A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

bar-end shifters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #701  
Old January 23rd 06, 04:26 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters

In article . com,
"Johnny Sunset" writes:

(The really good riders have nothing to prove,
and therefore are much more pleasant and friendly.)


A warmed-hearted "thank you" to ya.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
Ads
  #702  
Old January 23rd 06, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters

On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:07 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


Should've been clearer. I meant, why do they relish pointing out the
insignificance of small savings in weight or aerodynamics, while not
also recognizing that some durability improvements are insignificant
too?


I suppose having a history of running into too many smug, snobby,
self-satisfied roadies who like to criticize and look down on anyone
who dares to be practical as a "Fred" leads to enjoying pointing out
how foolish they are, since none of them are ever going to win any
races of significance. (The really good riders have nothing to prove,
and therefore are much more pleasant and friendly.)


So you're saying that a reaction to a certain type of cyclist leads
you to make proclamations about what is sensible for other cyclists,
*in general* to use. Proclamations that are in contrast to what other
cyclists often choose themselves.

OK. But it seems to me that it would easy for a cyclist who likes
intergrated shifters and has never had problems with his/her wheels,
even though they have less than 36 spokes, to think of you as pretty
smug and snobby yourself. Not snobby about having pricey equipment,
but snobby in saying your approach to equipment is more sensible than
theirs. When it might not be.

And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't
explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than
what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole
front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel
impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
  #703  
Old January 23rd 06, 05:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't
explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than
what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole
front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel
impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway?


I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter
riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the
weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is
minimal). However, the 16-front/24-rear wheels that many new bikes have
are silly for anyone but racers in competitive classes that get
sponsored equipment (negating the detriments of higher cost and reduced
longevity compared to well built conventional wheels).

[1] I use 36-spokes on all the ISO 305-mm and ISO 406-mm wheels on my
bicycles, which is equivalent to about 73 and 55 spokes, respectively,
on an ISO 622-mm wheel (spokes per unit of rim length).

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

  #704  
Old January 23rd 06, 01:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters

On 22 Jan 2006 20:39:09 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't
explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than
what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole
front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel
impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway?


I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter
riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the
weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is
minimal).


You just can't help it, huh? Can you say that for some people you see
no benefit for 36 spokes compared to 32? Can you at least *try* to
say it?

Can you at least say that for some non-racers integrated shifters are
sensible?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
  #705  
Old January 23rd 06, 04:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:22:33 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:


Why do guys like Johnny Sunset talk about insignificant savings in
weight or aerodynamics but not insignificant increases in durability?
The odds of my wife's 28 spoke front wheel having problems are
remote. So Sunset has to mention that it will be less useful if some
heavy person needs it. Talk about grasping at straws.



Should've been clearer. I meant, why do they relish pointing out the
insignificance of small savings in weight or aerodynamics, while not
also recognizing that some durability improvements are insignificant
too?


Speaking for myself:

One difference in these "small savings" is the magnitude of the
consequences. That is, if a person is deciding between 36-spoke wheel
vs. a 28 (or fewer) spoke wheel, the negative consequence of the 36 is
they may require 0.002% more time to get to their desination. The
negative consequence of the lower spoke count wheel is they may not get
there at all without being chauffered in a car! IIRC, I detailed one
such case upthread, where I came upon a guy with fancy wheels stranded
on a deserted highway because of one broken spoke.

The advantage is similar with STI vs. competitors. Sure, it doesn't
happen frequently, but I've had two friends whose STI just absolutely
refused to shift, where the "time penalty" was hours (in one case) or
over a day (in the other) to get them working. To me, that's
absolutely unacceptable. And it happens frequently enough to deserve
"FAQ" status on r.b.tech.

I've got two titanium seat rails that I pass around in my classes as
perfect examples of fatigue failures. They were donated by a
weight-weeny friend. My steel rails have never failed - and I'm
heavier than he is. However much time he's saved by the lighter rails
has been more than obliterated by the necessity for replacing them.

None of this is dealing in absolutes. It's always a probability thing,
partly because the loads on most bike components are difficult to
quantify, partly because the duty to which parts are subjected varies
greatly from rider to rider.

Since you can't calculate this stuff precisely, much of the development
of bike parts has been trial and error. There's always some little
shop saying "Hey, we can shave 30 grams off that component and sell a
bunch to the racers." And the weight weenies buy it and try it, and
after three years of volunteer testing by the weight-weenie public, you
get to hear that it's not working out well.

Except when some design innovation _does_ work, of course, then it
becomes mainstream. The questions for me are a) Do I care to be an
early adopter, part of the "volunteers" who pay money to be the test
team so as to get the advantages first? and b) Are the advantages
likely to be worthwhile to me if and when it does work?

I've cycled long enough and happily enough that I'm not in desparate
need of any new develoment to keep me content. And my riding style, my
favorite rides, pay dividends for reliability, not speed. So even in
the case of 32 spoke wheels (instead of 36) I see no reason to change.
The trade in speed vs. reliability is probably small either way, but
the speed matters less to me than the reliabilty, so I'm just not
interested.

YMMV, obviously.

- Frank Krygowski

  #706  
Old January 24th 06, 12:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters

On 23 Jan 2006 07:52:19 -0800, wrote:

I'm not in desparate
need of any new develoment to
keep me content.


Desparate? Interesting choice of words.

Anyway, good to hear that. I'm glad I'm not so paranoid that I'm
afraid to let my wife ride around with only 28 spokes on her front
wheel.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit
http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
  #707  
Old January 24th 06, 02:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default bar-end shifters

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On 22 Jan 2006 20:39:09 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't
explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than
what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole
front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel
impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway?


I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter
riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the
weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is
minimal).


You just can't help it, huh? Can you say that for some people you see
no benefit for 36 spokes compared to 32? Can you at least *try* to
say it?


I can see a benefit for everyone, even if the chances of it occurring are
tiny -- if you *do* break a spoke with a 36 wheel, you'll probably
be able to ride home with only minor adjustments if any.

I think this advantage, for most people at least, is exceedingly small --
but I still think it overshadows any disadvantages.

Can you at least say that for some non-racers integrated shifters are
sensible?


I think they're sensible for most people who can afford them. (I think bar
end shifters are even *more* sensible... ).

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rapidfire shifters seized/stuck? Darryn Australia 3 November 12th 05 05:16 PM
quality 8 speed MTB shifters? (or 9 spd shifter with 8 spd cassette)? Pizza Man Techniques 40 October 18th 04 06:29 AM
upgrading grip shifters to triggers david kenning UK 3 March 14th 04 09:26 PM
Technical query, triple STI shifters MartinM UK 6 February 22nd 04 11:39 AM
old Suntour 6sp stem shifters... Garry Broad Techniques 6 September 22nd 03 09:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.