Predictions

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each category.

I agree with that. I just don't agree that one category should be "bikes
intended for recreational riding that can't accept a 28mm tire." Nobody
has yet explained any logic in that.

Well, in the olde tyme world before discs, the answer was better braking with short reach single or dual pivot brakes, lighter weight, short wheelbases for quicker handling -- basically a racier bike that was incompatible with fenders because of tight clearances and toe overlap. The standard sport racing tire was sub-23mm, so there was no need for standard or long reach brakes. The idea was to be fast -- not versatile. If you wanted a more versatile bike, you got a touring bike or a less aggressive sport touring bike with standard drop side-pulls. All of those kinds of bikes have been around forever.


If you interested in more than one category you have a choice. If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a specific ride.. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast club rides.

I remember my days of just one bike. I now own eight, I think, counting
the tandem. Two of them are (almost) never ridden. (And then there are
my wife's bikes...)

Each is primarily intended for a different sort of use. All are
somewhere between fairly old and extremely old. I just don't throw many
things away.

I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you save? Never mind it isn't my business.

I think we both have fun biking. And it sounds like we both donate a
reasonable amount to charity. That's all good.

It is more possible now than ever to have a uni-bike. You could road race on my gravel bike. It's a little soft in the rear end, but it has fairly quick steering and rides like a 1970s touring bike with a stiff bottom bracket and five or six pounds lighter. My son loves to ride it when he visits, and it doesn't seem to hold him back -- to the extent I can tell from my distant vantage point.

I rode large steel DF frames that were necessarily pretty heavy, particularly if I wanted a stiff bike. On racing bikes, I used Cinelli cast BBs and fork crowns and Columbus SP or standard 531. That made for a pretty heavy and pretty stiff steel bike. I can get that same bike five pounds lighter, stiffer in the BB with a longer TT, longer HT and a more forgiving rear end that will take big tires and fenders. My Synapse super-fast rain bike will do 30mm tires with fenders (tight) and that bike is way better than any of my old steel racers -- and far more comfortable. My CX commuter bike and gravel bike will both do 40mm or better. That Jamis I linked would do it all.. Discs have resulted in the proliferation of fun fat tire do-it-all road bikes that stop well in wet weather. A really neat steel frame with discs is the fog cutter. https://live.staticflickr.com/7821/4...5e84b659_b.jpg I'd get one of those for commuting, if I didn't decide on an eBike. Hey, I'm getting old and decrepit, and some nights its nice not having to drag myself up hill to get home. Electric is smelling pretty good these days..



-- Jay Beattie.

On 1/3/2020 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:14:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 6:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:14:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 3 January 2020 18:40:12 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

When I lived and worked in Toronto, Canada I commuted daily on my MIELE Equipe Pro with Dura Ace groupset on a Columbus SL frameset and with 19mm Michelin Pro Comp slick tires. The funny thing is that I had no problems doing that. A lot of times after work I'd take a much longer route home because the ride was so enjoyable.

Cheers

It's just because you live "up there" in the wilds. But don't worry,
pretty soon the fads will seep north and you too can own several
different bicycles; one for commuting in the dry, one for the wet, one
for the snow and perhaps even one for the "black ice" days. Then when
warm weather arrives you can buy the up hill and the down hill
mountain bikes....

Now as for shoes for the Missus... :-)


Up here beyond civilization, where we actually pay to have
salt spread all over hell, it's obscene to sacrifice a
perfectly good and beautiful machine to salt water. Hence
two machines at minimum.

I grew up in an area - up state New Hampshire - that used salt on the
roads and I can't remember anyone that had purchased a summer vehicle
and a winter vehicle :-)

But is one worried about salt damage to one's only bicycle than there
are coatings that really do prevent salt water corrosion. After all
sail boats, that live in salt water, don't have severe corrosion
problems... at least the well designed ones don't.
--
cheers,

John B.


As with bicycles, summer car/ winter car is relatively
common here.


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

On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:39:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:14:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 6:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:14:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 3 January 2020 18:40:12 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

When I lived and worked in Toronto, Canada I commuted daily on my MIELE Equipe Pro with Dura Ace groupset on a Columbus SL frameset and with 19mm Michelin Pro Comp slick tires. The funny thing is that I had no problems doing that. A lot of times after work I'd take a much longer route home because the ride was so enjoyable.

Cheers

It's just because you live "up there" in the wilds. But don't worry,
pretty soon the fads will seep north and you too can own several
different bicycles; one for commuting in the dry, one for the wet, one
for the snow and perhaps even one for the "black ice" days. Then when
warm weather arrives you can buy the up hill and the down hill
mountain bikes....

Now as for shoes for the Missus... :-)


Up here beyond civilization, where we actually pay to have
salt spread all over hell, it's obscene to sacrifice a
perfectly good and beautiful machine to salt water. Hence
two machines at minimum.

I grew up in an area - up state New Hampshire - that used salt on the
roads and I can't remember anyone that had purchased a summer vehicle
and a winter vehicle :-)

But is one worried about salt damage to one's only bicycle than there
are coatings that really do prevent salt water corrosion. After all
sail boats, that live in salt water, don't have severe corrosion
problems... at least the well designed ones don't.
--
cheers,

John B.


As with bicycles, summer car/ winter car is relatively
common here.

Is it now? The last time I was in snow must have been around 1967-8
and I can't say as I've miss it :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each category.

I agree with that. I just don't agree that one category should be "bikes
intended for recreational riding that can't accept a 28mm tire." Nobody
has yet explained any logic in that.

Well, in the olde tyme world before discs, the answer was better braking with short reach single or dual pivot brakes, lighter weight, short wheelbases for quicker handling -- basically a racier bike that was incompatible with fenders because of tight clearances and toe overlap. The standard sport racing tire was sub-23mm, so there was no need for standard or long reach brakes. The idea was to be fast -- not versatile.

Right. All that applies to bikes to be used for racing. But as
recently as three years ago, my friend had trouble finding a bike with
decent clearance for just fun riding. That's nuts.

If you wanted a more versatile bike, you got a touring bike or a less aggressive sport touring bike with standard drop side-pulls. All of those kinds of bikes have been around forever.

Right. But we've just come through a period where they were rare, at
least if you wanted top quality components.

Back in 1976 or 1977, one of my good friends (an elderly marathoner -
he was in his 40s!) bought one of these Raleighs
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/retrora...er-tourer.html but his came with drop bars and no springs on
the saddle. On his first "event" ride (100 miles Saturday, sleep
overnight in an auditorium, 100 miles back on Sunday) he was the
first to finish, despite his lack of experience - not to mention the
hideous clearance for gasp! fenders! (I loved the Jubilee derailleur).

Again, the main point is that the tight clearances that were
fashionable had no benefit. You can talk about higher mechanical
advantage of shorter reach brakes, but there were other ways to
achieve that while maintaining good clearance, and it didn't take
disc brakes.


It is more possible now than ever to have a uni-bike. You could road race on my gravel bike.

Exactly! It's clearance for wide tires doesn't hamper it!


https://live.staticflickr.com/7821/4...5e84b659_b.jpg I'd get one of those for commuting, if I didn't decide on an eBike. Hey, I'm getting old and decrepit, and some nights its nice not having to drag myself up hill to get home. Electric is smelling pretty good these days.

Yeah, one of my riding friends just caved and got an e-bike. He says
he can finally keep up with the fast guys - provided he doesn't
run out of battery. Ah well. At least it doesn't have a loud exhaust.

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51:40 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each category.

I agree with that. I just don't agree that one category should be "bikes
intended for recreational riding that can't accept a 28mm tire." Nobody
has yet explained any logic in that.

Well, in the olde tyme world before discs, the answer was better braking with short reach single or dual pivot brakes, lighter weight, short wheelbases for quicker handling -- basically a racier bike that was incompatible with fenders because of tight clearances and toe overlap. The standard sport racing tire was sub-23mm, so there was no need for standard or long reach brakes. The idea was to be fast -- not versatile.

Right. All that applies to bikes to be used for racing. But as
recently as three years ago, my friend had trouble finding a bike with
decent clearance for just fun riding. That's nuts.

If you wanted a more versatile bike, you got a touring bike or a less aggressive sport touring bike with standard drop side-pulls. All of those kinds of bikes have been around forever.

Right. But we've just come through a period where they were rare, at
least if you wanted top quality components.

Back in 1976 or 1977, one of my good friends (an elderly marathoner -
he was in his 40s!) bought one of these Raleighs
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/retrora...er-tourer.html but his came with drop bars and no springs on
the saddle. On his first "event" ride (100 miles Saturday, sleep
overnight in an auditorium, 100 miles back on Sunday) he was the
first to finish, despite his lack of experience - not to mention the
hideous clearance for gasp! fenders! (I loved the Jubilee derailleur).

Again, the main point is that the tight clearances that were
fashionable had no benefit. You can talk about higher mechanical
advantage of shorter reach brakes, but there were other ways to
achieve that while maintaining good clearance, and it didn't take
disc brakes.


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


It is more possible now than ever to have a uni-bike. You could road race on my gravel bike.

Exactly! It's clearance for wide tires doesn't hamper it!
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 11:40:12 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice..
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

Yeah, but all that means is that you've decided where you will make your compromise, and experience has proved you right.

Here's a test: Let's say I have a really good bike for commuting on, with every component the best available, and I offer you a straight swap. Condition: you can still have only one bike. Would you give up the road bike for the superior commuting bike?

I've long since made my compromises and, faced with the same offer, would have no problem deciding instantly, "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks."

For a couple of decades, every year in November I'd make a shortlist of bikes I wanted. And every year it was the same bikes on my shortlist, except it grew shorter as bikes were no longer made or no longer came up to my standards and there was nothing new to replace them in my dreams. And then one year the shortlist contained just one bike, one I already had but in a different colour. Not only was that ridiculous, but I had two other very similar bikes (type Dutch stadssportief, a sporting commuter) already, in the loft. So I stopped making my shortlist. There isn't a better bike out there for what I want than the one I already have, and the current production of the same bike is welded (ugh!) not lugged like mine.

Andre Jute
Rock'n'roll, I gave you the best years of my life -- Kevin Johnson
You gotta grow up, some time -- Andre Jute

On 04/01/2020 00.33, John B. wrote:

snip

It really is a bit humorous, isn't it.

About a hundred years ago, give or take a decade or two, bicyclists
were whining and crying about how "they" should build smooth roads so
the cyclists wouldn't have to ride on those rough old dirt roads. Now,
after all the whining and crying, there are smooth roads and what do
the cyclists do? Why, they run out and buy a "gravel" bike which one
assumes is designed for riding on rough old dirt roads :-)

But as for "gravel" bikes? I can't remember seeing any mention of
gravel bikes, at least on this site, until perhaps a year or two ago.
Is this a new invention?

In my day they would have been called a CycloCross bike, which in my
world was a set of fenders short of a decent commuter. Mate just
spunked 2 grand on a "gravel" bike and it's nothing more than a
commuter. Has all the braze-ons you could want, isn't especially light,
but to be fair to him, has outboard bearings (1 year of real world
riding tops) and integrated headset bearings, we'll see how well they last.

Given the numbers of bicycle types that appear to be necessary to
outfit the complete cyclist I think that Frank was correct and the
complexity of bicycle fads is equal in complexity to the style
choices in women's shoes.

There other comparisons I'm tempted to draw, but I think I'll stop right
here :-)

Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 11:40:12 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

Yeah, but all that means is that you've decided where you will make your
compromise, and experience has proved you right.


Exactly.

Here's a test: Let's say I have a really good bike for commuting on, with
every component the best available, and I offer you a straight swap.
Condition: you can still have only one bike. Would you give up the road
bike for the superior commuting bike?

Not a chance.


I've long since made my compromises and, faced with the same offer, would
have no problem deciding instantly, "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks."


Same here. My bike’s main purpose isn’t commuting. I use it for commuting
because I like riding it and driving in traffic sucks. Mind you, in the
winter I don’t ride in the snow,slush and general crud but I didn’t when I
had a second bike more suited to that.

I had a nice sport touring bike that I used for commuting but I gave it to
someone as I found that I didn’t ride it after getting the road bike.

For a couple of decades, every year in November I'd make a shortlist of
bikes I wanted. And every year it was the same bikes on my shortlist,
except it grew shorter as bikes were no longer made or no longer came up
to my standards and there was nothing new to replace them in my dreams.
And then one year the shortlist contained just one bike, one I already
had but in a different colour. Not only was that ridiculous, but I had
two other very similar bikes (type Dutch stadssportief, a sporting
commuter) already, in the loft. So I stopped making my shortlist. There
isn't a better bike out there for what I want than the one I already
have, and the current production of the same bike is welded (ugh!) not lugged like mine.


My sport tour was a cro-moly lugged Bianchi Volpe. Nice bike. I was glad
to give it to someone who uses it.



Andre Jute
Rock'n'roll, I gave you the best years of my life -- Kevin Johnson
You gotta grow up, some time -- Andre Jute

On Saturday, 4 January 2020 00:07:51 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51:40 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each category.

I agree with that. I just don't agree that one category should be "bikes
intended for recreational riding that can't accept a 28mm tire." Nobody
has yet explained any logic in that.

Well, in the olde tyme world before discs, the answer was better braking with short reach single or dual pivot brakes, lighter weight, short wheelbases for quicker handling -- basically a racier bike that was incompatible with fenders because of tight clearances and toe overlap. The standard sport racing tire was sub-23mm, so there was no need for standard or long reach brakes. The idea was to be fast -- not versatile.

Right. All that applies to bikes to be used for racing. But as
recently as three years ago, my friend had trouble finding a bike with
decent clearance for just fun riding. That's nuts.

If you wanted a more versatile bike, you got a touring bike or a less aggressive sport touring bike with standard drop side-pulls. All of those kinds of bikes have been around forever.

Right. But we've just come through a period where they were rare, at
least if you wanted top quality components.

Back in 1976 or 1977, one of my good friends (an elderly marathoner -
he was in his 40s!) bought one of these Raleighs
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/retrora...er-tourer.html but his came with drop bars and no springs on
the saddle. On his first "event" ride (100 miles Saturday, sleep
overnight in an auditorium, 100 miles back on Sunday) he was the
first to finish, despite his lack of experience - not to mention the
hideous clearance for gasp! fenders! (I loved the Jubilee derailleur).

Again, the main point is that the tight clearances that were
fashionable had no benefit. You can talk about higher mechanical
advantage of shorter reach brakes, but there were other ways to
achieve that while maintaining good clearance, and it didn't take
disc brakes.


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


It is more possible now than ever to have a uni-bike. You could road race on my gravel bike.

Exactly! It's clearance for wide tires doesn't hamper it!
--
cheers,

John B.

Even Frank upthread confirmed, with the story of his friend buying bike, that choices were and are out there for those who want a bicycle that could/can take wide tire and fenders. Plus the bicycle she bought was not a custom built one thereby showing that the choices are there.

Cheers

On 1/3/2020 9:40 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:39:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:14:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 6:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:14:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 3 January 2020 18:40:12 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

When I lived and worked in Toronto, Canada I commuted daily on my MIELE Equipe Pro with Dura Ace groupset on a Columbus SL frameset and with 19mm Michelin Pro Comp slick tires. The funny thing is that I had no problems doing that. A lot of times after work I'd take a much longer route home because the ride was so enjoyable.

Cheers

It's just because you live "up there" in the wilds. But don't worry,
pretty soon the fads will seep north and you too can own several
different bicycles; one for commuting in the dry, one for the wet, one
for the snow and perhaps even one for the "black ice" days. Then when
warm weather arrives you can buy the up hill and the down hill
mountain bikes....

Now as for shoes for the Missus... :-)


Up here beyond civilization, where we actually pay to have
salt spread all over hell, it's obscene to sacrifice a
perfectly good and beautiful machine to salt water. Hence
two machines at minimum.

I grew up in an area - up state New Hampshire - that used salt on the
roads and I can't remember anyone that had purchased a summer vehicle
and a winter vehicle :-)

But is one worried about salt damage to one's only bicycle than there
are coatings that really do prevent salt water corrosion. After all
sail boats, that live in salt water, don't have severe corrosion
problems... at least the well designed ones don't.


As with bicycles, summer car/ winter car is relatively
common here.

Is it now? The last time I was in snow must have been around 1967-8
and I can't say as I've miss it :-)


Summer car:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/REDTHX05.JPG
Winter car:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...ast/nov19h.jpg

I got to the point where I spent as much time with my
bicycle in cleaning and lubrication as riding, which led me
to a sacrificial winter fixie. I expected a season or two
from it but, although ugly, it's been just fine for over 25
years.

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