Boonen uses great big fat tubular tire in Paris-Roubaix

[dusto...@mac.com]

<http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentimages/Zap%20News/2012/Race
%20News/Paris%20Roubaix/TB%20frntwheel.jpg>
or Tiny: <http://tinyurl.com/7vhbrfe>

And no flats, either.
Plus, reported to run about 61 psi in front, a little more in the
back.

I thought you couldn't put a big tire on a modern race bike?!?!
This bears more investigation!
--D-y

[thirty-six]

On Apr 10, 11:24 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:

25mm wide rim and a 35mm cross-section tyre are the limits in UCI-
sanctioned events. 28mm tubs have been pretty much standard for
years despite manufacturers offering "Roubaix" tyres in 24,25 or 26mm

[Frank Krygowski]

I'd be interested in a detail front photo of the tire's clearance at the
fork blades, and a top view of the clearance at the chainstays.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Paris Roubaix machines are not like other race bikes:
http://ukcyclesport.com/images/stories/prbx2010bike/prbx15.jpg

click 'next photo' to see the series here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/race-tech-more-bikes-from-paris-roubaix/168515

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

[datakoll]

B's psychotic adviser gave good advice und B lucked out at the advanced age of uh ?

the diversity in tuning for advantage isnot required for long races of smiling pelotoners cruising thru fields of sunflowers..

to be cynical.

you see if guns kill people then...

[James]

Tyre clearance at forks.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/race-tech-more-bikes-from-paris-roubaix/168530

--
JS

[James]

On 11/04/12 12:01, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Seat stay clearance.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/race-tech-more-bikes-from-paris-roubaix/168560

--
JS

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 10, 9:29 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:

> > dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
> >> <http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentimages/Zap%20News/2012/Race
> >> %20News/Paris%20Roubaix/TB%20frntwheel.jpg>
> >> or Tiny:<http://tinyurl.com/7vhbrfe>
>
> >> And no flats, either.
> >> Plus, reported to run about 61 psi in front, a little more in the
> >> back.
>
> >> I thought you couldn't put a big tire on a modern race bike?!?!
> >> This bears more investigation!
>
> > I'd be interested in a detail front photo of the tire's clearance at the
> > fork blades, and a top view of the clearance at the chainstays.
>
> Paris Roubaix machines are not like other race bikes:http://ukcyclesport.com/images/stories/prbx2010bike/prbx15.jpg
>

> click 'next photo' to see the series here:http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/race-tech-more-bikes-from-...

Campy Barcelona rims? Ahhh... a real bicycle wheel rim, tubular,
double eyelets and all, nice to see, even if the winners were (medium-
light) deep-dish carbon.

Yup, at least fairly close to the roll-off, P-R was looking like a mud
race was in the offing. Meaning, horses for courses and yards of
clearance or, as on the coal carts of legend, you won't be able to
roll when the wheels won't go!

I wonder if they would have still used those big fat tires (yes!) but
still pumped up to only 61 lbs (front, 62.5 rear <g>, quoted for
Boonen), if they expected to encounter USO's (Unidentified Sunken
Objects)?

One point being, those bikes are used once, by and large, and put away
until next year or "sent off" in consideration of next year's latest-
elastomer-enhanced-greatest.
Even in Euro point-to-point road races, huge tires and Grand Canyon
clearances are not needed and American parking lot racers usually need
that kind of stuff even less yet.

Everything is tailored to survival over the cobbles, to state the
obvious. I loved Phil's comment to the effect that Boonen was riding
tires that no racer would ordinarily be caught dead on, even for
training. Amen, Brother Phil!
Hell of a ride, no flats and no gloves, either.
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> Even in Euro point-to-point road races, huge tires and Grand Canyon
> clearances are not needed and American parking lot racers usually need
> that kind of stuff even less yet.

I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?

Perhaps there's a tiny aerodynamic advantage at the front fork, but it
would never be significant except perhaps on a time trial bike. In the
rear, I see no practical advantage at all.

No practical advantage for the rider, that is. For the manufacturer, it
probably helps sell bikes to those guys who think "impractical" means
"fast."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Scott Gordo]

To quote a guy named Cataño, "It disproportionately steams my clams
that specialized is going to trumpet this as a victory for zertz,
rather than the obvious fact that it's a victory for low-psi, fatty
tubulars made by some dude in a french barn."

[James]

On 12/04/12 00:33, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>>
>> Even in Euro point-to-point road races, huge tires and Grand Canyon
>> clearances are not needed and American parking lot racers usually need
>> that kind of stuff even less yet.
>
> I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
> advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
> Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?

Which is why I specified that my custom steel frame is to accommodate up
to 28mm tyres ;-)

--
JS.

[datakoll]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:50:09 AM UTC-6, dusto...@mac.com wrote:

so do you smell a trend ?

[datakoll]

> To quote a guy named Cataño, " I am miffed i didn't think of this."

Sour grapes

[datakoll]

what I believe

Boonen deserves a parade for running the fatty then lucking out: elephants and bagpipes, the works.

A great career win needing more thn a kiss and trophy fersure.

see ya on the downhill.

[Chalo]

James wrote:

>
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> > clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
> > advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
> > Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?
>
> Which is why I specified that my custom steel frame is to accommodate up
> to 28mm tyres ;-)

Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.

http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-for-700c.html

Chalo

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 11, 9:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

The successful professional people who populate the local racing scene
don't share your mindset, Frank.
There's nothing "impractical" about a bike whose design is tailored
for the intended purpose, racing and other recreational riding which
is done for the most part here in sunny Austin TX on dry roads. Almost
never "mud", even when it rains, although there are a few dirt road
events, and we certainly have an active, if not hugely populated,
'cross scene. Now there, the "practical", and purpose-built bike
differs considerably from current "road pattern" design and execution.
True enough, 'cross bikes, at least some of them, can make better
"utility bikes" than do straight-ahead road-pattern bikes, thinking of
a couple I've seen that have fender eyelets, specifically. Sure, the
opened-up clearances meant for de rigueur big fat knobby 'cross tires,
mainly, might lend a wider usage, with adaptations or clip-on fenders
where eyelet mounts are absent, outside of strictly 'cross work, which
BTW is just hunky-dory with me and anyone else with half a brain
(ahem).
Those bikes are certainly out there and you can go into at least a few
local bicycle stores and pick one out; if they might have to order one
in a particular size, there is certainly no "state secret" status with
'cross bikes around here.
Or, for that matter, with at least a representation of "utility"
designs, by whatever name/flavor/denomination, for all that those
might not come completely built up, hasn't that always been part of
getting a new bike, gathering the parts you want for your preferences,
according to intended use?

Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

> http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-...

"Sane for what?" (yes, I bit. Got an answer?)
--D-y

[thirty-six]

On Apr 11, 3:33 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > Even in Euro point-to-point road races, huge tires and Grand Canyon
> > clearances are not needed and American parking lot racers usually need
> > that kind of stuff even less yet.
>
> I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> clearance is needed for most racing.  What I don't understand is the
> advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.

It was a pattern developed for pursuit cycling over 50 years ago,
where fractions of a second count and the close clearance frame with
its wind-cheating design got the wins. So over the following thirty
years or so it became more of a standard on road-racing cycles by the
better frame-buiders in England. AFAIK the pattern was first used in
England by Harry Quinn Cycles of Liverpool. There is some talk that
it's origins were in France or Italy but I don't know about that and
it never bothered me.

One could argue that a rider on skinny tyres can't corner so hard
through the bumps and may indeed be a little cautious anyway to save
denting a rim. Te ulra-close clearance frame is probably best suited
to the already timid road rider or kept just for the track.

>   Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?

Closer infers faster.

>
> Perhaps there's a tiny aerodynamic advantage at the front fork, but it
> would never be significant except perhaps on a time trial bike.  In the
> rear, I see no practical advantage at all.

It is the rear which shows the most benefit by allowing full diameter
chainstays with the tyre close to the seat-tube.

>
> No practical advantage for the rider, that is.

How to open a young man's wallet in a bike shop, "FASTER".

> For the manufacturer, it
> probably helps sell bikes to those guys who think "impractical" means
> "fast."

It makes a difference in pursuiting.

[Chalo]

dustoyevsky wrote:

>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > James wrote:
> > >
> > > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> > > > clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
> > > > advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
> > > > Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?
> > >
> > > Which is why I specified that my custom steel frame is to accommodate up
> > > to 28mm tyres ;-)
> >
> > Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.
> >

> > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-for-700c.html

>
> "Sane for what?" (yes, I bit. Got an answer?)

Short answer: Everything, just about. Club ride one day, cyclocross
the next, commute to work, overnight tour, and then hit the
singletrack.

When I work on race type bikes from Merckx's day, I note that most of
them can take 32 or even 35mm tires. And why not? It not only makes
them more versatile, but the extra clearance makes them more
serviceable and fault tolerant with skinny tires too.

Chalo

[Frank Krygowski]

The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
with what seems to me to be a bad design.

Yes, I'm sure that in your area, and many others, there are plenty of
road races in which 25 mm tires are widely considered "too wide." And
I don't doubt that there are many racers who feel they won a race
specifically because they were on 23s instead of 25s; or 19s instead
of 23s, or whatever. I'm not going to address whether or not those
impressions are correct.

What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
_because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
their bike. Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.

How? Here's how. A broke young racer can afford only one bike. He
buys a carbon fiber wonder with just a whisker of fork clearance.
Then comes the cold and rain. Wide tires and fenders would mean he'd
be able to do a lot more training, but wide tires and fenders just
don't fit his bike. So he "trains" by sitting in front of the TV (or
spinning, or riding rollers, which is _not_ as helpful) and he loses
to a guy who put more miles on the actual road.

The disadvantage of whisker-thin clearance is a lack of versatility.
That translates to less time on that bike. What is the advantage? I
don't believe there is one that's as significant.

- Frank Krygowski

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 12, 2:17 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > James wrote:
>
> > > > Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > > > > I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> > > > > clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
> > > > > advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
> > > > > Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?
>
> > > > Which is why I specified that my custom steel frame is to accommodate up
> > > > to 28mm tyres ;-)
>
> > > Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.
>

> > >http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-...

>
> > "Sane for what?" (yes, I bit. Got an answer?)
>
> Short answer:  Everything, just about.  Club ride one day, cyclocross
> the next, commute to work, overnight tour, and then hit the
> singletrack.
>
> When I work on race type bikes from Merckx's day, I note that most of
> them can take 32 or even 35mm tires.  And why not?  It not only makes
> them more versatile, but the extra clearance makes them more
> serviceable and fault tolerant with skinny tires too.

Club ride on a 'cross bike with noisy cantilevers? Commute to work in
bad-weather slop on a nice (from whatever era) race bike? Race at the
Driveway on big fat knobby "single-track" tires?

No thanks. "Horses for courses", thank you very much.
You can do what you want, which is one part of my everlasting point in
these discussions. Another part is still "what's the bitch with the
racers?" Can we hear a cogent account, maybe for once and for all?
"I don't like them because..." followed by some words that make sense.
"They make all bicycles more expensive" is dis-allowed, in front, as
being patently untrue.
--D-y

[thirty-six]

On Apr 12, 8:17 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > James wrote:
>
> > > > Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > > > > I can appreciate that there's a limit to how much tire width and
> > > > > clearance is needed for most racing. What I don't understand is the
> > > > > advantage of providing only very narrow clearance for only narrow tires.
> > > > > Why not give more, just to add to a bike's versatility?
>
> > > > Which is why I specified that my custom steel frame is to accommodate up
> > > > to 28mm tyres ;-)
>
> > > Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.
>

> > >http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-...

>
> > "Sane for what?" (yes, I bit. Got an answer?)
>
> Short answer:  Everything, just about.  Club ride one day, cyclocross
> the next, commute to work, overnight tour, and then hit the
> singletrack.
>
> When I work on race type bikes from Merckx's day, I note that most of
> them can take 32 or even 35mm tires.  And why not?  It not only makes
> them more versatile, but the extra clearance makes them more
> serviceable and fault tolerant with skinny tires too.
>
> Chalo

Traditionally centre-pull brakes were the weekend racer's choice as he
could swap between 27x1.1/4 tyres through the week to his sprints of
the weekend and adjust the block position.. With amateurs taking the
pro's lead with sidepull brakes it became necessary for all riders to
be on a similar standing as regards braking capacity during racing.
The arms got shorter as riders wanted more from their brakes and the
1.1/4" tyre will fit no more. Now that the dual pivot is common on
racing (and styled) bikes there could be a return to the swapping of
wheels according to the function of the day, rather than having to buy
another bike for rough stuff.

I remember that Campag offered a dropped pivot for their sidepulls but
it was rarely seen on the road by the time I was intrested in the
sport. I'm wondering if that was intended for weekend swapping as
well as converting old frames for race only use. It seems the
obvious choice to allow a clubman's frame to be used for road racing
or remove and put big tyres on for grass-track racing. I think it
follows with the introduction of the six-speed block which then made a
road frame not quite so suitable for track riding.

As regards to choosing a frame today, I'll recommend that any newcomer
to the sport gets a frame with as much clearance as possible and fit
the long reach dual pivot callipers. It means they also have
something suitable for grass-tracking, touring, daily transport, cyclo-
cross and cyclo-polo as well as criterium racing. Don't forget the
mudguard eyes.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?

>

> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
> with what seems to me to be a bad design.

Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
back how many years?
And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
design"? Get real.

>
> Yes, I'm sure that in your area, and many others, there are plenty of
> road races in which 25 mm tires are widely considered "too wide."

No no no, I never said anything about 25's being too wide. If you did
ask, in order to find out what people really think instead of
guessing, you might well find that a "25" might not be a popular size.
I'd suggest the reason might not be some kind of "credulity" but
experience, perhaps parallel to my own, and others in my cohort, that
a 23mm "nominal" tire, especially a top-quality sew-up, is plenty of
tire for even rough roads-- short of the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix--
and that there is a "feel" associated with tires popular in "racing"--
which of course is one of the reasons that such certain tires are
popular-- which feel is lacking in, from my experience, the larger
Clement "Paris-Roubaix" cotton and Del Mondo silk tires.

You keep on trying to establish that racers are stupid. That's part of
my question "what's the bitch?" Professional people with careers
completely lose all rationality when it comes to "bicycles"? Is that
what you're trying to say? Maybe you've seen that in your life; I
assure you the people in my cohort are not a bunch of fools.

 And
> I don't doubt that there are many racers who feel they won a race
> specifically because they were on 23s instead of 25s; or 19s instead
> of 23s, or whatever.  I'm not going to address whether or not those
> impressions are correct.

The only place I've ever seen people get really picky about tires is
on the velodrome and there are damn good reasons for that.
I think you might find any number of TT or TTT results, from amateur
to the professional ranks, where fractions of a seconds made the
difference in placings. When you can measure the drag difference
between a skinny front tire compared to a fatter one, and do a pretty
good mathematical model of a time difference that shows even a
second's advantage for the skinny front tire, all by itself, you need
to come out from hiding behind "it's all in the wash" and other
rhetoric.

> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
> their bike.  Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.

You can believe as you wish on the first count; and sure, races have
been lost because of "lack of clearance", which goes back to the days
of break-a-delic spokes and tin-foil rims, even in bikes with huge
tire clearances.
If you're arguing that a couple of mm's would have made a difference?
Maybe so, on occasion, but that's some pretty fine splitting of hairs
regarding tire rub from an out-of-round wheel.

> How?  Here's how.  A broke young racer can afford only one bike.  He
> buys a carbon fiber wonder with just a whisker of fork clearance.
> Then comes the cold and rain.  Wide tires and fenders would mean he'd
> be able to do a lot more training, but wide tires and fenders just
> don't fit his bike.  So he "trains" by sitting in front of the TV (or
> spinning, or riding rollers, which is _not_ as helpful) and he loses
> to a guy who put more miles on the actual road.

I did some of my best, most helpful training on rollers-- that's one
"builder"-- and stationary trainers, which are another distinct "area"
of training.
Rollers for learning control, balance, riding that proverbial
"straight line", which all BS aside, is one of the most important
skills a newbie racer-- or any rider, for that matter-- can learn.
Stationary trainer for max output sessions (among others) where it's
best not to have to balance, and where effort over time can be much
more closely controlled than in most "road" situations, save doing
"laps" and potentially lots and lots of very short little laps over
the same piece of pavement <g>. IOW, a trainer is great for doing
"intervals", which in one way or another can not be replaced by "road
miles" as usually thought of. You need both, not one or the other.

>
> The disadvantage of whisker-thin clearance is a lack of versatility.
> That translates to less time on that bike.  What is the advantage?  I
> don't believe there is one that's as significant.

"Versatility" again, and ignoring the "whisker-thin" exaggeration at
least for the moment <g>. Instead: "Horses for courses". Including a
"rain bike" for many racers (and non-racers, for that matter), whether
they are "broke" or not. And, in the way many people "roll", a fixed-
gear bike for the fixed-gear stuff, and maybe a casual bike, or an
"errand" bike, a dedicated bike the kid trailer or "trail-a-bke" hooks
up to, a tandem to ride with the kids or the spouse, so on and so
forth.

Then you get into the world of using a tool designed for the job at
hand. That's a big difference from saying that someone's Eastwing 12
oz rip hammer makes a lousy axe and therefore it is a "bad design".
If you've ever used an Eastwing 12 oz rip I'm sure you can
understand-- it is lacking, severely, as an axe, no doubt about that,
but it's a pretty darn good tool when it's used for the purposes it
was meant to be used for. Same with the axe; those are usually not
very good nail-pounders and not much good at all for pulling nails--
short of massive destruction, of course.

Ride what you like, as you do, and be happy! Others are doing the same
and there's nothing "wrong" with what they're doing, either.
--D-y

[thirty-six]

On Apr 12, 9:49 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
>
> > The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
> > with what seems to me to be a bad design.
>
> Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
> back how many years?
> And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
> in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
> design"? Get real.
>
>
>
> > Yes, I'm sure that in your area, and many others, there are plenty of
> > road races in which 25 mm tires are widely considered "too wide."
>
> No no no, I never said anything about 25's being too wide. If you did
> ask, in order to find out what people really think instead of
> guessing, you might well find that a "25" might not be a popular size.
> I'd suggest the reason might not be some kind of "credulity" but
> experience, perhaps parallel to my own, and others in my cohort, that
> a 23mm "nominal" tire, especially a top-quality sew-up, is plenty of
> tire for even rough roads-- short of the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix--
> and that there is a "feel" associated with tires popular in "racing"--
> which of course is one of the reasons that such certain tires are
> popular-- which feel is lacking in, from my experience, the larger
> Clement "Paris-Roubaix" cotton and Del Mondo silk tires.

A 24mm tub is the limit for the front of my criterium styled bike as
it gets a little loose at lower pressures, but the same wheel and tyre
pressure is fine on my clubman's bike of 1950's (which would have been
constructed to run on 1.1/4" beaded tyres and 1" sprints). There is a
geometry change, the clubman's bike has a slacker head and seat angle
and a longer wheelbase. I think there may be more fork rake but I
never compared. The steering has to be designed around the intended
tyre, it's not surprising that a frameset built for a 23mm tub on the
front starts misbehaving with a tub at 28mm

That's a good point, there's nothing made me so worrysome as someone
next to or in front of me that couldn't hold a line.

> Stationary trainer for max output sessions (among others) where it's
> best not to have to balance, and where effort over time can be much
> more closely controlled than in most "road" situations, save doing
> "laps" and potentially lots and lots of very short little laps over
> the same piece of pavement <g>. IOW, a trainer is great for doing
> "intervals", which in one way or another can not be replaced by "road
> miles" as usually thought of. You need both, not one or the other.

I found that my turbo trainer over-restricted so that there was more
wind resistance and less inertia than on the road which hindered
development of sprinting power and top end speed. I believe that many
people use the trainer too early, before they have developed a
fluidity and speed and the trainer then prevents full development.

[James]

It has drop bars and you call it sane? You are slipping.

--
JS.

[Andy Morris]

Couldn't the same argument be made for 8 M5 tapped holes to allow
mudguards and even a rack to be added?

Its probably more to do with keeping the brakes as small and light as
possible.

--
Andy Morris
Andy dot Jinkas at Googlemail

[thirty-six]

That's a very poor argument with the common use of dual-pivot brakes.
There's simply no need.

[DirtRoadie]

Gotta' love the straw arguments.
If a broke young racer NEEDS a multipurpose bike, why would he buy a
something else?
Frank, when will you recognize that he real world does not revolve
around your ridiculous hypothetical people and situations.
But you are always hilarious.

DR

[AMuzi]

Reasonable men differ in both which criteria matter and by
how much. And many other things. Which is good.

[Chalo]

dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> Another part is still "what's the bitch with the
> racers?" Can we hear a cogent account, maybe for once and for all?
> "I don't like them because..." followed by some words that make sense.
> "They make all bicycles more expensive" is dis-allowed, in front, as
> being patently untrue.

Okay, how about "they make all bicycles more retarded", then?

When people make idiotic buying decisions that 1) result in grossly
inflated margins to manufacturers and merchants and 2) display just
how gullible and ego-driven they are, that has the effect of making
the whole industry pander to those easy marks.

Which is all well and good, until it results in people who need a real
bike getting a retarded marketing-driven ego-massage tool that isn't a
good bike instead. And it happens more than a little. When I have to
break out some weird spoke key, take a cassette off, and work with the
spoke key in one hand and a crescent wrench in the other hand to keep
bladed spokes from twisting up, *on a commuter bike that someone
bought on craigslist*, idiots have poisoned the market for real
bikes. Department store bikes are coming with paired-spoke wheels
these days, and with drop bars that break in half so they can fit
their twist-grip shifters. These are the results of retard juice
trickling all the way down into the cycling sewer.

In the meantime, useful items like thumbshifters and 48 spoke wheels
and drum brakes fall off the market because manufacturers are too busy
chasing idiot dollars to stick with their most boringly tried and true
designs.

Accept them or not, but these are reasons why I hate Walter Mitty
chump-assed bikes.

Chalo

[Jay Beattie]

The drop bolt was for allowing 27" bikes to use 700C wheels -- or
where the frame was spec'd for center pulls and had a bridge or crown
that was too high for the approximately 57mm max drop on Campy NR side-
side-pulls.

Brake caliper reach in combination with crown or bridge height is what
determines maximum tire size (assuming the calipers can open wide
enough to clear, too). Campy NR normal reach side-pull brakes popular
in the Merckx days accommodated practically every road tire on the
market -- definitely up to 32mm, and most racing frames had enough
bridge or crown clearance to allow the brake to operate at a 52mm
reach or greater. Open the cam, and the brake would gap enough for any
tire. So, like Chalo says, most racing bikes of the period could be
used for touring by today's standards (with 28mm or 32mm tires -- not
so sure about fatty 35s, though). I put together a '69 PX10 with 32mm
tires for touring (with fenders), and it was a fine bike except for
all the French oddities.

The long wheel base racing bikes of yore, however, tended to be
whippy, particularly in the large sizes, and the market turned towards
"high performance" -- culminating in bikes with stupid-short stays.

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/rigi/RIGI_pix.htm

That has stuck with us, even though short stays and tight clearances
don't have much advantage with today's materials. You can get an
aluminum or CF frame with relatively long stays and slack(er) angles
that will be more responsive than a cramped'81 Gios Torino with SL
tubing. My riding buddy has a CF cross-bike that weighs 17lbs, and he
can haul on that thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Chalo]

James wrote:

>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.
> >
> > http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-for-700c.html
>
> It has drop bars and you call it sane?  You are slipping.

Yeah, well-- at least they are mounted above seat level.

Chalo

[thirty-six]

28" sprints.

> where the frame was spec'd for center pulls and had a bridge or crown
> that was too high for the approximately 57mm max drop on Campy NR side-
> side-pulls.
>
> Brake caliper reach in combination with crown or bridge height is what
> determines maximum tire size (assuming the calipers can open wide
> enough to clear, too). Campy NR normal reach side-pull brakes popular
> in the Merckx days accommodated practically every road tire on the
> market -- definitely up to 32mm, and most racing frames had enough
> bridge or crown clearance to allow the brake to operate at a 52mm
> reach or greater. Open the cam, and the brake would gap enough for any
> tire. So, like Chalo says, most racing bikes of the period could be
> used for touring by today's standards (with 28mm or 32mm tires -- not
> so sure about fatty 35s, though).  I put together a '69 PX10 with 32mm
> tires for touring (with fenders), and it was a fine bike except for
> all the French oddities.
>
> The long wheel base racing bikes of yore, however, tended to be
> whippy, particularly in the large sizes, and the market turned towards
> "high performance" -- culminating in bikes with stupid-short stays.

Wheel stability plays its part. That 1950's clubman's bike with
pencil stays would sway from side to side as I powered over short
rises. Thing was it was quite comforting but on actual hills, it was
obvious that I was losing pace on my mates due to the flex in the
bike. When I sorted out my wheels with some tricks to improve lateral
stability, the problem swaying with the clubman's frame ceased to
exist. It's now a better bike than any other I've experienced. I
believe that modern racing frames need to be as stiff as they are to
compensate for sloppy wheelbuilding and if attention was paid to the
wheels first, then the frame could be specified to suit a more stable
wheelset.

>
> http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/rigi/RIGI_pix.htm
>
> That has stuck with us, even though short stays and tight clearances
> don't have much advantage with today's materials.  You can get an
> aluminum or CF frame with relatively long stays and slack(er) angles
> that will be more responsive than a cramped'81 Gios Torino with SL
> tubing. My riding buddy has a CF cross-bike that weighs 17lbs, and he
> can haul on that thing.

I've used standard SL fork blades at speed over rocks and flint
cobbles and I'd probably be quite happy with a full SL frameset with
superslim lugs.

[James]

On 13/04/12 06:02, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:54 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com"<dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:

>> Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
>> --D-y
>
> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
> with what seems to me to be a bad design.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that in your area, and many others, there are plenty of
> road races in which 25 mm tires are widely considered "too wide." And
> I don't doubt that there are many racers who feel they won a race
> specifically because they were on 23s instead of 25s; or 19s instead
> of 23s, or whatever. I'm not going to address whether or not those
> impressions are correct.
>
> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
> their bike. Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.

If you don't want to go out because it is too cold and wet, borrow a set
of rollers or an ergo. The benefits are all there, and more. There is
little excuse for someone who is motivated.

> How? Here's how. A broke young racer can afford only one bike.

That was me.

> He
> buys a carbon fiber wonder with just a whisker of fork clearance.

No, I couldn't afford one of those. I bought a Repco Superlite. Mine
was blue and white, but otherwise, similar to this.

http://i1005.photobucket.com/albums/af180/tommygunn74/Repco%20Superlight/Image099.jpg?t=1247978487

4130 CroMo, and $437 in '86, IIRC.

> Then comes the cold and rain. Wide tires and fenders would mean he'd
> be able to do a lot more training, but wide tires and fenders just
> don't fit his bike. So he "trains" by sitting in front of the TV (or
> spinning, or riding rollers, which is _not_ as helpful) and he loses
> to a guy who put more miles on the actual road.

Nop. The Superlite has adequate clearance for guards and eyelets for a
rack. In fact I bought a triple, racks and guards, and fitted some
Michelin World Tour tyres (32mm IIRC), and went touring camping. Then
stripped it down and raced on it.

> The disadvantage of whisker-thin clearance is a lack of versatility.
> That translates to less time on that bike. What is the advantage? I
> don't believe there is one that's as significant.

Thankfully here it is not wet all the time. I dislike riding in the
rain and wet, and try hard to avoid those conditions. Regardless I
still manage to get out 2-3 nights a week, even in winter. YMMV. If I
lived in a much wetter environment, I'd choose a different horse to suit
the course. Some folks here resort to clip on guards, for example.

--
JS.

[Chalo]

dustoyevsky wrote:

>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Club ride one day, cyclocross
> > the next, commute to work, overnight tour, and then hit the
> > singletrack.
>
> > When I work on race type bikes from Merckx's day, I note that most of
> > them can take 32 or even 35mm tires.  And why not?  It not only makes
> > them more versatile, but the extra clearance makes them more
> > serviceable and fault tolerant with skinny tires too.
>
> Club ride on a 'cross bike with noisy cantilevers?

C'mon. Cantis are noisy like low spoke count wheels are out of true.
Reasonably likely, but not a necessary condition.

> Commute to work in
> bad-weather slop on a nice (from whatever era) race bike? Race at the
> Driveway on big fat knobby "single-track" tires?

You think it implausible to swap tires or wheels for different
activities?

One $2000 bike is a lot nicer ride than four $500 ones.

Chalo

[thirty-six]

On Apr 12, 11:38 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > Fatties fit fine on sane bikes.
>

> > >http://lovelybike.blogspot.com/2011/04/surly-cross-check-worthy-host-...

>
> > It has drop bars and you call it sane?  You are slipping.
>
> Yeah, well-- at least they are mounted above seat level.
>

The actual height and reach of the bars for racing should be
determined by the capabilities of the rider. The lowest position is
with the hands pushed hard into the hooks with the wrists outside the
drop but many racers fail to use this position preferring the apelook
with their elbows almost locked out and their hands on the drops. Of
course many shops are to blame in increasing the width of the standard
offered handlebar so the technique of shoving the wrists out with
elbows locked at right angles doesn't develop naturally. I wonder if
the "anatomic" craze has played its part in this.

[James]

On 13/04/12 08:31, Chalo wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>>
>> Another part is still "what's the bitch with the
>> racers?" Can we hear a cogent account, maybe for once and for all?
>> "I don't like them because..." followed by some words that make sense.
>> "They make all bicycles more expensive" is dis-allowed, in front, as
>> being patently untrue.
>
> Okay, how about "they make all bicycles more retarded", then?

This from someone who foams at the mouth at the sight of drop bars, is
understandable.

> When people make idiotic buying decisions that 1) result in grossly
> inflated margins to manufacturers and merchants and 2) display just
> how gullible and ego-driven they are, that has the effect of making
> the whole industry pander to those easy marks.

So you're saying people are gullible. How is that the fault of anyone else?

> Which is all well and good, until it results in people who need a real
> bike getting a retarded marketing-driven ego-massage tool that isn't a
> good bike instead.

Not so gullible types can find what they want. It is not difficult.

> And it happens more than a little. When I have to
> break out some weird spoke key, take a cassette off, and work with the
> spoke key in one hand and a crescent wrench in the other hand to keep
> bladed spokes from twisting up, *on a commuter bike that someone
> bought on craigslist*, idiots have poisoned the market for real
> bikes.

No, some gullible fool bought the wrong tool. See it as your challenge
to re-educate them.

> Department store bikes are coming with paired-spoke wheels
> these days, and with drop bars that break in half so they can fit
> their twist-grip shifters. These are the results of retard juice
> trickling all the way down into the cycling sewer.

The bottom end was and still is a sewer. I recall building Repco
Traveller bikes at the LBS.

http://thehumblevintage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Repco-traveller-w-basket.jpg

They were the most retarded bike to build. They never went together and
just worked. Always had to bend the brakes a bit, or a clamp would
stretch because you couldn't tighten it to stop it moving.

It was a dream to put together a more expensive model where the parts
actually were fit for purpose.

> In the meantime, useful items like thumbshifters and 48 spoke wheels
> and drum brakes fall off the market because manufacturers are too busy
> chasing idiot dollars to stick with their most boringly tried and true
> designs.
>
> Accept them or not, but these are reasons why I hate Walter Mitty
> chump-assed bikes.

<yawn> Whatever.

--
JS.

[Jay Beattie]

Note: http://elcyclista.com/?p=691
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHEm0JQ-Sk

Sure, it's nice having a fatty tire bike for winter training --
something that can be abused and ignored, like my commuting bike. And
most poor racers have one . . . or two. If a racer can afford indoor
training gear, he or she can afford a winter beater.

Around here, so-called racers are more likely to have a cross bike
than a road racing bike. Cross racing is like bowling leagues in PDX.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/angryashley/2032841252/

At least they're wearing helmets. -- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Frame designers can allow that sort of thing. Or not.

Here's a Waterford race bike with room for 27mm tubulars
under Campagnolo 450 calipers :
http://www.yellowjersey.org/WIDE27.JPG

Other race bikes not so much, including a 1957 Bates I just
finished which was built, typical to the era, with HP wheels
and Mafac (longish) CP calipers which could span down to a
700C in front but not in back. [new vintage XLong rear
caliper needed]

Campagnolo rear drop bolts, at their inception in 1968, were
intended to replace the popular Universal 61 and Weinmann
999 calipers on frames of the era which came equipped with a
short 610 CP front and a long 750 CP rear. That bolt kludge
allowed Campagnolo to make his SP sets them with only one
tool set for one length of forged brake arms. All the
critical factors in that decision have changed immensely
over the years to the point that tooling is so cheap many
lengths of caliper arm are readily available everywhere.

[DirtRoadie]

> Note:http://elcyclista.com/?p=691http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlHEm0JQ-Sk

>
> Sure, it's nice having a fatty tire bike for winter training --
> something that can be abused and ignored, like my commuting bike.  And
> most poor racers have one . . . or two. If a racer can afford indoor
> training gear, he or she can afford a winter beater.
>
> Around here, so-called racers are more likely to have a cross bike

> than a road racing bike.  Cross racing is like bowling leagues in PDX.http://www.flickr.com/photos/angryashley/2032841252/

>
> At least they're wearing helmets. -- Jay Beattie.

It is a tough decision when you have to choose between spending your
hard earned pay on a helmet vs a jersey (or even and old T-shirt).

Around here, racing and riding takes many forms. While many racers
will not NOT have a TT bike, most (even some of the poor ones) with a
road bike will also have a mountain bike and a cross bike.
Strange, an MTB just doesn't work in a road race, and even a cross
bike is poorly suited to a true MTB course. The obvious problem is
that none of them are versatile enough to be TRULY practical in the
Krygowskian sense.
DR

[AMuzi]

Well, yes but not so much as a cheap used Mercedes which
will eat you alive in parts and special tools.

This is not a uniquely bicycle problem.

[dusto...@mac.com]

Thank you.
If you tell me you can set up cantilevers so they don't squeak or
squawk at least a little, right off the work stand even before they
get dirty or greasy, I'll even believe you, though in my limited
experience with a few 'crossers who attend a certain local ride or
two, and including a Houston ride of yore with a 'crosser or two, I
don't remember hearing cantilever brakes that can compare to modern
brakes with "tilt-able" brake shoe setups.

The market has certainly gone upscale, but then so has the technology.
The ante has gone way up in some respects. But "chump", speaking of a
person or their equipment, where the ante has been met-- what can I
say, my dad worked long hours for middling money, and only got that
later in his career.
Who's the "chump", one who figures out how to get rewarded for his
time, or someone who works for cheap? That gets complicated, so maybe
the pejoratives could be left out of the discussion?

The Walter Mitty thing is about as lame, in most cases, as the place
you're trying to assign to amateur racers. I mean, when I rode my
first TT many years ago, I sure "got" where I fit in amongst all the
rest of the guys at States that day, and even back then I had a pretty
good understanding of the difference between "local, district" guys,
"national guys", distance from them to the pros. Of course, Davis
Phinney and a few other guys changed that status within only a few
years (Baltimore, 1983) . By '84 I was watching the Tour of Texas,
which offered further demonstrations of Mr. Phinney's abilities,
notably a wet crit on 6th Street.
What I'm trying to say is, the locals might "indulge" in a little
fantasy-- "whatever gets you through the race"-- but judging by career
choice, they understand the "15k dream" very, very well. "Locals"
including a Tour de France rider or two besides Lance Armstrong, who,
as long as I'm 'splaining a point here, used to attend the Tuesday
Nighter (outlaw race, a ten-mile circuit, later reduced to 9 miles
approx. per lap, in some rolling hills) and show everyone, even back
when he was a mere Worlds Road Race Champion, well before the first of
the seven TdF wins, what level the pros ride at.
--D-y

[Frank Krygowski]

On Apr 12, 4:10 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Club ride on a 'cross bike with noisy cantilevers? ...

>
> No thanks. "Horses for courses", thank you very much.

Every club ride I've done for 25 years has been on a bike with
cantilevers. Noise has been rare.

- Frank Krygowski

[Peter Cole]

On 4/12/2012 7:23 PM, Chalo wrote:
> dustoyevsky wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> Club ride one day, cyclocross
>>> the next, commute to work, overnight tour, and then hit the
>>> singletrack.
>>
>>> When I work on race type bikes from Merckx's day, I note that most of
>>> them can take 32 or even 35mm tires. And why not? It not only makes
>>> them more versatile, but the extra clearance makes them more
>>> serviceable and fault tolerant with skinny tires too.

All of my (5) road bikes are either modern touring frames or vintage
sports tourers. They all can take 35's.

>>
>> Club ride on a 'cross bike with noisy cantilevers?
>
> C'mon. Cantis are noisy like low spoke count wheels are out of true.
> Reasonably likely, but not a necessary condition.

I've done lots of fast club rides with a canti equipped touring frame.
No noise, not slow. FWIW, I don't brake much in a pace line anyway.

>
>> Commute to work in
>> bad-weather slop on a nice (from whatever era) race bike? Race at the
>> Driveway on big fat knobby "single-track" tires?
>
> You think it implausible to swap tires or wheels for different
> activities?

I have a large collection of tires and spare wheels. I run anything from
23mm light slicks to 35mm knobby studs.

> One $2000 bike is a lot nicer ride than four $500 ones.

I built my last bike for ~$500, all new components, it's pretty sweet.
I've never ridden a $2,000 bike, but I've ridden with many $6,000 ones,
and I wasn't jealous in the least.

>
> Chalo

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 12, 11:06 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:

> All of my (5) road bikes are either modern touring frames or vintage
> sports tourers. They all can take 35's.

"Ride what you like", no problems here as I've said a time or two,
mean it.

Slight nit-pick: aren't you about 6'6", Peter? That kind of changes
"things" when talking about long chain stays and geometry in general,
compared to (at least) the 53.x-55 c-c bikes I ride.

> I've done lots of fast club rides with a canti equipped touring frame.

I've done the same, minus the canti's. Sometimes centerpulls,
sometimes 27" wheels, maybe lightly filed brake caliper slots, and at
a very late date I finally found and mounted drop bolts f&r-- Dia
Compe? I'd have to go look. Anyhow, not Campy which to the best of my
knowledge didn't make a front (open to correction) and a matched pair.
Ebay score, those can be expensive when found.

> No noise, not slow. FWIW, I don't brake much in a pace line anyway.

Good on the noise-lessness, I knew I would hear testimonials and more
power to you. Nope, I never said "slow", whatsoever. I said I strongly
preferred the handling of my road bikes (esp. the Merckx Corsa) to the
nice Holdsworth and very nice Roberts touring frames I rode on the
group rides of yore, 100+ mile dirt-road bonanzas taken at speed.

Hey, guess what? I don't brake much in a group whether it's 'lining or
not <g>. Geeze, Peter.
I think the worst I ever heard was on an old Alan alu 'cross bike.
Phew, I'm sure it was better with some glop in the works, but dry? Ow!

I will go and learn of cantilever brakes, I promise. Even though it
looks like discs are gonna rule before long.

(someone asked):

> > You think it implausible to swap tires or wheels for different
> > activities?

No. I think it's a real good idea, like when I used to have "race
wheels" (sewups) and "other wheels" (at least one set that could have
fattie clinchers mounted).
I did most riding, warming up and cooling down on the clinchers and
saved the sewups for events, meaning between the time they said "Go!"
and when we crossed the finish line, and then right back over to the
car for the bombers for cool-down. Impecunious racer reality.

> I have a large collection of tires and spare wheels. I run anything from
> 23mm light slicks to 35mm knobby studs.

Amen. 23 slicks in the snow/ice, probably not so good. Ditto studs on
hot asphalt. Horses for courses.

> > One $2000 bike is a lot nicer ride than four $500 ones.

> I built my last bike for ~$500, all new components, it's pretty sweet.
> I've never ridden a $2,000 bike, but I've ridden with many $6,000 ones,
> and I wasn't jealous in the least.

I rode one of the $6000 ones once. Really nice custom cf, from the guy
who won the Bicycling Editors' Shootout, with Dura Ace. I'd like two
in different colors, made for me, of course, with an extra set of
wheels for each, if less size/tire type than listed above, and some
variation in cassette options. One of them could be a triple,
actually.

Not real for me at this point in my life. Happy with my scrounger
bikes, 9sp Campy, Ti frames, one old 8sp Tommasini.
Life first, then bikes and I'd gladly bribe a builder to get on the
short list, no problem there.
--D-y

[datakoll]

Before Armstrong, was the riding population segment demanding narrow race tires much larger than today when casual riding, silk road/cruiser continues growing with 2 or more hanging from every rec vehicle ? The producers are forced to buy more steel. More MTB steel. MTB steel for road bikes. Itsa visual thing, no think.

The new buyer subconsciously imposes an MTB image onto his new tailight road bike. Waht does he know of geometry ?

[datakoll]

off course I have no cred here, a non racer, but miles on a Raleigh, a few on a Redline Monodog, differences in accuracy of body/frame movements communicating to tire contac patchs for straight line speed, is obvious. A total impression of frame spec's of which the rear triangle width is a part.

Were experiments done comparing race geometries with wide or narrow rear triangle as a variable ? You would think so trying in to find an advantage.

Wide was discarded. Beyond using more steel ?

I'd move for 35mm. There's a lot of patchy loose surfaces out there in the 'bike lane' and room for the rear to go out of line without cawsing excessive tooth grinding.

[datakoll]

remebering post WW2 road surfaces were less than chip seal standards

[Dan O]

If I was racing I could see ending a ride if e.g. some spokes break
and the wheel can no longer be made straight enough to turn free
between the forks or stays; but if I'm commuting dozens of miles, I
want to be able to keep going even if it means opening the brakes all
the way.

[David Scheidt]

Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
:23mm light slicks to 35mm knobby studs.

:> One $2000 bike is a lot nicer ride than four $500 ones.

:I built my last bike for ~$500, all new components, it's pretty sweet.
:I've never ridden a $2,000 bike, but I've ridden with many $6,000 ones,
:and I wasn't jealous in the least.

I commute on a $2k bike. It's pretty sweat. It would probably make
Chalo's head explode though: clearance for 2" tires and fenders, disc
brakes, generator hub and lights, internal gear hub, drop bars and a
brifter.


--
sig 13

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 13, 8:26 am, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:

You can spend $2,500 on a Schmidt dynamo hub and a Rohloff speed hub
wheelset with Chalo approved fatty rims and tires. You can spend
$2-3K on a custom steel frame with lots of tire clearance. In other
words, you can spend $6K on a commuter that climbs like a boat anchor.
That certainly does not make me jealous.

Nothing makes me jealous when it comes to bikes except the ability to
make them. If I were going to dump a bunch of money on a bike, it
would be to go to the UBI frame building class. I worked with a frame
builder a million years ago and know how to braze, but I've never
built a whole frame. -- Jay Beattie.

[Dan O]

I got that off my bucket list at age 14 :-)

But yeah - it would be nice to really *build* your dream bike.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Peter Cole:

>I run anything from
>23mm light slicks to 35mm knobby studs.

Can you comment on the diff between tire sizes when riding with a
group? i.e. is there a significant increase in required effort
between, say, 28mm, and, say, 35mm ?
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jay Beattie]

Yes and no:

1. It depends where the group is riding. If it is riding up a long
well-paved climb on a sunny day, a lighter 28mm tire will require less
effort to get to the top. OTOH, if you are riding a fire trail in the
rain, then the 35mm tire may prevent slippage and climb more
efficiently.

2. It depends on the tire. There is a considerable weight and riding
difference between my 35mm lightly patterned OTC Performance tires and
my 28mm Conti slick tires. The latter are faster climbing tires. I
have some Bontrager Hardcase 28mm tires that are slower climbing than
my 35mm tires.

3.

[Frank Krygowski]

dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>
> If you tell me you can set up cantilevers so they don't squeak or
> squawk at least a little, right off the work stand even before they

> get dirty or greasy, I'll even believe you...

Seriously? You can't do that?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

Why is it so different here in the Netherlands? Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?

>
>>
>> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
>> with what seems to me to be a bad design.
>

> Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
> back how many years?

Um... How about last year, when I rode with a racer who was saying he'd
buy ceramic bearing balls if they weren't so expensive? Do _you_
believe those things make a significant difference?

> And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
> in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
> design"? Get real.

A frame that heavily restricts tire size is bad design.

Do you need a separate electric drill if you're drilling 1/8" holes, and
another one if you're drilling 1/4" holes, and a third if you're
drilling 3/8" holes?

Me, I've got a drill with a 3/8" chuck. I use it for anything from
1/16" to 3/8" and more. That's elementary versatility. It's the
opposite of some bike frames.

>> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
>> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
>> their bike. Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
>> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.
>

> You can believe as you wish on the first count...

In other words, you can't identify a measurable performance advantage
for a fork that barely clears a tire, either?



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

Op vrijdag 13 april 2012 23:33:29 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski het volgende:

> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
> >
> >>
> >> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
> >> with what seems to me to be a bad design.
> >
> > Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
> > back how many years?
>
> Um... How about last year, when I rode with a racer who was saying he'd
> buy ceramic bearing balls if they weren't so expensive? Do _you_
> believe those things make a significant difference?
>
> > And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
> > in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
> > design"? Get real.
>
> A frame that heavily restricts tire size is bad design.
>
> Do you need a separate electric drill if you're drilling 1/8" holes, and
> another one if you're drilling 1/4" holes, and a third if you're
> drilling 3/8" holes?

Do you use the same drill to drill holes in concrete and in soft wood? I don't. You have reenforced concrete in your houses right? Or is it all wood and cardboard walls?

>
> Me, I've got a drill with a 3/8" chuck. I use it for anything from
> 1/16" to 3/8" and more. That's elementary versatility. It's the
> opposite of some bike frames.
>
> >> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
> >> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
> >> their bike. Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
> >> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.
> >
> > You can believe as you wish on the first count...
>
> In other words, you can't identify a measurable performance advantage
> for a fork that barely clears a tire, either?
>

Why does a road bike need 28-35 mm tires? It doesn't gets faster using wider tires. A road bike is about performance/speed, so a frame optimized for skinnier tires isn't a bad design.
If you want wider tires/fenders get another frame. They are out there, really.

Lou

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Lou Holtman:

>Why is it so different here in the Netherlands?
>Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore
>roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?

Around where I live (Southeastern Pennsylvania) there is neither
the culture of bikes as utilitarian devices nor the
infrastructure to enable any significant number of people to use
them as such.

For instance from the development my house is in to a shopping
center in our town is about 4 minutes thirty seconds on a bike;
but more like 10-14 minutes by car depending on traffic and
lights.

People in our development should be using bikes left and right
for quick errands into that shopping center - but I'm probably
the only one out of several hundred who does.

The reason seems pretty clear to me: it's worth your life to ride
a bike that short distance unless you engage in some "creative"
riding. The way I do it, no problem at all.... but I would
never, ever try to get some innocent middle-aged person to
emulate it.

But I don't think it's quite as bad as people winding up with
hardcore road bikes as errand/commuter bikes. Never seen
anything like that myself. Doesn't mean it does not happen, but
I don't see it as very common.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> Why is it so different here in the Netherlands? Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?
>

I think what's far more common here is for a performance-oriented
cyclist to buy a bike for racing and training, but never use any bike at
all for errands or commutes. All errands and commutes are usually done
by jumping in a car, even for short distances. That applies to even
most cyclists.

I once saw a cartoon from a French bike magazine. It showed a large
number of cars parked in front of a building, all with bicycles on their
roofs. The caption (translated) was simply "American bicycle club."

I think most Americans didn't get the joke.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 13, 3:18 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

There are spin class heroes who fit the mold, but most of my friends
who are serious cyclists do commute or do use their bikes for
utilitarian purposes. I ride to the store, but I could walk, too.
It's only about a half mile away. I have chosen to live near work and
amenities, and assume the burden of noise, etc. I could be like Dan O
and listen to crickets at night. Instead, I listen to the distant
whoosh of traffic.

Peter Cresswell's comments are interesting to me because I have never
lived in a place where the streets were so dangerous that I couldn't
ride, particularly if it meant saving time over driving. There are
those places, though, where bicycling is not safe. -- Jay Beattie.

[Jay Beattie]

On Apr 13, 2:52 pm, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Op vrijdag 13 april 2012 23:33:29 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski het volgende:
>
>
>
>
>
> > dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
> > > On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> > >>> Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
>
> > >> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
> > >> with what seems to me to be a bad design.
>
> > > Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
> > > back how many years?
>
> > Um... How about last year, when I rode with a racer who was saying he'd
> > buy ceramic bearing balls if they weren't so expensive?  Do _you_
> > believe those things make a significant difference?
>
> > > And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
> > > in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
> > > design"? Get real.
>
> > A frame that heavily restricts tire size is bad design.
>
> > Do you need a separate electric drill if you're drilling 1/8" holes, and
> > another one if you're drilling 1/4" holes, and a third if you're
> > drilling 3/8" holes?
>
> Do you use the same drill to drill holes in concrete and in soft wood? I don't. You have reenforced concrete in your houses right? Or is it all wood and cardboard walls?

Man, I use a hammer drill for sinking a picture hook in my daylight
basement. Three out of four walls are poured concrete. I'm totally
ready for the zombie apocalypse.

>
> > Me, I've got a drill with a 3/8" chuck.  I use it for anything from
> > 1/16" to 3/8" and more.  That's elementary versatility.  It's the
> > opposite of some bike frames.
>
> > >> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
> > >> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
> > >> their bike.  Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
> > >> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.
>
> > > You can believe as you wish on the first count...
>
> > In other words, you can't identify a measurable performance advantage
> > for a fork that barely clears a tire, either?
>
> Why does a road bike need 28-35 mm tires? It doesn't gets faster using wider tires. A road bike is about performance/speed, so a frame optimized for skinnier tires isn't a bad design.
> If you want wider tires/fenders get another frame. They are out there, really.

You are not fast. You do not need a fast bike. Look in to my eyes.
You are getting sleepy . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

[Ralph Barone]

Trade in 1/2" of tire for a full set of racks and I'd be pretty happy with
that.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 13, 4:19 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

Never tried. One of the benefits of not working in a bike shop <g>.
To the best of my knowledge, in a limited field of examples, I've
never heard a really quiet canti-equipped bike.
Of course, before the "tilt-able" brake shoe fittings, caliper brakes
could be plenty noisy, too.
How long did that take?
Do newer canti's have adjustable toe brake pads? I should go look. I
might get a bike with canti's on it someday, you never know!
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 13, 4:29 pm, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it so different here in the Netherlands? Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?

I commuted on my Merckx Corsa back in the day (ca. 1987). Approx 17mi
one way, to a plumbing job. Work clothes in daypack.
The first time the job super (light commercial housing project for the
Air Force at the old Bergstrom AFB in Austin TX) saw me in lycra
pants, he about shit.
"You're not going to work like that!!!" Well, no, I wouldn't want to
ruin these nice pants, Mr. Boss Sir <g>.

It's what I had handy and it was a good commuter, too. It doesn't rain
much, or usually for long, around here. Otherwise I would have dragged
one of the touring bikes out of mothballs. Not my choice of rides
except for touring or maybe, at times, some store runs. I lived close
enough to walk in those days and that way I didn't have to lock up any
bike and have it subjected to abuse, or have it stolen.
--D-y

[thirty-six]

On Apr 14, 6:36 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 4:19 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > dustoyev...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > > If you tell me you can set up cantilevers so they don't squeak or
> > > squawk at least a little, right off the work stand even before they
> > > get dirty or greasy, I'll even believe you...
>
> > Seriously?  You can't do that?
>
> Never tried. One of the benefits of not working in a bike shop <g>.
> To the best of my knowledge, in a limited field of examples, I've
> never heard a really quiet canti-equipped bike.

you didn't notice them.

> Of course, before the "tilt-able" brake shoe fittings, caliper brakes
> could be plenty noisy, too.
> How long did that take?

Never used them and I don't have squealy brakes because it's not the
rim brake assembly that causes the squeal, it's the wheel rim.

> Do newer canti's have adjustable toe brake pads? I should go look. I
> might get a bike with canti's on it someday, you never know!
> --D-y

Or a well-built pair of wheels.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 13, 4:33 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> Um... How about last year, when I rode with a racer who was saying he'd
> buy ceramic bearing balls if they weren't so expensive?  Do _you_
> believe those things make a significant difference?

My mechanic said they were smoother in some outboard BB's. But a
"preferable" item, compared to quality steel balls? No.
Insufficient durability.

> A frame that heavily restricts tire size is bad design.

Not when the frame will accept any tire likely to be used in it, for
the purpose the frame is intended.

> Do you need a separate electric drill if you're drilling 1/8" holes, and
> another one if you're drilling 1/4" holes, and a third if you're
> drilling 3/8" holes?

Silly boy!
I need one drill to make holes in concrete or "float", my old "non-
cordless" 3/8 Milwaukee hammer drill, and another drill to drill "just
holes". The Milwaukee (one of the best $200 I ever spent) will also
disengage the hammer function and drill "regular holes" in stuff other
than where you need a hammer drill, but it is kind of big and
cumbersome; not a good fit between wall studs, for instance. Much
better is a 1/4" drill, and the cordless models people are using these
days are handy.
"Horses for courses" personified, in the world of tools.

> Me, I've got a drill with a 3/8" chuck.  I use it for anything from
> 1/16" to 3/8" and more.  That's elementary versatility.  It's the
> opposite of some bike frames.

Except I wouldn't want to race on my touring frames. I could, but even
among "road" pattern frames, some are much better at carving corners
than others. I won crit races on my Merckx but it wasn't as stiff
laterally as a couple of frames I raced on later, and, for all that it
was by far my favorite dirt road bike because of its sure tracking and
excellent "aiming" qualities ("avoiding stuff you really, really don't
want to hit when you're going fast"), it had a fairly low BB, so it
was easier to strike a pedal in a corner-- something you didn't want
to do with those old Campy "quill" pedals), and it just didn't "arc"
through hard-surface corners like my Zullo Micro-Air Criterium bike
("the only one that never broke"), or a Gios Compact, or the Tommasini
Prestige I still have. None of those bikes, especially the Gios, could
match the Merckx in the dirt/gravel/rocks. I mean, I could ride any of
those bikes, including the touring bikes anywhere, and I got a second
in a 'cross race one time on that Zullo (on a muddy course, too, with
no spare bike or pit crew <g>) but there we are again, "horses for
courses". BTW, I thought they were all fine frames, each in their own
way. Maybe the paint was better here and there, or the rest of them
didn't have those stupid rubber doughnut things for internal top tube
cable routing like the Gios did, but I didn't care one way or another
which one I rode except in relation to how I thought it did the job at
hand. A toolbox full of different bikes, if you will. Or won't <g>.

>
> >> What I'm addressing is whether anyone ever won a non-time-trial race
> >> _because_ it was impossible to put, say, a 28 mm tire plus a fender on
> >> their bike.  Not only do I think it's never happened, I think races
> >> have been lost because a bike lacked clearance.
>
> > You can believe as you wish on the first count...
>
> In other words, you can't identify a measurable performance advantage
> for a fork that barely clears a tire, either?

Horsefeathers. I've never gone to a wind tunnel with a variety of
forks and tires (and wheel configs) and run the numbers. I can tell
you that if one fork/tire/wheel combination showed a second's
advantage over a 40k TT, that combo would be used, given a more-or-
less practical design. The "TT" layout is pushed in pro racing to the
point where not everyone can cope, or at least cope all the time. But,
when you get to the end and they start figuring the GC...

I can tell you that I've seen one pro TT (Prologue, 2002 TdF in
Luxembourg) and the difference in speed between the guys who need to
go fast for GC and the guys who can't or won't is amazing-- especially
on a wet, narrow course run between those nasty crowd barriers with
the curved-down feet that stick out. "Why I'm glad to be an American
parking-lot amateur bicycle racer", for at least one example.

Lessee, what were the results of that Prologue...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
2002_Tour_de_France,_Prologue_to_Stage_10>

Lance Armstrong, famed for extensive work in the wind tunnel, beat
Laurent Jalabert by... 2 seconds, over just 7km. If you read through
that web page, you might guess that, had Jalabert somehow gained a few
seconds-- and no word here on what LJ did in the wind tunnel-- he
might well have had Yellow after the Prologue and maybe even kept it
for a stage or three-- especially if he had it after the Prologue. I
bet he wished he had...

Anyhow, if an advantage in speed can be measured, it will be
advertised and sold, as well it should be. I'd call that "good
design"; closely tailoring a design and execution of a tool so it is
"best" for one specific job. Just like that Eastwing rip hammer. One
of the best $21 + tax I ever spent, even with the limited use a
plumber properly puts a claw hammer to.
--D-y

[thirty-six]

To ride pack-horse tracks, grass-track racing and cyclo-cross. I
remembered all the polo riders have special bikes, all of them.

> It doesn't gets faster using wider tires.

Yes it does when the ground is soft or very rough.

> A road bike is about performance/speed, so a frame optimized for skinnier tires isn't a bad design.

Then it's not a road bike, it's a time-trial bike for good surfaces
only, or a criterium bike where 23mm tub's give the quickest turn-in..

> If you want wider tires/fenders get another frame. They are out there, really.
>
> Lou

I'll make do and stay on cheap tubs, I can't justify another frame
without getting a good price for what I have first.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 13, 7:52 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 3:18 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Lou Holtman wrote:
> > > Why is it so different here in the Netherlands? Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?
>
> > I think what's far more common here is for a performance-oriented
> > cyclist to buy a bike for racing and training, but never use any bike at
> > all for errands or commutes.  All errands and commutes are usually done
> > by jumping in a car, even for short distances.  That applies to even
> > most cyclists.
>
> > I once saw a cartoon from a French bike magazine.  It showed a large
> > number of cars parked in front of a building, all with bicycles on their
> > roofs.  The caption (translated) was simply "American bicycle club."
>
> > I think most Americans didn't get the joke.

There is a huge gulf of experience and knowledge. It's about to close
dramatically. Not gloating.

The shop owner I "raced for" (beneficent sponsor, small shop, happy to
use the term) ca. 1980 showed me that cartoon and may have "put it on
the wall"-- where the customers couldn't see, of course. We all
thought it was great. Like the similar one, where the marquee on the
building said "Convention of Fully Functional Families", but there
were only three cars in the huge parking lot. Nyuck nyuck.
>
> There are spin class heroes who fit the mold (snip)
"Choose your spin classes carefully".

> Peter Cresswell's comments are interesting to me because I have never
> lived in a place where the streets were so dangerous that I couldn't
> ride, particularly if it meant saving time over driving. There are
> those places, though, where bicycling is not safe. -- Jay Beattie.

Yeah. Houston, for one.
--D-y

[Chalo]

Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> Why is it so different here in the Netherlands?

I can't answer that.

> Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?

Some, yes. Those for whom "best" is best, without considering fitness
for purpose.

See the recent posting about a 58-year-old casual rider who was killed
when his plastic racing bike broke.

Chalo

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 14, 12:59 am, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:

> > To the best of my knowledge, in a limited field of examples, I've
> > never heard a really quiet canti-equipped bike.
>
> you didn't notice them.

Yeah, I probably "noticed them" because of the wires and fittings
hanging out all over the place. "Give that one a little extra room!"
<g>

> Never used them and I don't have squealy brakes because it's not the
> rim brake assembly that causes the squeal, it's the wheel rim.

It's an interaction-- when you can stop squeal by adjusting the toe-in
of the brake pad without changing anything on the rim, it's not just
the rim.
--D-y

[David Scheidt]

Ralph Barone <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

It'll fit those. I have a rear fitted, but don't need a front, but
it's got the fittings for one.

--
sig 122

[Frank Krygowski]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Lou Holtman:
>> Why is it so different here in the Netherlands?
>> Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore
>> roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?
>
> Around where I live (Southeastern Pennsylvania) there is neither
> the culture of bikes as utilitarian devices nor the
> infrastructure to enable any significant number of people to use
> them as such.
>
> For instance from the development my house is in to a shopping
> center in our town is about 4 minutes thirty seconds on a bike;
> but more like 10-14 minutes by car depending on traffic and
> lights.
>
> People in our development should be using bikes left and right
> for quick errands into that shopping center - but I'm probably
> the only one out of several hundred who does.
>
> The reason seems pretty clear to me: it's worth your life to ride
> a bike that short distance unless you engage in some "creative"
> riding.

Could you explain that last part? I don't understand your meaning. Thanks.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> Op vrijdag 13 april 2012 23:33:29 UTC+2 schreef Frank Krygowski het volgende:
>> dusto...@mac.com wrote:
>>> On Apr 12, 3:02 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Again, "what's the bitch with 'the racers'"?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bitch isn't with the racers, except perhaps their credulity. It's
>>>> with what seems to me to be a bad design.
>>>
>>> Oh my God, Frank. You've known a few guys who believed ad hype, going
>>> back how many years?
>>
>> Um... How about last year, when I rode with a racer who was saying he'd
>> buy ceramic bearing balls if they weren't so expensive? Do _you_
>> believe those things make a significant difference?
>>
>>> And "bad design"? Oh my God, Part Deux (or would that be "Dieu"). Bad
>>> in what way? Functioning well for the purpose intended is "bad
>>> design"? Get real.
>>
>> A frame that heavily restricts tire size is bad design.
>>
>> Do you need a separate electric drill if you're drilling 1/8" holes, and
>> another one if you're drilling 1/4" holes, and a third if you're
>> drilling 3/8" holes?
>
> Do you use the same drill to drill holes in concrete and in soft wood? I don't.

Actually, I do use the same drill motor, the 3/8" variable speed
reversing one. I use a carbide-tipped masonry bit for concrete - not
that I drill concrete very often.

> You have reenforced concrete in your houses right? Or is it all wood and cardboard walls?

I know of only one person whose house is reinforced concrete. The
person that built it reputedly had a sort of survivalist bent.

My house, like most around this latitude, has a full basement with
poured concrete floor, concrete block masonry basement walls, and a wall
construction based on (nominal) 2x4 studs 16" on center. Mine's old
enough to have genuine plaster on the inside, wood sheathing and wood
siding outside (now covered with vinyl siding). The newer upstairs
remodeling was similar, but with drywall instead of plaster.

>> In other words, you can't identify a measurable performance advantage
>> for a fork that barely clears a tire, either?
>>
>
> Why does a road bike need 28-35 mm tires? It doesn't gets faster using wider tires. A road bike is about performance/speed, so a frame optimized for skinnier tires isn't a bad design.
> If you want wider tires/fenders get another frame. They are out there, really.

I don't dispute that a cyclist can buy one bike that barely clears 25 mm
tires and use it for racing, and buy another bike that clears 28 mm and
use it for relaxed day rides, and buy a third bike that clears 32 mm and
use it if he plans to encounter gravel or rough roads. But I think that
the latter bike will be as fast as the first, if the wheels and gearing
and weight are reasonably similar.

Understand, I'm old and definitely slowing down, especially on hills.
But I was once considered quite fast among my riding friends; yet I
always rode my touring bike, while they'd do the rides on their racing
bikes. For example, I recall the first of my friends who bought a
carbon fiber wonder "to keep up with Frank." He was disappointed when
it didn't help.

I think the engine matters much more than the bike. And I think
reducing the clearance between the tire and the fork blades doesn't help
anything to any measurable degree.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I agree that if an advantage in speed can be measured, it will be
advertised and sold. However, I don't recall ever seeing an
advertisement saying "Our bike's forks barely clear a 25mm tire, so it's
XXX faster."

And I guess part of our difference in philosophy is mirrored in our tool
collection. I've got just one electric drill that I use for everything
(except the antique drill with the bad bearing I inherited from my
wife's dad). Lots of hand tools (many found while cycling) but I buy
new ones only when really necessary, when the ones I have are not
versatile enough to perform the job at hand - a rarity.

I have had one house for over 30 years, hardly ever changed jobs, two
cars with over 100,000 miles, same motorcycle since 1986, just one wife...

I do have several bikes, though. But no need for one with close clearance.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

David Scheidt wrote:
> Peter Cole<peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
> :23mm light slicks to 35mm knobby studs.
>
> :> One $2000 bike is a lot nicer ride than four $500 ones.
>
> :I built my last bike for ~$500, all new components, it's pretty sweet.
> :I've never ridden a $2,000 bike, but I've ridden with many $6,000 ones,
> :and I wasn't jealous in the least.
>
> I commute on a $2k bike. It's pretty sweat. It would probably make
> Chalo's head explode though: clearance for 2" tires and fenders, disc
> brakes, generator hub and lights, internal gear hub, drop bars and a
> brifter.

Which rear hub, and which brifter? I wasn't aware they'd match.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

My cantis all have rounded washers, either partly spherical or partly
cylindrical, to allow adjusting toe in. That's by pivoting the entire
brake shoe.

I'll freely admit that cantis are much more tricky to get right.
Loosening one nut or screw gives about five degrees of freedom, and you
need to keep them all correct as you tighten. But still, it's never
taken me more than five minutes, then they're good for a long, long time.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

On Apr 14, 8:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

I think he meant to say *not* worth your life, and I think he was
supposing this is what the *other* people (the ones who don't ride)
are reasoning.

[Dan O]

On Apr 13, 10:42 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
wrote:

> On Apr 13, 4:29 pm, Lou Holtman <lou.holt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it so different here in the Netherlands? Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?
>

Many of them, yes.

> I commuted on my Merckx Corsa back in the day (ca. 1987). Approx 17mi
> one way, to a plumbing job. Work clothes in daypack.
> The first time the job super (light commercial housing project for the
> Air Force at the old Bergstrom AFB in Austin TX) saw me in lycra
> pants, he about shit.
> "You're not going to work like that!!!" Well, no, I wouldn't want to
> ruin these nice pants, Mr. Boss Sir <g>.
>
> It's what I had handy and it was a good commuter, too. It doesn't rain
> much, or usually for long, around here. Otherwise I would have dragged
> one of the touring bikes out of mothballs. Not my choice of rides

> except for touring...

I started off commuting on an '86 Trek 400. It wasn't the liveliest
of bikes, but sporty enough for lots of joy. It was really coming
along nicely - gradually upgraded and optimized; but then I broke it.

So I got a Surly Long Haul Trucker, which is a sturdy, dependable,
capable workhorse, handles like a tank, but is no beach cruiser, and
still offers ample bikey fun along the way.

But occasional rides to work when the weather is nice enough for my
Miyata 914 (now *that's* a lively bike) or '87 Stumpjumper can be
especially joyful. I wouldn't subject these bikes to day in, day out
commuting, though - nor would they be well suited for it (the
Stumpjumper might, but not as it is currently configured).

> ... or maybe, at times, some store runs. I lived close

> enough to walk in those days and that way I didn't have to lock up any
> bike and have it subjected to abuse, or have it stolen.

I live close enough to walk, but enjoy short rides on my wheelie
bike. Originally purchased for $65, with not more than $100 total
invested, I rationalize that I can risk losing it to the convenience
of not bothering to lock it up. Of course, the more I ride it the
more attached to it I become; but it doesn't leave my hometown, where
people mostly seem to respect each other, and so far nobody's touched
it. I might get away with the same in other nearby communities, but
the bike would almost certainly be gone in no time if I tried this in
e.g. the city where I work.

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 14, 11:13 am, Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com>
wrote:

> > Do you use the same drill to drill holes in concrete and in soft wood? I don't.
>
> Actually, I do use the same drill motor, the 3/8" variable speed
> reversing one.  I use a carbide-tipped masonry bit for concrete - not
> that I drill concrete very often.

For my professional use, the hammer drill is so much faster that it's
the only way. Carbide or just junk cheapo steel "masonry" bits, I can
use either and the holes-- mostly small-diameter for anchor mounting--
get drilled nice and quick. The noise is impressive, too. <g>

> I don't dispute that a cyclist can buy one bike that barely clears 25 mm
> tires and use it for racing, and buy another bike that clears 28 mm and
> use it for relaxed day rides, and buy a third bike that clears 32 mm and
> use it if he plans to encounter gravel or rough roads.  But I think that
> the latter bike will be as fast as the first, if the wheels and gearing
> and weight are reasonably similar.
>
> Understand, I'm old and definitely slowing down, especially on hills.
> But I was once considered quite fast among my riding friends; yet I
> always rode my touring bike, while they'd do the rides on their racing
> bikes.  For example, I recall the first of my friends who bought a
> carbon fiber wonder "to keep up with Frank."  He was disappointed when
> it didn't help.
>
> I think the engine matters much more than the bike.  And I think
> reducing the clearance between the tire and the fork blades doesn't help
> anything to any measurable degree.

Certainly, the engine matters most, at all levels of ability. And
certainly, the "technological arms race" only makes financial sense,
so to speak, when there's money on the line.

If your "race" with your friend had been 125 miles with lots of hills
or perhaps a Euro col or two...

Maybe you had to push a little harder to make sure to finish ahead of
that new cf bike <g>?

Until someone goes to the wind tunnel, who knows what is truly "aero"?
We have seen surprises especially IRT rider position-- "lowest" isn't
always fastest.

Point being, if a race bike is made to "look like a race bike", what's
the problem if that's all it's going to be used for, especially IRT
tire size? Why does a fork have to be taller and heavier than
necessary before you think that it isn't a "bad" design? You clearly
have some kind of emotional bias against race bikes, Frank.

No one is forcing you to buy such a configuration and despite what
some of the nabobs of negativity around here say, high-end racing
bikes have certainly not driven "practical" bikes out of the showrooms
and catalogs. Quite to the contrary, in spite of a lot of economic
difficulty over the last several years, offerings at least in the bike
shops I've seen have really proliferated, all the way up and down the
price spectrum. Moment of silence for the 48-hole hub? Maybe so; there
might be "casualties" here and there but "the market" is pretty crazy
with variation.
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

The fork broke, according to the story and what looks like a "best
guess".

I broke a steel fork once, while warming up for a motorpacing session
behind a Honda Hawk set up with a rear roller.
My bike (by brand) was "famous" for breaking forks, and scuttlebutt
was that it was not the only frame noted for breaking there, while
other frames had stories of repeated breaks elsewhere. Off the top of
my head, I could name at least one high-esteem USA-maker bike frame
that at least cracked, if a pre-flight inspection saved a nasty
accident there.
And that's without ever having actually worked in a bike shop.

The fork allegedly at fault had a recall on it. The owner either
didn't know about the recall, or perhaps chose not to act on it. Maybe
there was some kind of a problem at the place where he bought the
bike, either in spreading information (specifically, contacting buyer/
owners of affected machines) or accepting responsibility in other
ways?
--D-y

[Chalo]

dustoyevsky wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:

> >
> > Lou Holtman wrote:
> > >
> > > Are the Usians so dumb to end up with a hardcore roadbike as an errand/commuter bike?
> >
> > Some, yes.  Those for whom "best" is best, without considering fitness
> > for purpose.
> >
> > See the recent posting about a 58-year-old casual rider who was killed
> > when his plastic racing bike broke.
>

> The fork broke, according to the story and what looks like a "best
> guess".
>
> I broke a steel fork once, while warming up for a motorpacing session
> behind a Honda Hawk set up with a rear roller.
> My bike (by brand) was "famous" for breaking forks, and scuttlebutt
> was that it was not the only frame noted for breaking there, while
> other frames had stories of repeated breaks elsewhere.

You're talking about racing bikes, right? That's what I'm talking
about, anyway-- racing bikes with intentionally small structural
safety margins being used by folks who have nothing whatsoever to gain
in return for the increased risk of problems.

Chalo

[dusto...@mac.com]

On Apr 14, 5:03 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygowREM...@gEEmail.com> considered Sat, 14 Apr
> 2012 12:31:34 -0400 the perfect time to write:

> ISTM that the significant point is not that there's anything
> particularly wrong with a close clearance bike in itself, but that a
> close clearance bike should really be among the last resorts of the
> medium to top level racer for whom a couple of seconds over many miles
> might be significant, and probably the last bike in the stable, rather
> than the first.
> Close clearances just sacrifice too much versatility in the pursuit of
> very tiny benefits to be of any value except for those few riders who
> have every other niche of their riding experience covered.

There's bias against "racing" frames again. Let's say we're road
riding here, at the "club" level-- recreating, whether in formal
competition or not.
What do we need "versatility" for if we're not hauling groceries,
commuting in all weather conditions, so forth and so on?
--D-y

[dusto...@mac.com]

Your "nothing whatsoever" is your opinion, only. A value judgement
from a well-documented standpoint, and that's it. You're most welcome
to your opinions.

I think there's a "snotty bike racer" problem here. The pecking order
is fierce, what can I say-- assholes are everywhere and actually, only
a few of them are bike riders.
Frankly, fuck them. Sometimes I fantasize about carrying a stealth
rear-view mirror and giving free lessons on why you should call
"passing on your left, please" and give people you do pass some extra
room, besides offering the simple courtesy due another human being and
two-wheeler. Not worth it. Like I said, fuck them, I'm better than
that.

OK, onward:
In large part, the "safety margins" have to do with lightness.
"Civilian" race bikes, which as I understand matters are immune to UCI
weight limits, are going to have a big market push for "lightness", as
long as the rules are open.

Lighter is faster, simple as that. There are several cf bikes in my
cohort, including the "made in China" generics. Carbon is the material
of choice and has been for awhile. Cf frames and forks are not by any
means blowing up all over the place and the regulars in this ng who
are in "positions to know" do not report broken forks and bodies piled
up like cordwood in bike shops and hospitals and morgues from coast to
coast. Again, The fork in question was "known defective". We don't
know why it was ridden, apparently, until it broke.

Carbon fiber will give way to the next "ultimate material" and we'll
get ten-pound bikes that some people will hate because they will be
very expensive, and then pick at any possible "fault", real or
imagined. So it goes.

I mean, "I hate that bike because you can't put a 38mm tire in it"?
Duh.

Well whaddya know? I guess I finally lost my patience with this
foolish put-down stuff. The source really doesn't make much
difference, does it?

Repeating, as ever: Ride what you like, there's a variety of bicycle
designs available in shops and catalogs like never before. Be happy!
--D-y

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>> The reason seems pretty clear to me: it's worth your life to ride
>> a bike that short distance unless you engage in some "creative"
>> riding.
>
>Could you explain that last part? I don't understand your meaning. Thanks.

Jump curbs, ride on sidewalks (that almost nobody uses), ride on
grass, cut through parking lots, ride across corporate campuses,
and in general avoid contending with cars where people are
routinely driving 15-20 mph over the limit, talking on cell
phones, texting, and/or doing email while trying to drive.

If somebody in my neighborhood started riding in to town
following the rule book, I don't think they'd last a year. But
my avoidance strategies require a constant string of judgment
calls and that just isn't transferable and probably doesn't
scale... So I'm just as happy being the only rider for miles
around.

I know I'm going a red flag here and I'm going to get flamed....
but people need to keep in mind that conditions vary greatly from
place-to-place.

Geeze.... I feel a rant coming on....

Around here, over the past 30 years, I've watched maybe a
half-dozen "by the book" riders come and go. You see this guy
here, there, and everywhere twiddling along on his bike with cars
flashing past him at 50+.... then all-of-a-sudden you never see
the guy... never, ever again... Make out of that what you will,
but I think they're getting killed.

Guy I used to windsurf with it got his in July of 2010. Clear,
straight road, plenty shoulder, good weather, and
so-on-and-so-forth. Guy in an F150 drove right into him at
highway speed.

We've got a route in/out of Philadelphia called The West River
Drive. Long time ago I told a bike shop owner that I knew that
he was nuts when he started to to do his training rides on that
road. He lasted less than a year after I told him - not dead,
but plenty messed up. Couple years later apparently so many
cyclists had been killed/injured on that road that the city
banned cycling on it.

Yeah, yeah...people shouldn't drive like that.... and cyclists
are always going tb second-class citizens unless they stand up
and fight for their rights....
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>> > The reason seems pretty clear to me: it's worth your life to ride
>> > a bike that short distance unless you engage in some "creative"
>> > riding.
>>
>> Could you explain that last part? I don't understand your meaning. Thanks.
>>
>
>I think he meant to say *not* worth your life, and I think he was
>supposing this is what the *other* people (the ones who don't ride)
>are reasoning.

Geeze, and I wrote that whole rant.... figuring that the question
was around "Creative".

"Worth your life" is an expression that means "get killed". I'm
not sure where it comes from, but I grew up hearing it.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Jay Beattie:

>Peter Cresswell's comments are interesting to me because I have never
>lived in a place where the streets were so dangerous that I couldn't
>ride, particularly if it meant saving time over driving. There are
>those places, though, where bicycling is not safe. -- Jay Beattie.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'd say the *streets*
around here aren't too bad. It's the roads.

In this area 95% of "streets" are residential streets - lined
with houses/driveways.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Dan O]

On Apr 14, 5:14 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Dan O:
>
> >> > The reason seems pretty clear to me: it's worth your life to ride
> >> > a bike that short distance unless you engage in some "creative"
> >> > riding.
>
> >> Could you explain that last part? I don't understand your meaning. Thanks.
>
> >I think he meant to say *not* worth your life, and I think he was
> >supposing this is what the *other* people (the ones who don't ride)
> >are reasoning.
>
> Geeze, and I wrote that whole rant.... figuring that the question
> was around "Creative".
>

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, either - just telling Frank
the way I read it.

And I really enjoyed the rant - can *totally* relate to everything
you're saying (especially the creative part :-), but also the part
about a few hardy souls out there - then all of a sudden you never see
them again; and I know of some that *did* disappear after being hit -
whether or not they lived on to take up new activities after having
the courage knocked out of them I'm not sure).

Re; the creative: I keep all my options open, and use them - not just
to avoid dangerous situations, though (sometimes my choices even tend
to be moth to the flame sort of deals :-), but some of the most
satisfying creative maneuvers occur in a situation you left out of
your rant about speeding and distracted - careless - drivers. That is
malicious drivers - the ones that feel anger, unreasonably direct it
toward the handy scapegoat bicyclist, and take action to give him a
hard time. I love the capability of a bike in those situations,
simply bailing out of traffic, throw some dirt in the general
direction of their angry face off the rear tire cresting the
embankment, dropaway and cut across the other side, and just ride away
- leaving them to stew in their take-the-Escalade-for-every-trip-cager-
CM-cluster*&^%.

> "Worth your life" is an expression that means "get killed". I'm
> not sure where it comes from, but I grew up hearing it.

I read it as meaning the reason people fire up the Escalade SUV for a
quick trip to the nearby shops instead of hopping on a ready utility
bike is their perception that their lives would be at risk doing so.
That's plainly a big part of it for many people (though sheer laziness
factors more than they like to admit).

[Frank Krygowski]

On Apr 14, 3:49 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> You clearly
> have some kind of emotional bias against race bikes, Frank.
>
> No one is forcing you to buy such a configuration and despite what
> some of the nabobs of negativity around here say, high-end racing
> bikes have certainly not driven "practical" bikes out of the showrooms
> and catalogs.

I don't have any emotional investment in this issue at all. Like
anybody, I have a preference for certain designs; but as an engineer I
have dislike for what I judge to be bad designs - in this case, a
design with definite disadvantages, and negligible advantages, used as
a sales gimmick.

I know nobody is forcing me to buy one. I know better alternatives
are still for sale, and will always be. Those facts don't turn a bad
design into a good one.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Apr 14, 7:31 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Lighter is faster, simple as that.

Hmm. Well, perhaps it depends on how much thought you want to put into
it.

If you want to reduce it to a simple binary question, then yes,
lighter is _usually_ faster, other things being equal - although it's
pretty easy to give an example where lighter wouldn't be faster. (Why
do you bother having the weight of a saddle on your bike?)

But it's smarter to take it beyond the binary level, and ask "how much
faster?" Specifically, if we reduce the weight of a fork by reducing
its clearance, how much faster would it be? Whether carbon fiber or
steel, if you subtract enough material to reduce clearance by, say,
1/2" at the top and sides of the tire, You'll lose maybe an ounce,
max. On level ground, you'll never be able to measure the performance
difference; it will be negligible, resulting only from the tiny
reduction in rolling resistance from the missing weight. When
climbing, the weight reduction (probably no more than 0.05%) will
increase your climbing speed by 0.05%. That's a mathematical way of
saying "negligible."

I know there are people who think all theoretical microscopic
improvement in a bike's performance are critical and cumulative, and I
know I won't change their minds. Those are the people who spend big
bucks on ceramic bearings. But in real life, some things are
negligible. I think trading significant versatility for negligible
benefit just isn't sensible.

- Frank Krygowski

[Dan O]

What do professional racers use? Why? Sales gimmick?

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>That is
>malicious drivers - the ones that feel anger, unreasonably direct it
>toward the handy scapegoat bicyclist,

I've seen that. Some years back in Philly on Market street near
University Of Penna: was driving my car behind a guy that
deliberately (head turned 90 degrees right at the cyclist, mouth
made big movements, cranked the wheel over hard, knocked the
cyclist ass-over-elbows into the curb and on to the sidewalk) hit
a cyclist.

The worst part was that I followed the guy, flagged down a cop,
explained the situation... and the cop let him go without even
issuing a ticket. Now there's at least one wingnut driving
around Philly that knows it's legal to hit cyclists.
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Dan O:

>I read it as meaning the reason people fire up the Escalade SUV for a
>quick trip to the nearby shops instead of hopping on a ready utility
>bike is their perception that their lives would be at risk doing so.

I would not disagree with that explanation.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Radey Shouman]

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

> On Apr 14, 7:31 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lighter is faster, simple as that.
>
> Hmm. Well, perhaps it depends on how much thought you want to put into
> it.
>
> If you want to reduce it to a simple binary question, then yes,
> lighter is _usually_ faster, other things being equal - although it's
> pretty easy to give an example where lighter wouldn't be faster. (Why
> do you bother having the weight of a saddle on your bike?)
>
> But it's smarter to take it beyond the binary level, and ask "how much
> faster?" Specifically, if we reduce the weight of a fork by reducing
> its clearance, how much faster would it be? Whether carbon fiber or
> steel, if you subtract enough material to reduce clearance by, say,
> 1/2" at the top and sides of the tire, You'll lose maybe an ounce,
> max. On level ground, you'll never be able to measure the performance
> difference; it will be negligible, resulting only from the tiny
> reduction in rolling resistance from the missing weight. When
> climbing, the weight reduction (probably no more than 0.05%) will
> increase your climbing speed by 0.05%. That's a mathematical way of
> saying "negligible."

Bicycle racing, like any athletic competition, is not an engineering
measurement process, tuned to give results that are repeatably
meaningful. Rather, athletic contests are tuned, by evolution in rules,
equipment, and culture, to detect differences so small that they may not
even be there. Differences smaller than 0.05%. Laboratory measurements
should result in a tie unless the difference is repeatably measurable.
Too many ties in sport a *boring*.

Having the best man, in a narrow, predictable technical sense, always
win is *boring*. The sporting environment does encourage the kind of
superstitious frame of mind that is discouraged in engineering schools
(engineering *practice* is a somewhat different story). Bike racing is
not unique in this regard, I believe all sports are similar.

> I know there are people who think all theoretical microscopic
> improvement in a bike's performance are critical and cumulative, and I
> know I won't change their minds. Those are the people who spend big
> bucks on ceramic bearings. But in real life, some things are
> negligible. I think trading significant versatility for negligible
> benefit just isn't sensible.

Sport is not supposed to be sensible.

--

[thirty-six]

Next time throw a U-lock at the escapee. 's vehicle in order to stop
the vehicle and restrain the thug. Have a heafty chain handy as back-
up security. ;-)

[thirty-six]

On Apr 15, 3:05 pm, Radey Shouman <shou...@comcast.net> wrote:

Strange practises in sport exist because you don't know it all.
Although not on the bike, I am following a very similar day to day
life as would a professional rider in the direction of eating, yoga,
massage, oiling, shaving and rest. I'm very good at resting, getting
better day by day at eating and the other stuff is up and down at the
mo'. I hope to be back on the bike in June after a winter of being
mostly glued to my bed with spasm, pain, breathlessness and chills.
My knowledge of the 'queer' techniques used for recovery and
preparation in professional and top amateur cycling has enabled be to
ignore my doctor prescribed medicines and 'listen' to my body's
responses to food and stimulation. Today's discovery is that
Beecham's powders with licorice has an extremely beneficial effect on
opening my vasular system. The whisky helps too.