Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?

--
duane

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 21:39:49 UTC-4, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
Â*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs�?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?

--
duane

My bicycling needs vary depending on where I ride. My needs in a bicycle that I'm taking on a two-weeks long unsupported logging/mining roads tour/ride are far different than my bicycling needs if I'm riding a paved road route that's mostly flat. Then there are my wants if I decide to build a bicycle as an experiment which is what I did with one MTB with a drop handlebar and a 9-speed 11 to 19 teeth corncob cassette couple to a 28-38-48 crankset and with 1.5" x 26" smooth tread tires. That bike is a lot of fun to ride and I love it on the hills that aren't too steep. that bike meets my needs for certain routes I ride a lot. For someone else that bike could be a real beast to ride.

Cheers

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 7:49:49 PM UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote:

You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to
sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the
market demand?

That's extremely naive.

Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a
massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the
well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were
dropping, SUVs were rising.

But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out
it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM
turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising
for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs.
And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes.

It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising
didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive,
massive effort it is.

What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost
bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest.

Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make
money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad
market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart
phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market!

But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy
an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy
anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was
looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got
because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE
because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled --
buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it
is, take it or leave it."

This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel
frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and
opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a
California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon.

I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of
advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable
among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute
those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've
always been an ad skeptic.

I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the
most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto
Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in
general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like.
But the point is, they are told what to like.)

Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc
brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake
problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads:
Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever
this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there
are people that just gotta have it.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry
there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't
work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't
spend all that money.

Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon
fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better
gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh,
and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized
wheels if that matters. You really should get one.

If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a
gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists
who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or
28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short
distances, and it works fine.)

But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm?
Because they were stylish and promoted.

Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because
the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that
design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish
and promoted.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older
steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's
Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light
I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps
there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but
that didn't last long.


I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac
can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though.

A key part of that paragraph is the phrase "these days." When manufacturers
pushed frames that accepted only narrow tires, people bought them in droves..
That illustrates my point.

The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone
with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound.

That option is, thankfully, a lot more available now. Let's hope that fashion
doesn't ruin it.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?


I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--

Cheers,

John B.

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 21:39:49 UTC-4, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
Â*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs�?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?

--
duane

My bicycling needs vary depending on where I ride. My needs in a bicycle
that I'm taking on a two-weeks long unsupported logging/mining roads
tour/ride are far different than my bicycling needs if I'm riding a paved
road route that's mostly flat. Then there are my wants if I decide to
build a bicycle as an experiment which is what I did with one MTB with a
drop handlebar and a 9-speed 11 to 19 teeth corncob cassette couple to a
28-38-48 crankset and with 1.5" x 26" smooth tread tires. That bike is a
lot of fun to ride and I love it on the hills that aren't too steep. that
bike meets my needs for certain routes I ride a lot. For someone else
that bike could be a real beast to ride.

Cheers


Nice explanation of needs and wants. No irrelevant quotes from Marx
required.

I don’t do touring any longer and my only activity close to utility cycling
is my commute done on my road bike. So my needs and wants are pretty much
the same. A nice fast bike and the time to ride it.

--
duane

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?


I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--

Which is not needs.



Cheers,

John B.




--
duane

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?


I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--

Which is not needs.



Cheers,

John B.


I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy.

needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise
1. require as useful, just, or proper
2. have need of
This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner
3. have or feel a need for
always needs friends and money

need ~ noun uncommon
1. a condition requiring relief
she satisfied his need for affection;
2. anything that is necessary but lacking
he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply
his wants
3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action
toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives
purpose and direction to behavior
4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution
their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the
homeless

Got it?
--

Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
Â*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?


I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--

Which is not needs.



Cheers,

John B.


I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy.

needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise
1. require as useful, just, or proper
2. have need of
This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner
3. have or feel a need for
always needs friends and money

need ~ noun uncommon
1. a condition requiring relief
she satisfied his need for affection;
2. anything that is necessary but lacking
he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply
his wants
3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action
toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives
purpose and direction to behavior
4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution
their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the
homeless

Got it?
--

Cheers,

John B.


And you just pointed out before that needy means being poor enough to
require help from others.

If you don’t see the difference I give up. Google something else.

And if you don’t want a CF road bike, don’t buy one. I don’t need one but
I want one and I’m not so needy that I can’t afford one.

--
duane

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/26/2019 11:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:47:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/26/2019 6:00 PM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:

I love my Emonda. It goes to 11, and as I was riding over hill and dale
this weekend, I used every gear. Compared to my commuter pig, it's like
an eBike. I should have gotten discs! Actually, the direct mount dual
pivots stop really well, but there is the issue of rim wear.

I don’t know about using every gear but I definitely appreciate my 11
speed. I’m loving the mid compact too. Rollers are my favorite and this
setup works well.

People do love mid compacts these days. Before that, they loved standard
compacts. And before that, they loved 52-42. They once loved half-steps,
too, and I forget what other schemes I may be leaving out.

The one consistent fact is, whatever is being advertised right now is
the bees knees!

It's bizarre that you're criticizing a market trend that promotes
wide gear ranges. What, to you, is a legitimate transmission? 42/52
13-21? Are you criticizing spinning? I don't get it with all your
complaining about racing bikes with narrow gear ranges being foisted
on the unwary consumer.

I'm not complaining about any of those. I'm merely pointing out that
the fashions continually change, and people continually buy into
what's in fashion.

The leading fashion I see here is mostly monstrous fat bikes with
knobbies inflated to 8 psi, but ridden on MUPs. Not carbon racing bikes
unsafe at any speed.