What is the point of tubeless tires?

On 1/13/2019 5:13 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 09:49:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2019 5:01 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 13:17:47 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 10:24:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

You have to have tubeless rims. Otherwise you can use any tire you want. You can use extreme racing tires. Even pretty large punctures can seal almost instantly with the right sealing compound. No detectable air loss.

If you DO have a flat too large for the sealing compound to work which is possible, they make a device that puts a rubber plus in sealing the hole. I haven't even heard of anyone getting a hole that large. I do know one guy that picked up a carpet nail and left it in clicking on every turn before he got home. He said that when he pulled it out the tire got soft but sealed. He pumped it up and still rides it.

Besides being lighter and having a lower rolling resistance tire you also don't have to carry a flat kit on you. Frank tells us his flat his weighs 1/2 lb but mine - two innertubes, two CO2 cartridges, the filler tool and levers in a pack weights 2 lbs. This is more weight than my Look 206 delta pedals.

I have had no trouble at all with my Michelin Pro4 Endurance tires since converting to tubeless. Before I had flats so often that everyone around here runs Gatorskins which are heavy and have lousy traction.

You can run Pro4s tubeless? Hmmmm. I have a bunch of Pro4s and a tubeless ready wheel set with OE valves in a bag somewhere. Maybe I'll get some sealant and give it a whirl.

As an aside, what I don't like about tubeless ready rims and regular tires/tubes is that the tire beads practically weld themselves to the rim. It's a pain getting the tire off the rim, and they're really tight getting tires on the rim. All that is necessary if you're running tubeless but not so necessary with an ordinary tire/tube combo.

-- Jay Beattie.

Tubular;s are the solution. Can be changed with no tools at all. :-)


Works for me.

And one looks so cool carrying them across one's shoulders. Just like
the real racers do :-)
https://tinyurl.com/ycg92qma

Gino Bartali as an archetype notwithstanding, I carry cab
fare mostly or a tubular under the saddle on a longer ride.


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

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2019 5:02 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:56:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Snipped
If you have an innertube it rotates with the wheel and needs to be
accelerated or decelerated. If you have sealant it rides more or less at
the bottom of the tire not requiring to be accelerated.

Snipped

Absolute BULL****!

Cheers


Jan Heine would disagree with Tom.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...s-roll-faster/

Ralph - that is largely an opinion piece. (whereas most of his other
"mythbuster" pieces are well founded.) Using one tire type to make your
tests on isn't scientifically exacting.The lowest rolling resistance in
the RR tests were with a Vittoria tubeless tire.

If you think that a tube doesn't increase rolling resistance by
decreasing the tire reflex action but the lack of the tube does, or like
Ridesalittle thinks that other than a small amount of frictional
cohesion that the sealant doesn't stay mainly on the plain I can only
refer to other tests:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...ex-butyl-tubes

But if you look at the rolling resistance tests the differences in the
same size tires at the same pressure over the same surface, the
difference is so slight that it is only of interest with a TT rider in
competition. And even in those cases it is no doubt purely psychological.

So really the only difference between tubeless, tube or sewups is the
almost total absence of flats. If you want to say that you only have a
flat once a year so it's no trouble to carry a 2 lb flat kit with you
all the time that is certainly your decision. But I have a very
expensive bike that has its weight increased to that of a moderately
priced bike by doing so.

And having carefully tested them I can tell the difference but what the
hell that matters for a sport riders is open for interpretation. I just
feel that my $4,000 Time should not be the same weight as my $8,000 Colnago.

Beside, I want you to be able to pick up the Colnago with one finger and ooh and ahh!

I'm still amazed your flat repair kit is so heavy. My heaviest tool kit
plus tube is on the Bike Friday, at 1 1/4 pounds, and it contains
everything I need to disassemble the bike and pack it in a suitcase.



I want you to be able to pick up my Surly with one finger and say "Ow!" :-)

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 15:14:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:34:22 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2019 5:02 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:56:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Snipped
If you have an innertube it rotates with the wheel and needs to be
accelerated or decelerated. If you have sealant it rides more or less at
the bottom of the tire not requiring to be accelerated.

Snipped

Absolute BULL****!

Cheers


Jan Heine would disagree with Tom.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...s-roll-faster/

Ralph - that is largely an opinion piece. (whereas most of his other "mythbuster" pieces are well founded.) Using one tire type to make your tests on isn't scientifically exacting.The lowest rolling resistance in the RR tests were with a Vittoria tubeless tire.

If you think that a tube doesn't increase rolling resistance by decreasing the tire reflex action but the lack of the tube does, or like Ridesalittle thinks that other than a small amount of frictional cohesion that the sealant doesn't stay mainly on the plain I can only refer to other tests:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...ex-butyl-tubes

But if you look at the rolling resistance tests the differences in the same size tires at the same pressure over the same surface, the difference is so slight that it is only of interest with a TT rider in competition. And even in those cases it is no doubt purely psychological.

So really the only difference between tubeless, tube or sewups is the almost total absence of flats. If you want to say that you only have a flat once a year so it's no trouble to carry a 2 lb flat kit with you all the time that is certainly your decision. But I have a very expensive bike that has its weight increased to that of a moderately priced bike by doing so.

And having carefully tested them I can tell the difference but what the hell that matters for a sport riders is open for interpretation. I just feel that my $4,000 Time should not be the same weight as my $8,000 Colnago.

Beside, I want you to be able to pick up the Colnago with one finger and ooh and ahh!

I'm still amazed your flat repair kit is so heavy. My heaviest tool kit
plus tube is on the Bike Friday, at 1 1/4 pounds, and it contains
everything I need to disassemble the bike and pack it in a suitcase.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've weighed this several times when you started arguing with me about that weight. And that weight doesn't even include the clip that goes on the saddle so that you can slide the pack on and off for easy access.

Sorry Tom, but I just weighed the tool kit I carry on my bike which
includes wrenches, a chain tool, spare links, tire tools and a spare
inner tube as well as two CO2 tubes and the inflator and even the
"chain pliers" needed to open some "master links". Weight 1.5 lbs. No
mounting clip either, straps are lighter. In comparison I weighed a
full water bottle and it weighed slightly more then the tool bag -
1.58 lbs.


Cheers,
John B.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 17:54:49 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/13/2019 5:12 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:21:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2019 7:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.

I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap. They buy it
because it's [marginally] better than what the had. Eg. I could buy
this mountain bike

    https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950

Or I could buy this;

    https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike

By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as
good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper!

Sorry, but no. There's almost always a wide range of price and quality
in every consumer good. Nobody's saying a Roadmaster is equivalent to a
Dawes. And really, I'm not even saying that (for example) cable discs
are _exactly_ as good as hydraulic discs.

What I'm saying is that for almost all cyclists, the difference between
hydraulic and cable discs is negligible, and so is the difference
between discs and decent rim brakes. Really, what percentage of cyclists
really need absolutely perfect braking in heavy rain or deep mud? Are
there really many people here who have had significant brake problems
riding before the modern disc mania? Has a high percentage of the
world's bike riders had those problems? I very much doubt it. For me,
like most, braking more than gently is a rare event.

The same logic applies to 11 cogs vs. 10 or 9 cogs; to wheels that
differ in mass by 50 grams; to derailleurs moved by electricity vs.
steel cables, and more.

But the industry (including the publishing portion) pushes discs as THE
thing everyone must have, as if we're incredibly lucky to not have been
killed multiple times by our caliper brakes. Likewise, carbon fiber is
purported to change your life; tubeless tires will make you wish you
never saw an inner tube; and how could someone possibly ride without 11
cogs in back? Oh, and with more than one sprocket in front?

But I know I'm an oddball retrogrouch. I still shift with both my right
hand and my left hand! I still know how to let go of the handlebars to
shift! And I still more than keep up with my (um, somewhat decrepit)
peer group while using 1980s technology.

I just ride.

But boy, when they start selling carbon fiber inner wires for shifters,
I'm jumping on those. And carbon fiber safety pins for keeping my pants
cuffs out of the chain. Think of the weight savings! ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

I would have to agree with that. While there are rather large differences in quality and ride between the lowest and the middle grade bikes there sure isn't much between the middle and top end.

I don't know how to tell the difference between a well installed cable and a hydraulic disk for anyone other than a very high performance rider. We've seen that pro's tend t0 shy away from disks because it takes so much time to change a wheel.

And when they are using disks they get in just as many wrecks as rim brakes. They do not seem to corner any faster since what sort of fool would dive deeper into a corner taking so many more chances for a millisecond in cornering speed?

The same with the steadily increasing number of speeds - this makes a difference for racers alone. I think that 8 speeds was the point at which gear ratios vs. reliability of shifting and wear of components hit their peak. Now they're talking about 14 speeds with cogs getting paper thin and chains getting so narrow that breaking them isn't unheard of anymore.

Unlike you, I am more to the performance side. Over the same course the difference between my Colnago, Time and steel Pinarello Stelvio are barely seconds. I absolutely do feel the weight difference between the 18 lb Colnago and the 26 lb Pinarello but only at the tops of the short steep climbs I'm trying to bust when I'm getting tired.

Surprisingly, on long climbing days there isn't enough difference to put in a hat. Hard climb speeds are set by your endurance and not strength so 8 lbs makes no difference I can tell.


I felt the same about 11 = 12 speeds in theory. But the new
Campagnolo 12 sets have so many great features built in it's
more than just 12/11 better.

And only $2,299 a set at Amazon too. :-)


Cheers,
John B.

On 1/13/2019 6:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 14:02:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 11:56:49 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Snipped
If you have an innertube it rotates with the wheel and needs to be
accelerated or decelerated. If you have sealant it rides more or less at
the bottom of the tire not requiring to be accelerated.

Snipped

Absolute BULL****!

Cheers


Jan Heine would disagree with Tom.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/...s-roll-faster/

Ralph - that is largely an opinion piece. (whereas most of his other "mythbuster" pieces are well founded.) Using one tire type to make your tests on isn't scientifically exacting.The lowest rolling resistance in the RR tests were with a Vittoria tubeless tire.

If you think that a tube doesn't increase rolling resistance by decreasing the tire reflex action but the lack of the tube does, or like Ridesalittle thinks that other than a small amount of frictional cohesion that the sealant doesn't stay mainly on the plain I can only refer to other tests:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...ex-butyl-tubes

But if you look at the rolling resistance tests the differences in the same size tires at the same pressure over the same surface, the difference is so slight that it is only of interest with a TT rider in competition. And even in those cases it is no doubt purely psychological.

So really the only difference between tubeless, tube or sewups is the almost total absence of flats. If you want to say that you only have a flat once a year so it's no trouble to carry a 2 lb flat kit with you all the time that is certainly your decision. But I have a very expensive bike that has its weight increased to that of a moderately priced bike by doing so.

And having carefully tested them I can tell the difference but what the hell that matters for a sport riders is open for interpretation. I just feel that my $4,000 Time should not be the same weight as my $8,000 Colnago.

Beside, I want you to be able to pick up the Colnago with one finger and ooh and ahh!

Did you actually weigh your "flat kit"? After all a "16 gram"COI2
cartridge actually weighs 56.8 grams so two weigh 113.6 grams, an
inner tube weighs something like 100 grams (for a heavy one) and
plastic tire tools are lighter then the tube so lets say 75 grams and
the tiny little CO2 adapter, say another 50 grams for a total of ~3/4
lb.

What else are you carrying to make your "flat kit" weigh 2 pounds.

That's what I'm wondering.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/13/2019 6:12 PM, wrote:


Unlike you, I am more to the performance side. Over the same course the difference between my Colnago, Time and steel Pinarello Stelvio are barely seconds. I absolutely do feel the weight difference between the 18 lb Colnago and the 26 lb Pinarello but only at the tops of the short steep climbs I'm trying to bust when I'm getting tired.

I can certainly imagine feeling that 8 pound difference, even though
it's only maybe 4% of the total weight you're hauling up a hill.

But long ago, one very fast friend of mine replaced the steel cogs on
his Campy freewheel with aluminum ones for use on club rides. He
insisted he could feel the difference each time he accelerated. I didn't
believe him, and still don't.

But there is the placebo effect. It's powerful!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty
crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most
of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty
crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most
of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT needing 15 gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at times and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went back to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals. Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a dressing on a cut on a leg.. I've used them to secure a jacket and tights to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee. I used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack on a bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent derailleurs and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the Ergos t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my downtube shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3 chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to shift my 9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group riding probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to give us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.

Cheers

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:07:24 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

You could argue about 60g of inner tube vs 60g of goop, and
people do, but I have to assume you have never ridden a foam
or urethane tire.

I rode airless tires from Albany, New York to Warsaw, Indiana once.

Broke an axle doing it, but didn't notice until after the ride.

I was also barred from all non-paved surfaces. But I didn't notice a
harshness of ride.

The tires were concave instead of convex -- a channel on each side of
the ridge the bike rested on. Perhaps that supplied spring. There
was something that looked like aquarium tubing inside the tire.

Egad, that was a long time ago.

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

On 1/13/19 11:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

But I know I'm an oddball retrogrouch.

Lol. You could use that as a posting name :-)

But boy, when they start selling carbon fiber inner wires for shifters,
I'm jumping on those. And carbon fiber safety pins for keeping my pants
cuffs out of the chain. Think of the weight savings!Â*Â* ;-)

See, there you go, I use velcro straps now because they are more
comfortable, and don't distort wrt to the traditional mild steel ones,
nobody foisted that on me, I can buy the old ones if I want, the velcro
ones are better.

Do you have a link for the CF ones...?