A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Standards; always room for one more!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 22nd 17, 02:12 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,128
Default Standards; always room for one more!

[non team player comments removed]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/

[sarcasm removed]

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

Ads
  #2  
Old December 22nd 17, 03:47 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,670
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On 22/12/17 12:12, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/


[sarcasm removed]



Nice!

I have an idea for compressed air (or any gas) bearings for bicycle hubs
and BB. They'll require a compressed air cylinder that has pipes to
each hub and the BB. The run times will be similar to battery powered
lights, so everyone will be fine with that, and the friction reduction
will be in the order of at least 15W!!!

Well, didn't ceramic bearings promise 10W? This has to be better...

--
JS
  #3  
Old December 22nd 17, 04:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,750
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

snip

Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate 200
character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards?

Anyways...

Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no knowledge
of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C mountain bikes
sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were hip. And of
course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years or so.

Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre
avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening
at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a
bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with
big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would
further offset the increased mass.

Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no
one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost!
  #4  
Old December 22nd 17, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,542
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On 12/21/2017 10:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre
avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening
at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a
bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with
big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would
further offset the increased mass.

Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no
one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost!


Now now, you're ignoring the advantage of "momentum"! How old-fashioned
to disparage it and talk about mere "mass."

Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, and I'm sure they haven't figured
out the optimum wheel+tire size yet. It's actually 28.15" also known as
715. I'm not buying another mountain bike until they start selling
"seven-fifteens."

(Notice the last two digits are the same in inches or metric. That
proves it's cosmic, man.)

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old December 22nd 17, 06:28 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,547
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:12:27 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/

[sarcasm removed]

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


Aw, ****. The balloon tyre is resurrected again. Let's see now, it was resurrected as a pavement cruiser in the 'fifties, again at the invention of the mountain bikes in the 'sixties/'seventies when some in Jobst's crowd who weren't as hardarsed as he got tired of riding road bikes off the tarmac, again in the '90s when the leading German Baukast asked Schwalbe to design a tyre that would obviate the unreliable front strut suspension and Schwalbe came up with the Big Apple, and now these incompetent* ******s want to pretend it is all new again? Come on, pull the other one. I ride a Utopia Kranich, which was designed around the then non-existent tyre that would become the Big Apple. I've been doing it for ten years.

*This, from the article Muzi referenced, proves that either the product manager is incompetent as an engineer as well as a marketer, or that the reporter misquoted him, proving his own incompetence:
"Earlier this year at Saddle Drive, Salsa’s Senior Product Manager Joe Meiser said he had been able to run lower pressures on the 27.5″ fat bike tires due to their stiffer side wall and felt that it improved traction on groomed snow trails. It should also stand to reason that lower, stiffer sidewalls will result in better cornering performance on hard pack trails throughout the year."

Nope. Other way round. A soft sidewall keeps more of the stiffer rolling surface in contact with the road, with advantages that surely a bicycle product manager and a bicycle "journalist" shouldn't need spelling out. Here I describe the nett gain in glee
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.0
and you'll find lots more relevant information in the rest of the thread.

Andre Jute
Bring back the Doo Dah Dog Band
  #6  
Old December 22nd 17, 06:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,547
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 2:47:43 AM UTC, James wrote:
On 22/12/17 12:12, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/


[sarcasm removed]


Nice!

I have an idea for compressed air (or any gas) bearings for bicycle hubs
and BB. They'll require a compressed air cylinder that has pipes to
each hub and the BB. The run times will be similar to battery powered
lights, so everyone will be fine with that, and the friction reduction
will be in the order of at least 15W!!!


Don't forget your friends when you're rich after crowd-funding it. It has all the earmarks of a viral groupthink project.

Andre Jute
Mass psychology isn't difficult at all. You went to school with the people you're manipulating.
  #7  
Old December 22nd 17, 03:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,128
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On 12/21/2017 9:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

snip

Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate 200
character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards?

Anyways...

Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no knowledge
of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C mountain bikes
sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were hip. And of
course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years or so.

Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre
avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening
at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a
bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with
big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would
further offset the increased mass.

Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no
one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost!


Well, whether you or I have need or desire is one thing. A
new 26x3.8 584 to replace a recently established 26x4 559 (a
format just barely viable for widespread stock of rims/
tires/ tubes) is quite another.

Seems utterly pointless to me. I view this inherently as a
retailer because I am one. Splitting a marginal product
line into two incompatible but functionally fungible formats
might pump dealer inventories for a while but the turn
doesn't make economic sense from my point of view.

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


  #8  
Old December 22nd 17, 07:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,838
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 9:28:55 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:12:27 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed]

https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/

[sarcasm removed]

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


Aw, ****. The balloon tyre is resurrected again. Let's see now, it was resurrected as a pavement cruiser in the 'fifties, again at the invention of the mountain bikes in the 'sixties/'seventies when some in Jobst's crowd who weren't as hardarsed as he got tired of riding road bikes off the tarmac, again in the '90s when the leading German Baukast asked Schwalbe to design a tyre that would obviate the unreliable front strut suspension and Schwalbe came up with the Big Apple, and now these incompetent* ******s want to pretend it is all new again? Come on, pull the other one. I ride a Utopia Kranich, which was designed around the then non-existent tyre that would become the Big Apple. I've been doing it for ten years.

*This, from the article Muzi referenced, proves that either the product manager is incompetent as an engineer as well as a marketer, or that the reporter misquoted him, proving his own incompetence:
"Earlier this year at Saddle Drive, Salsa’s Senior Product Manager Joe Meiser said he had been able to run lower pressures on the 27.5″ fat bike tires due to their stiffer side wall and felt that it improved traction on groomed snow trails. It should also stand to reason that lower, stiffer sidewalls will result in better cornering performance on hard pack trails throughout the year."

Nope. Other way round. A soft sidewall keeps more of the stiffer rolling surface in contact with the road, with advantages that surely a bicycle product manager and a bicycle "journalist" shouldn't need spelling out. Here I describe the nett gain in glee
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.0
and you'll find lots more relevant information in the rest of the thread.


BTW, GTF off the groomed snow trails with a bike. They are groomed for a reason, and its not for un-grooming them with a bike. I'm very conflicted when it comes to bikes on walking or skiing trails. I understand that resorts or parks need to jack up revenue and that bikes are less harmful than, say, horses -- but there is still value to a quiet trail where all you hear is footfalls or pole plants, singing birds, etc. No rattling fat bikes whipping by.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #9  
Old December 22nd 17, 08:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,750
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:40:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 12/21/2017 10:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre
avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet
lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly
seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur
boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent
tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass.

Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no
one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost!


Now now, you're ignoring the advantage of "momentum"! How
old-fashioned to disparage it and talk about mere "mass."


Ah, silly me.

Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, and I'm sure they haven't
figured out the optimum wheel+tire size yet. It's actually 28.15" also
known as 715. I'm not buying another mountain bike until they start
selling "seven-fifteens."


If only ShelBroCo was still a going concern (for a variety of reasons).
They'd get it covered.

(Notice the last two digits are the same in inches or metric. That
proves it's cosmic, man.)


Deep. Very deep.
  #10  
Old December 22nd 17, 08:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,750
Default Standards; always room for one more!

On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:15:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/21/2017 9:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi
wrote:

snip

Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate
200 character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards?

Anyways...

Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no
knowledge of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C
mountain bikes sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were
hip. And of course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years
or so.

Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre
avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet
lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly
seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur
boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent
tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass.

Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no
one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost!


Well, whether you or I have need or desire is one thing. A new 26x3.8
584 to replace a recently established 26x4 559 (a format just barely
viable for widespread stock of rims/ tires/ tubes) is quite another.

Seems utterly pointless to me. I view this inherently as a retailer
because I am one. Splitting a marginal product line into two
incompatible but functionally fungible formats might pump dealer
inventories for a while but the turn doesn't make economic sense from
my point of view.


Hey, man, supply side is what counts. Demand side is unimportant.
 




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
Japanese standards AMuzi Techniques 1 November 25th 14 09:56 PM
Double standards at work. Simon Mason UK 19 March 6th 07 10:14 PM
Cantilever stud standards? Kendall Techniques 3 August 6th 06 08:15 PM
h*lm*t standards where's the web site? Bryan UK 5 August 18th 05 09:52 AM
Driving standards Tom UK 20 February 11th 04 01:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.