference between DOT 4.0 and 5.1 maybe the exact thinners are different but it is still something like a ratio of 70% thinners and a heavy grease. 5.0 is a silicon lubricant that has a LOT better heat capacity. But apparently you have to have special seals. Don't know about that.

[Tom Kunich]

Look Jay, I respect you as a bike rider but please don't tell me what I have. I know the difference between a real CX bike and a gravel bike. Ridley made the mistake of trying to race long wheelbase CX bikes. After they changed to short wheelbases - nearly the same as a road bike - they began winning. It wasn't that they switched to carbon fiber, but because they switched to shorter wheelbase bikes and gained far faster maneuverability. The difference from my older style Ridley and the Redline or Trek Boone CX bike was more than noticeable.

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, I doubt very much that I would have a major carbon fiber failure with the bikes I have. I moved to top of the line bikes to go to "light" only to discover that it makes so little difference in speed that it is foolish to put so much money into it. And in the back of my mind there is ALWAYS the possibility of a catastrophic failure.

So I'm not really "churning" my stable. I bought and am building up the Felt with a disk group I already had. My total cost for this bike sans the parts that I might otherwise be stuck with will be $480. Since complete bikes are far easier to sell, I should be able to sell all of this stuff off that has been on Craigslist for a year.

As for the sales of the carbon fiber bikes, I am just changing back to metal and taking that one worry in the back of my mind off.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/26/2021 12:54 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 7:32:05 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/25/2021 8:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that if you're building this for resale, you're looking at a tougher resale than just a real gravel bike with drop bars. You're building a coffee shop racer with flat bars and big tires. Maybe that sells in the Bay Area.
>> I confess, Tom's constant churning of his fleet puzzles me.
>>
>> I tend in the opposite direction. I think very heavily before acquiring
>> something to make really sure that it's something I'll want to keep;
>> than I tend to keep those things a very long time. That applies to
>> bikes, cars, my motorcycle, my home, jobs, tools, and more. Heck, I'm
>> still on my first wife!
>>
>> Everyone's different, I guess.
>
> Frank, I doubt very much that I would have a major carbon fiber failure with the bikes I have. I moved to top of the line bikes to go to "light" only to discover that it makes so little difference in speed that it is foolish to put so much money into it. And in the back of my mind there is ALWAYS the possibility of a catastrophic failure.
>
> So I'm not really "churning" my stable.

How many bikes have you bought and sold in the last five or ten years?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Dozens, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that most of my memories about the riding characteristics of bicycles and even routes was lost in the concussion. Or are you ignoring that on purpose? I went from the good type of steel bikes I could remember from the 1990's and had to build up my knowledge base to the present day before realizing what I really wanted. I had to follow people on group rides because I couldn't remember even being on those roads. In one 50 miler the only thing I could remember was a group of trees. And that was one of the most common rides I did before the concussion.

[jbeattie]

All I am saying is that the F55X is a CX bike with whatever attributes Felt has given it. You can call it whatever you want, but it is not Felt's gravel bike. https://feltbicycles.com/products/breed-gravel-bike The CX bike has way less BB drop, shorter stack height, higher stand-over, steeper HT with less fork offset, flat underside of the TT for shouldering the bike, etc., etc. The current FX CX bike actually has a longer wheelbase than the gravel bike, which is interesting. You can market it as a gravel bike, but that will be suspect to serious buyers who will do just what I did, "hey, that's Felt's CX bike, not its gravel bike." An old man contradicting the company's advertising and calling it a gravel bike will not comfort buyers.


-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Personally, zero. I've ridden my very favorite bike for 49
years now. That said, I flipped my 'nice' road bike frame
for a new one every year for many years. Both approaches are
fine.

[Frank Krygowski]

There's no law against Tom buying and selling his "dozens" of bikes in
five or ten years. And there's no law against a new bike every year,
especially if a person is a bike shop professional.

But Tom's compulsion seems like an addiction, like he's desperately
searching for contentment or validation or ... something.

I've known a couple individuals with persistent depression, whose
(unsuccessful) coping mechanism was compulsive shopping. It's a fairly
common syndrome.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I don't like the process of buying and selling on Craigslist, so its not something I'd want to do, but building and flipping bikes as a retirement pastime seems pretty harmless.

Tom doesn't even move the needle in terms of bicycle hoarding. My son has a co-worker with 30 bikes, many repeats with subtle variations. There is resale opportunity after a long waiting period (per company rules), but that's not why this guy buys. He's like a heroin addict working at a methadone clinic -- one for me, one for you . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree, it's far from the worst method of dealing with, um, whatever
Tom is dealing with. But it still seems sort of compulsive.

> Tom doesn't even move the needle in terms of bicycle hoarding. My son has a co-worker with 30 bikes, many repeats with subtle variations. There is resale opportunity after a long waiting period (per company rules), but that's not why this guy buys. He's like a heroin addict working at a methadone clinic -- one for me, one for you . . .

A heroin addict working at a methadone clinic wouldn't be my choice for
an example of "just fine."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

No it’s fairly obvious when it needs it, brakes will start to feel squishy,
haven’t had to have a service on either the MTB or commute bike for a good
5 years or so now.

The gravel well parts are new so too soon to know, but on the whole as long
as they are being used, they are happy.

Roger Merriman.

[Tom Kunich]

Roger, if the brakes are feeling "squishy" you are already in danger of a rim failure.

[jbeattie]

? He's talking about a soft feeling disc brake, which means air in the system or inadequate fill or a leak. It has nothing to do with the rim.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

I must have thought that we were still on the rim failure conversation.

[Tom Kunich]

I received the Zitto BB386 bottom bracket and was disappointed to see that they had sent me a 30mm crank version. I ordered a 24mm Shimano crank version. Otherwise it appears to be a rather good bottom bracket. No sense in sending it back since I intend to get a Felt Road Bike later and use an FSA Gossamer compact crank in it. These have a 30 mm shaft. So I looked on eBay and a local California company has the correct size and it should be here in a couple of days.

[jbeattie]

A 24mm version of a BB386 is a non sequitur. 24mm is BB86. BB386 is by definition 30mm.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

The Felt is marked BB386 in the paintwork. Only one company makes a 30 mm shaft crankset. Also I just bought a BB386 bottom bracket that said 24 mm on it. (isn't that also the same diameter as the Campy Ultradrive?

So perhaps you're correct but does it really matter if the only difference is the shaft diameter?

[jbeattie]

BB386 is just a press-fit BB30 that is wider, which means that a normal BB30 crank axle will be too short. https://bikerumor.com/2011/12/22/fsa-bb30-vs-bb386evo-a-visual-comparison-weights/ A Shimano will work fine with a BB386 and an adapter to reduce the ID. So just buy an adapter. https://wheelsmfg.com/386evo-adapter-for-shimano-cranks.html That seems steep, and you can probably get a cheaper adapter elsewhere.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

The BB386 measures 46 or 47 mm in diameter. Hambini who makes BB86 bottom brackets for race teams says that Shimano made is specifically so that you couldn't fit a 30 mm shaft into it. So to make it a Shimano you don't need any adapter, you simply need a bearing with a smaller ID.

[jbeattie]

I was too dismissive to start because with any of the press-in BB formats, you can spend a bunch of money on a special version with 24mm ID. https://wheelsmfg.com/386evo-angular-contact-bb-for-24mm-shimano-cranks-black.html Normal BB386 is spec'd for 30mm ID, but you could get a hybrid, or you could get a standard PF BB386 bottom bracket, pop the bearings out and press in new bearings with a 24mm ID (don't ask me the bearing number), or you could get a $13 adapter. https://www.bikeinn.com/bike/fsa-reducer-pf-30-to-24-fsa-shimano/136016626/p?utm_source=google_products&utm_medium=merchant&id_producte=2807883&country=us&gclid=Cj0KCQiAvvKBBhCXARIsACTePW_jiFtpcwMa0gEX96vlDu4CyUaUe-xpv8qPI6eoyQNK7joev_uxIREaApjNEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

The adaptor allows you to keep your current bearings and saves you the trouble of finding the right bearing number for a BB386 bearing with 24mm ID. It also saves you the pain of pushing out and pressing in bearings in a PF cup, which is actually harder than mounting bearings in a BB30, IMO. It also gives the next owner the flexibility of using a BB386 crank. The rational thing to do is to to get the cheap FSA adapters.

And yes, a BB86 is the wrong size for your BB.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

This BB is a plastic piece and if you're riding hard would probably creak. But the gearing is really low and it is supposed to be a flat bar gravel bike so the people that buy these things won't notice it because they simply don't put enough torque on the thing. I will say that the while I will get away with running the rear brake as is, I will have to pull the front brake since it runs internally, pull off the bead, run the hydraulic line and then put it all together again. And then bleed it. I didn't do the Avid parts when I first put it together. Since I had to get the proper fluid anyway and didn't know what it was, I let the shop do it. So I will have to learn this one. No big deal, I was surprised that I bled both Shimano's in less than 10 minutes.

[jbeattie]

FWIW, all of my press-fit, plastic BBs have been problem free, including the BB86 on my gravel bike is quiet. The BB386 is basically a wide PF30, and I had one of those my old SuperSix, and it was quiet.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

I was watching a YouTube video of Hambini and he said the actual term for a 386 is BB386Evo. Evo is the term that FSA uses for the 30 mm shaft on their lines. So I guess you're correct and that the company that is selling the 24 mm BB386 should say that it is not an actual 386.

[Tom Kunich]

The lower race tool finally came in yesterday so I set the lower race and installed the fork. They I threaded the internal cables for the derailleurs in.

Jay - cyclocross bikes use cables routed along the top tube and down the seat tube with top pull derailleurs and gravel bikes use normally routed cables with bottom pull derailleurs. So this is setup more as a gravel bike than a cyclocross bike. Whether it rides that way or not remains to be seen.

[jbeattie]

Really? My CX bike has standard road derailleurs and ordinary (internal) cable runs. This is Van Der Poel's bike: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g63KkkpPLO4&ab_channel=GCNTech Dura Ace on one of those unreliable Canyons. GRX is gaining popularity for CX, which uses a conventional bottom-pull FD.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Roger Merriman]

>>>>> https://www.bikeinn.com/bike/fsa-reducer-pf-30-to-24-fsa-shimano/136016626/p?utm_source=google_products&utm_medium=merchant&id_producte(07883&country=us&gclid=Cj0KCQiAvvKBBhCXARIsACTePW_jiFtpcwMa0gEX96vlDu4CyUaUe-xpv8qPI6eoyQNK7joev_uxIREaApjNEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

Both bikes are likely to encounter copious amounts of mud, arguably more so
on a gravel bike in the winter in uk/Europe as a wet muddy park is only so
muddy.

I suspect that internally routed changes this, my Gravel bike has very few
areas that the cable is exposed, either external or internal, and thus
copes fine with bog snorkelling even if the tires etc don’t!

I’m not sure why your so keen it’s a gravel bike? That seems a dead cert
for a CX to be honest, narrow clearances, as it’s intended to run CX tires,
narrow ish range of gears as well muddy parks.

In short I’d expect and I’m far from alone a modern Gravel bike to a) be
able to take 40/45mm tires with mud clearance, and to have at least 1-1 low
gearing ideally lower as well off road gets steep and it gets rocky.

That Felt looks like something intended to be raced around a park, your not
going to convince many I suspect.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

I haven't see a CX bike using 45 mm tires which are far more a slightly narrowish MTB tires (used on dry hard ground) The clearances on this Felt are wide enough for a 55 mm tire. Since it uses disks (and since it is set up to 140 mm disks) it seems to me to be hardly a CX bike in classic terms. That plastic derailleur cable diverter on the bottom of the BB casing is more a bash plate to break the cables on real CX type of courses. I used 32 and 34 mm tires on even very heavy terrain around here without any problems. In fact the 34's probably had too much traction. Good gravel tires have surprisingly little rolling resistance on hard road.

As for your spacers, I probably just should have bought those. Or better, simply bought a Wheels Manufacturing BB386 Evo that uses 6803 bearings that have a 24 mm inside diameter.

[jbeattie]

6803 has a 17mm ID. You need 24X42X7 for the BB386 PF plastic shell (I believe it uses 42 bearing in the shell). That bearing is just a 6806 with 24mm ID. I don't know why those are not readily available, but they're not -- probably because Shimano users with BB30 formats would need a spacer anyway, even if the 6806 had an 24mm ID because of the spindle-length difference between BB30 and Shimano. In other words, why bother buying a special 6806 bearing with a 24mm ID when you're going to have to buy a spacer anyway. https://tinyurl.com/hdz7dkfh 6806 bearings are relatively cheap. A 6806 with a 24mm ID would be nice for BB386 PF BB, but then again, the price of adapters is low.

BTW, as you know, Enduro and others (Rotor) sell BB386/24mm PF bottom brackets, but they don't separately sell the bearings that press into them, and the bearing designation in the Rotor (4624) doesn't correspond with any OTC bearings. https://www.bikeinn.com/bike/rotor-road-press-fit-4624-bb386-evo-bottom-bracket/136710326/p?utm_source=google_products&utm_medium=merchant&id_producte=6308876&country=us&gclid=Cj0KCQiAs5eCBhCBARIsAEhk4r5_AOw5rQ12SVF3w5lQoZBoQqTV5N1TGNtLDq-CUijoQCulkgWFW4oaAm5EEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds It's like their secret sauce, so if you want to replace the bearings, you have to replace the whole PF assembly.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

Thanks for the reminder of the bearing size. The Wheels Manufacturing uses an aluminum shell which is a lot less likely to creak but I wasn't worried about it because I will have it so geared down that you won't be able to put enough force on the plastic case that it will creak unless you're going up a 24% grade and then you'd probably be working so had you wouldn't notice any other sound than your breathing.

[Roger Merriman]

45mm are a long way from MTB tires, narrow XC are 55 ish, and look it, most
are the 60mm or more, even in the 80/90s 45mm was not even remotely a MTB
tire.

Felt claim 35mm clearance which those frames and similar, I’m sure you
could fit larger tires but you need mud clearance, or your likely to loose
paint quite apart from that you think 140mm rotors and 34mm tires give too
much grip rather leads me to suspect that your heavy terrain and mine is
likely to differ somewhat.

Felt think it’s a CX bike, everyone else thinks it’s a CX bike...

>
> As for your spacers, I probably just should have bought those. Or better,
> simply bought a Wheels Manufacturing BB386 Evo that uses 6803 bearings
> that have a 24 mm inside diameter.
>

I think your confusing me with someone else!

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Ridley claimed that their aluminum bikes were CX as well and they most definitely were not. But they were great gravel bikes. I couldn't care less what Felt CALLS their bike. What is important is the way it rides and not what they call it.

The stays and fork have sufficient clearance for 55 mm tires if anyone was damn fool enough to put something that large in there.

I have NEVER used an MTB tire wider than 1.9 inches which 48 mm and that was on a full suspension 29er and that was far more than enough traction in the softest ground.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 8:40:03 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

> > > This is not an opinion. I own a CX bike and a gravel bike and am well aware of the differences. The F55X is not marketed as a gravel bike and is geometrically different from a gravel bike. It is a CX bike.
> > >
> > > -- Jay Beattie.
> > Jay, they can call it anything they like. A cross bike uses a short wheelbase and a gravel bike a longer. The wheelbase on this thing is 43" A cross bike would be around 39".
> Well, sure, they could call it a touring bike, or a road racing bike, but that would be a lie -- and it would undercut the whole idea of building a CX bike. No?
>

since a google search for the felt F55x turns back about a million hits like this one:

from https://www.bikeradar.com/news/revamped-felt-fx-carbon-cyclocross-bikes-unveiled-at-sea-otter-classic/

F55x:
Felt Cyclocross FLite aluminium frame
Felt Cyclocross UHC Advanced carbon/aluminium fork

Tom is obviously correct, there's no way this is a cross bike.

[John B.]

Well, based on your theory it is ever more certain that Tom Kunich is
an ass. After all if you google on that phrase you get more then 11
million hits. 11,300,000 to be exact.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

A bike that has narrow clearances and gearing is very much a CX bike, that
it’s the Gravel bike you want to ride, doesn’t change that.

> The stays and fork have sufficient clearance for 55 mm tires if anyone
> was damn fool enough to put something that large in there.
>

That’s not clearance, manufacturers and well anyone vaguely sensible is
going to claim, maximum tire that you can run, rather that what will
physically fit, ie fag paper tight.

> I have NEVER used an MTB tire wider than 1.9 inches which 48 mm and that
> was on a full suspension 29er and that was far more than enough traction
> in the softest ground.
>

I have used tires close to that size, used to have some 1.9 inch mud tires,
on the hardtail, and when I first had the Full suspension beastly, fitted
some 2in tires which really couldn’t cope, as the bike is capable of
hitting the ground so much harder, so quickly moved to some beefy 2.35.

They grip levels jumped as well.

I’d suggest that if 1.9 seems fine then it sounds much more gravel than MTB
trails.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Roger, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I have this bike here and I'm telling you the damned measurements. Why are you talking about your imagination of my bike? My Gary Fisher HiFi had 1.9 inch tires on it from the factory and THEY had too much traction. The advantage of the HiFi was it was heavy enough in the front to hold it down so that you didn't lift the front end, then the bike rotate on its center of gravity and end up with you pointing downhill. Cyclocross bikes do not have that advantage so if you have too much traction on a steep hill, rather than the rear tire slipping the front end lifts.

Yes, you are quite correct that 55 mm tires would be too wide to work well in this bike, but didn't I say, "if you were damned fool enough to mount them"? Cyclocross tires are NARROW to not displace a lot of mud but wide enough to move the bike forward through it. Gravel tires really aren't made to ride in cyclocross conditions. Also, gravel tires have rather surprisingly low rolling resistance on pavement. CX bikes carry gearing almost the same as a road bike and gravel bikes much lower. I don't know what it is like around where you are but around here the gravel is continuously pounded down into the mud making almost a pavement like surface in dry weather so they keep replenishing the gravel and you have to ride though 3" deep gravel all the time. Though it is usually done in 300 meter patches.

I only have a couple more components to get the Felt done, to tell you the truth I'm pretty impressed with it. I might end up keeping it. Over just off of the coast highway there are a whole lot of climbing gravel roads. Suggestion, if you are building a gravel bike with disks (damn noisy things) use 140 mm disks to reduce the power of the disks which are way too strong for a light bike. I fit the Felt with a 140 front and a 160 rear since that was the most convenient size.

[Roger Merriman]

> Roger, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I have this
> bike here and I'm telling you the damned measurements. Why are you
> talking about your imagination of my bike? My Gary Fisher HiFi had 1.9
> inch tires on it from the factory and THEY had too much traction. The
> advantage of the HiFi was it was heavy enough in the front to hold it
> down so that you didn't lift the front end, then the bike rotate on its
> center of gravity and end up with you pointing downhill. Cyclocross bikes
> do not have that advantage so if you have too much traction on a steep
> hill, rather than the rear tire slipping the front end lifts.

That’s not traction or grip but geometry and position on bike, extreme
examples being Down Hill bikes, that are intended for steep descents, quite
apart from the weight and lack of gearing, climbing anything steep is
horrible, hence enduro bikes, which can do both, ie jack of all trades even
if master of none as they say.

>
> Yes, you are quite correct that 55 mm tires would be too wide to work
> well in this bike, but didn't I say, "if you were damned fool enough to
> mount them"? Cyclocross tires are NARROW to not displace a lot of mud but
> wide enough to move the bike forward through it. Gravel tires really
> aren't made to ride in cyclocross conditions. Also, gravel tires have
> rather surprisingly low rolling resistance on pavement. CX bikes carry
> gearing almost the same as a road bike and gravel bikes much lower. I
> don't know what it is like around where you are but around here the
> gravel is continuously pounded down into the mud making almost a pavement
> like surface in dry weather so they keep replenishing the gravel and you
> have to ride though 3" deep gravel all the time. Though it is usually
> done in 300 meter patches.

You did say it had clearance for 55mm vs Felt who if the catalog linked way
back claims 35mm which is much more likely.

Gravel here depends on season, for example some of the pre Roman roads in
the summer are lovely White Gravel trails, at the moment be foot dead
mud...

Gravel bikes are rather wide from racy stuff to essentially Monster Cross
bikes, and lots in between.

Mine is on the more roadie end, which is fine as I use it for farmers lanes
and tamer MTB stuff, taking the MTB to the steeper rougher stuff.

>
> I only have a couple more components to get the Felt done, to tell you
> the truth I'm pretty impressed with it. I might end up keeping it. Over
> just off of the coast highway there are a whole lot of climbing gravel
> roads. Suggestion, if you are building a gravel bike with disks (damn
> noisy things) use 140 mm disks to reduce the power of the disks which are
> way too strong for a light bike. I fit the Felt with a 140 front and a
> 160 rear since that was the most convenient size.
>

Possibly because I’m used to MTB but gravel 160 hydraulic though good in no
way feel overbraked! Plus I’m heavy and a fairly technical rider so I ride
steep stuff that is hard on the brakes.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

I have a strong suspicion you are getting your measurements of the cyclocross Felt from the new carbon fiber bikes which have a LOT less clearance than the aluminum bike I have. Indeed they do look a lot more like a traditional cyclocross bike. It appears that they were calling these models by the same designation since I found one for sale that had V-brakes on it. Mine doesn't have the posts for V-brakes. weirdly enough this one for sale is an aluminum bike that has external cables and is using 32 cyclocross tires and clearly there is nowhere near the clearance on my disk bike. I would say that they are entirely different models if mine wasn't printed as an F55X by the factory and I'm pretty sure that the Ebay store I got it from was the factory.

You cannot have the sort of spacing I have and use V-brakes so their fork is a lot more narrow. But the rear triangle also has a lot less clearance. The factory pictures of their bikes do not call the latest models F55X but FX (designation) so I have no idea what is going on. I absolutely DO NOT have the narrow clearances of the latest or apparently the older bikes.

The "Breed" gravel bike has 45mm + 6 mm clearance. The latest cyclocross bike has 35mm + 4 mm clearance which definitely isn't mine. The older D55X was probably an unsuccessful try at cyclocross. So judging from that by the time they got around to building this bike it was a gravel prototype. All in all I am impressed with the workmanship and since the bike parts were set up for heavy climbing in gravel and loose dirt I think that it is going to be a success as a gravel bike. People rarely race on gravel though no doubt they will end up doing that. You can't prevent 20 year old's from acting like 12 year old's.

[jbeattie]

WTF? Gravel racing is huge. https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/top-10-gravel-races-in-the-usa/ My son's former roommate and current workmate -- and Pro U23 enduro national champion -- won this one: https://www.cxmagazine.com/zach-calton-interview-2018-crusher-tushar-gravel-race Zach Calton, great kid.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Gravel racing? Just how fast does the gravel go? Perhaps you meant Gravel bicycle racing? then again that implies that the bicycle is made of gravel. Bicycle racing on gravel? Geeze, isn't English fun? LOL

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

In Tom's defense, gravel races may be getting more common, but any
sample of "gravel bike" owners will only rarely find one who races.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

To be fair also counts for taking off road, equally as fair Gravel bikes
copes fantastic with potholes and generally rubbish roads.

I fairly rarely see other Gravel riders when out on the trails but MTBs and
walkers.

Roger Merriman

[jbeattie]

There are a fair number of events in Oregon: https://bikeportland.org/oregon-unpaved And they're run as races with fondos/rides, so people can race or pretend to be racing.

Only a small fraction of cyclists on any kind of bike are racers, although pre-pandemic, it seemed like everyone and their brother raced CX around here. Road, CX and MTB races are clearly more common that gravel races, but its a developing market, and I'm sure we'll see more.

I'm road riding with my pals today -- sunny, clear skies, and I'm taking my light bike with no fenders. And skiing tomorrow. Woohoo. Its the magical time of the year when it gets sunnier and before the lawn needs mowing and the yard explodes.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I think that potholes and more comfort were the two main reasons that MTB took off in the 1980s.

Cheers

[Lou Holtman]

Op zaterdag 13 maart 2021 om 16:33:17 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:

Most gravel bike owners want to ride in places away from the crowded roads on a bike they think is most suitable. I'm one of them. I only race against myself.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/aLmyAeaudT2zXKqu7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/sCD6v8qUXQAtP6xk6

Photo's taken two weeks apart (Febr.12 and febr 26).

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

Lou, That is rather beautiful landscape and the reason that gravel bikes are becoming so popular.

[Roger Merriman]

Very much this, it Gravel bike allows me to link together old
airports/forgotten roads framers tacks etc.

I can still tacked roads if I want to, but it’s a choice.

Roger Merriman

[jbeattie]

My most common gravel ride is on a road bike and usually just to beat traffic and take a lower angle climb into the West Hills. Basically this ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMOR6tzk1Mg&ab_channel=RiverCityBicycles Its right out of downtown.

Gravel is a part of many road rides around here, but getting more than five or six miles of gravel and doing a long gravel ride means a long wind-up on the road or driving somewhere -- which is what makes true gravel riding, like mountain biking, a devotee sport unless you live in Gravelvania and can jump on gravel out your back door. It's worth it when you get there, but for me it means more planning.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tom Kunich]

I bought a Zitto BB386 bottom brank and when it arrived I realized that it was 30 mm shaft diameter. So I bought a quick delivery BB that said it was 24 mm. Stupid me, rather than listen to Jay, I assumed that this was a 42 x 24 mm bearing. In fact it was the same 30 mm bearings but in a plastic container and with a couple of 24 mm adapters. Well, the BB was designed BB386 so the adapters made marginally too wide. But worst of all the plastic casing allowed the 41 x 30 bearings to rock in the BB and the adapters made it worse. Well I installed the bottom bracket with a BB press, and it was pretty tight. The crappy engineering was the the pushing the two halves together caused the outer shell to expand so that it is locked in place. A normal bearing extractor isn't getting anywhere and now I have to figure out how to get that crappy BB out of there to replace it with the Zitto. From there I have to decide whether to use those adapters that may make it too wide for the XT crankset or get a 30 mm shaft off-road crankset. This is about the last thing to do aside from bleeding the Avid brakes. I need only install the chain.

[Frank Krygowski]

Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/14/2021 3:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 12:43:09 PM UTC-8, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Op zaterdag 13 maart 2021 om 16:33:17 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
>>>>

>>>> In Tom's defense, gravel races may be getting more common, but any
>>>> sample of "gravel bike" owners will only rarely find one who races.
>>> Most gravel bike owners want to ride in places away from the crowded
>>> roads on a bike they think is most suitable. I'm one of them. I only race against myself.
>>>
>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/aLmyAeaudT2zXKqu7
>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/sCD6v8qUXQAtP6xk6
>>>
>>> Photo's taken two weeks apart (Febr.12 and febr 26).
>> Lou, That is rather beautiful landscape and the reason that gravel bikes
>> are becoming so popular.
>>
>
> Very much this, it Gravel bike allows me to link together old
> airports/forgotten roads framers tacks etc.
>
> I can still tacked roads if I want to, but it’s a choice.

As usual, I'm bemused by the ever changing fashions.

Just a few years ago, people posting here arguing with my contention
that close clearance frames had no practical benefit. And I was derided
for helping a friend shop for a bike and rejecting bikes that wouldn't
take a 28mm tire.

I have no problem with people wanting to ride gravel, although I don't
have much respect for driving 20 miles to ride five miles on a gravel
road. But I'm amazed at how quickly people are convinced to change their
tastes.

Fashion and marketing: Weird and powerful!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

Frank, as usual you speak of things you have little understanding of. What about riding 5 miles to do a very hilly and difficult 30 miles followed by a 600 foot climb on the road as part of the 4 mile ride home? What about 2 miles on the road to a 40 or 50 mile ride or more rife on a flat gravel road. have very little respect for people that have never been out of their own backyard.

[Tom Kunich]

And this entirely discounts driving over to the coast where gravel roads are almost endless. Or up to the Sierra's or northern California where there are more gravel roads than paved one's.

[AMuzi]

On 3/14/2021 12:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/14/2021 3:52 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Tom Kunich <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 at 12:43:09 PM UTC-8,
>>> lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Op zaterdag 13 maart 2021 om 16:33:17 UTC+1 schreef
>>>> Frank Krygowski:
>>>>>
>>>>> In Tom's defense, gravel races may be getting more
>>>>> common, but any
>>>>> sample of "gravel bike" owners will only rarely find
>>>>> one who races.
>>>> Most gravel bike owners want to ride in places away from
>>>> the crowded
>>>> roads on a bike they think is most suitable. I'm one of
>>>> them. I only race against myself.
>>>>
>>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/aLmyAeaudT2zXKqu7
>>>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/sCD6v8qUXQAtP6xk6
>>>>
>>>> Photo's taken two weeks apart (Febr.12 and febr 26).
>>> Lou, That is rather beautiful landscape and the reason
>>> that gravel bikes
>>> are becoming so popular.
>>>
>>
>> Very much this, it Gravel bike allows me to link together old
>> airports/forgotten roads framers tacks etc.
>>

>> I can still tacked roads if I want to, but it’s a choice.

>
> As usual, I'm bemused by the ever changing fashions.
>
> Just a few years ago, people posting here arguing with my
> contention that close clearance frames had no practical
> benefit. And I was derided for helping a friend shop for a
> bike and rejecting bikes that wouldn't take a 28mm tire.
>
> I have no problem with people wanting to ride gravel,
> although I don't have much respect for driving 20 miles to
> ride five miles on a gravel road. But I'm amazed at how
> quickly people are convinced to change their tastes.
>
> Fashion and marketing: Weird and powerful!
>

Why play a musical instrument when you can just turn on the
radio? Odd fashion as well.

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

[Ralph Barone]

Because the people on the radio play musical instruments better than I do?
On the other hand, I don’t watch the TDF or pro cycling because I’d rather
go out and ride instead of watching other people do it.

[Tom Kunich]

I told my cop friend that I used to play in fairly popular (locally) bands and he didn't believe me. Especially since I must have sold off all of my instruments while under the control of that concussion. I still have a couple of acoustic guitars laying around. One that my older brother made and another than is a real piece of crap that someone kicked in the side on a bit. I used to use the junk guitar to play on a little as I was still trying to recover some manual dexterity. Well, the cop friend saw it and wanted me to play something. I suppose he want to catch me in a lie since most of the things that I told him he would look up. Mostly on REALLY stupid sites like "Answers.com" and the like and those site pass off the Lame Stream Media jabber most of which is plain propaganda.

In any case I still hadn't recovered enough manual dexterity to be able to hold onto a pick for more than 30 second or so and told him so. He insisted so I pulled off a riff of a Chuck Berry lead. About halfway through it indeed I lost the pick which went flying across the room. But you should have seen the expression on his face. I had to work pretty hard to keep from laughing. His wife was right there as well. I was not a lead guitar but a bass player. And in my opinion I was as good as a studio musician on the bass. All of my instruments are gone but for the junk and I don't like the acoustic that my brother made for me because he made the face too heavy. While the balance is nearly perfect, there is no volume and you'd need a real PA to make it even heard in a medium size hall.

[Tom Kunich]

That's a very good analysis. As you get older you snore more and there is absolutely nothing worse for your vocal cords than snoring so all of my back-up harmony is gone. I could probably get it back by training. Especially since among other things my wife is a vocal coach that used to be a choral director. She traveled all over Europe in college getting her music degree and the choir she was in even sang in St. Peter's. And a large Christian Church in Turkey. So I imagine they were pretty good.

[Sir Ridesalot]

For some people a gravel bike or even a fat tire bike makes a lot of sense if they ride dirt or gravel roads.

A few of years ago a buddy and I were taking a shortcut home along a dirt road that can normally be ridden with 28mm road bike tries. We were each riding an riding MTB with 26" x 2.0" tires. We turned one corner and discovered that the road had just been freshly gravelled. Deep loose gravel that was a real pain to ride since the bikes didn't want to track a straight line. they were slip sliding all over the road. Perhaps that's where a fat tire bike would have excelled.

Cheers

[Tom Kunich]

I had bought the Ridley XBow and it couldn't have been very well for cyclocross since it had far too good directional stability but MAN that was the best gravel bike I ever rode. I'm hoping the Felt is as good. I could roll over fresh and deep gravel as if it was paved road.

[AMuzi]

>>>> I can still tacked roads if I want to, but it’s a choice.

>>>
>>> As usual, I'm bemused by the ever changing fashions.
>>>
>>> Just a few years ago, people posting here arguing with my
>>> contention that close clearance frames had no practical
>>> benefit. And I was derided for helping a friend shop for a
>>> bike and rejecting bikes that wouldn't take a 28mm tire.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with people wanting to ride gravel,
>>> although I don't have much respect for driving 20 miles to
>>> ride five miles on a gravel road. But I'm amazed at how
>>> quickly people are convinced to change their tastes.
>>>
>>> Fashion and marketing: Weird and powerful!
>>>
>>
>> Why play a musical instrument when you can just turn on the
>> radio? Odd fashion as well.
>>
>
> Because the people on the radio play musical instruments better than I do?

> On the other hand, I don’t watch the TDF or pro cycling because I’d rather

> go out and ride instead of watching other people do it.
>

My point was only that people like what they like because
they like it and that's reason enough.

p.s. Frank:
To denigrate other people's choices as 'odd fashion' -
whether riding bicycles in dirt rather than streets, or on
streets rather than roads, or on hardwood board tracks
rather than on a paved winding path in a park - is to
discount the value of individual choice. You don't know
other people's reasoning for any choice. Often a man doesn't
understand the reasoning behind his own choices, but it's
his nonetheless.

p.s. Ralph:
I'm in favor of riding bicycles. Good for you. I'm also in
favor of following[1] the great classics. Many of us do both!

[1]I can't watch much video of anything including Le Tour so
I get it if that's what you meant. I like the daily recap
from RFI in text better. YMMV.

[Lou Holtman]

Op zondag 14 maart 2021 om 22:24:53 UTC+1 schreef AMuzi:

> p.s. Ralph:
> I'm in favor of riding bicycles. Good for you. I'm also in
> favor of following[1] the great classics. Many of us do both!

After todays ride I watched the live coverage of todays stage of Tirreno Adriatico (last 60 km) this afternoon. Wow..... and last stage of Paris Nice...(last 25 km). Wow...again.

> [1]I can't watch much video of anything including Le Tour so
> I get it if that's what you meant. I like the daily recap
> from RFI in text better. YMMV.

Lucky me. We have live coverage of every race with competent comments of the Belgium reporters.

Lou

[John B.]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 10:42:26 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich

Lets see... 5 miles out and 4 miles home....

Yup Tommy, you really are a wonder!
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

You forgot to add the "very hilly and difficult 30 miles". 39 miles instead of 9 but one person's very difficult ride can be another person's warmup ride.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Those of us who play instruments do it only as an act of charity!
Without it, radio listeners would have only Talk programs - a fate worse
than hell. ;-)

>> Because the people on the radio play musical instruments better than I
>> do?
>> On the other hand, I don’t watch the TDF or pro cycling because
>> I’d rather
>> go out and ride instead of watching other people do it.
>>
>
> My point was only that people like what they like because they like it
> and that's reason enough.

Taken to extreme (and you're nearly there!) that becomes "Any choice is
as good as any other." I'm far too conservative to endorse that view.

Some choices don't matter, especially if they affect nobody else. But I
think there are many choices that are objectively worse than other
choices. And we don't have to go as far as "I like stealing bikes out of
bike shops" to get examples.

> p.s. Frank:
> To denigrate other people's choices as 'odd fashion' - whether riding
> bicycles in dirt rather than streets, or on streets rather than roads,
> or on hardwood board tracks rather than on a paved winding path in a
> park - is to discount the value of individual choice.  You don't know
> other people's reasoning for any choice. Often a man doesn't understand
> the reasoning behind his own choices, but it's his nonetheless.

My main point was the rapid _change_ in fashion. In five years, both
here and at the bike shop I have in mind, we went from "Of course you
can't fit 28s, why would you want to?" to "Of course you'll want to ride
gravel, so you need nice wide tires."

The equivalent, Andrew, would be Tom suddenly saying California isn't
nearly liberal enough. And you approving of _both_ of Tom's views.

But I'll admit to being a bit sensitive about people riding only by
driving their bikes to a special place they can ride back and forth. I
have a couple reasons. One is, that strategy is very often justified
based on irrational fears; and those fears are stoked by the "Bicycling
is Dangerous!" propaganda.

That propaganda and the fears it generates are bad for bicyclists who do
choose to ride ordinary roads, as in "You deserved to get hit." And it's
bad for society, because it presumes we _need_ to spend exorbitant
amounts of money "to finally have safe places to ride."

A further detail is those "places to ride" are functionally linear
parks, but are paid for by diverting Transportation money. But I'll stop
here.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

My assumption, and knowledge is that most gravel rides tend to start from
home, that’s one of the good things about such bikes, they are fine in most
places, from mild MTB trails to big days in the hills.

With the MTB yes you might well take it somewhere but not the Gravel on the
whole.

>
> Fashion and marketing: Weird and powerful!
>

Gravel bikes that I can see have grown out of CX bikes, a number of them
few years back where aimed at hacking around the woods and so on, rather
than racing around a muddy park.

Plus the rim to disks so larger tires plus decent brakes this feels rider
lead than manufacturers.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

The only place I see MTB's excelling from my cross/gravel bikes is descending speeds. The trails are very often rain rutted over a good deal of the roads with only the flat roads used to maintain the parks paved with gravel which is pounded into the soft ground by constant use. This makes the trails pretty nice for the most part. But coming down the 600 foot peak can have areas of 20% that are badly rutted. You can ride right over these things with suspension but on a cross bike you have to almost crawl to avoid being thrown off. Much of the San Francisco bay trails is gravel roads on the eastern side of the bay since it was originally commercial land for things like the salt ponds owned by Leslie Salt Company. Of course it was declared an ecological disaster by people that don't know there ass from a hole in the ground and with the closing of these ponds at least a dozen species of aquatic birds were driven into extinction and most of the California Seagulls are no longer in the bay.

[Roger Merriman]

The point at which is faster/more fun is a bit of a moveable feast after
all Gravel bikes go from CX ish to Monster cross ish, clearly rider skill
is also a variable as well.

I find the Gravel bike is better on the drier smoother stuff, and really
dislikes rocky stuff, it has a narrower range during the winter as it
doesn’t cope with the slop.

Clearly rooty Rocky descents are where MTB shines, but less obviously
technical climbs which is one of my favourite pastimes! Which are much more
clearable on MTB as squishy tires and suspension don’t stall on said
rocks/roots as easily.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

There was this particular climb along one route. I could NEVER make it up on a CX bike. I could hit it and come 10 feet from the top where the wheels would just spin. I got really good at stepping off of the bike at that point and pushing the bike up the rest of the way. That Trek HiFi I had would go right up it since you could stand up on the pedals and the front end would stay on the ground and the rear tires on that 29er would stick. Can't say the same for my heart rate on that bit. I always had to stop and allow my heart rate to fall back down to something acceptable. There were some pretty nasty places on that route but none of the rest of them did that to me. The rest of that course was more suited to a CX bike than the MTB since you could carry a lot more speed on that much lighter bike.

[Lou Holtman]

Op maandag 15 maart 2021 om 01:16:38 UTC+1 schreef Roger Merriman:

The way I see it is that there was always the need/desire to ride off road. In the old days we did that on a road bike with its limitations. Then we got the ATB that developed into something complicated (front and rear shocks with lock out, dropper post, adaptive damping and whatever) and for many people way over 'qualified' for the off road riding they desire. You could use a cross bike, but cross bikes at that time were race orientated with the UCI limitations (tire width and shitty brakes). It got interesting when hydraulic disk brakes became available on cross bikes. That was the time they became popular again here and many people switch from a ATB back to a cross bike, fed up with the heavy and complicated ATB that was meanwhile meant to ride on 'epic' tracks and gnarly trails but never were used on that terrain. When I got my cross bike 8 years ago I hardly used my ATB's again and eventually sold them both (hardtail and FS). The cross bike evolved into the current gravel bike and the cross bike back became race oriented again.

Lou

[Roger Merriman]

I keep the MTB for “big days out” when I’m rested and such. As it’s a
hugely capable machine.

But the gravel is much more flexible in that it’s fine on tarmac and park
paths etc, and I can go for a wee spin it doesn’t need to be a big day out.

I do also like that it does remind me of the MTB’s that I started on,
though it’s a far more capable machine to be honest!

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

As I understand it, Sir Ridesalot uses older rigid frame mountain bikes,
somewhat modified to adapt them for off-road touring. I think a version
of those bikes could still be a very good choice for lots of people
doing non-gonzo riding off-road, even though they're not fashionable.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joy Beeson]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 11:35:17 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
<i_am_cyc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Deep loose gravel that was a real pain to ride since the bikes didn't want to track a straight line. they were slip sliding all over the road. Perhaps that's where a fat tire bike would have excelled.

That's where I get off and walk.


--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Lou Holtman]

Op dinsdag 16 maart 2021 om 03:07:19 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:

As long as you can get rid of the front suspension they will be great on gravel/mild off road.

Lou

[Sir Ridesalot]

My MTBs converted to dropbar bikes are all rigid frames and fork as they were designed. No front shocks were ever on any of them.

Here are some of the rigid frame MTBs I've converted to dropbar gravel/touring bicycles.

Cannondale
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/27884278825/

Diamondback
flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/22127966680/

Giant Butte
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/26313135390/

Giant. Can't remember the model name.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/20961200128/

Miele #1
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/22409146694/

Miele #2
https://www.flickr.com/photos/73832500@N00/26641728934/

Cheers

[Lou Holtman]

Op dinsdag 16 maart 2021 om 10:12:28 UTC+1 schreef Sir Ridesalot:

Yep all those bikes are very capable of handling gravel roads. I won't discuss esthetics ;-)

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

I went out to work on the Felt and immediately had problems After I threaded the new hydraulic hoses through the frame which is a pain unless you've done it before I discovered that the hoses are 0.3 mm too large for the connectors. The connectors can only accept 0.2 tolerance maximum. Oh, well, it isn't like I'm in a hurry to ride in 2 o 3 C.
The new hose and the Avid bleeding kit are on order and the proper hose is a week away.

The FSA cranks for the Eddy Merckx arrived and this time is the right size, The correct size bearings are on the way. I hate Italian threads. Which reminds me, If anyone would like a new FSA Gossamer BBright crankset it would cost you shipping.