A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Wider tires, All-road bikes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old February 4th 19, 01:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman
wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes
don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I
use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but
actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s
full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too
easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation
than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more
brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting
that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity
and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2"
wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better
because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the
rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre
contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to
brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you
over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a
32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike
can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard
surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less
traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move
your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from
lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly
wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The
reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive
carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable
metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes
if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper
replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre
on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake
and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body
backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you
are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would
you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that
a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the
basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have
a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide
tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics?
They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release.

--
JS

I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I
would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like
blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just
can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly
until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross
bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they
can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake
releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10
mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus
you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the
disk through the brake pads without knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not
be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that
cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire
roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and
rougher the MTB will shine.

What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing
problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car,
where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider.

Roger Meriman

I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek
who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall
since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate
with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time
this was the very top of the line.


Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2
a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg.

My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and
what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very
light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close.

Roger Merriman


I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would
make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on
the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been
passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes.

Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000.

I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes
these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire
roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big
thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was
dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead
up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there
really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads
and what not.

By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between
road and MTB narrows.

Roger Merriman


Ads
  #132  
Old February 4th 19, 01:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman
wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes
don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I
use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but
actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s
full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too
easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation
than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more
brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting
that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity
and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2"
wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better
because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the
rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre
contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to
brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you
over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a
32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike
can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard
surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less
traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move
your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from
lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly
wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The
reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive
carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable
metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes
if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper
replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre
on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake
and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body
backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you
are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would
you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that
a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the
basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have
a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide
tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics?
They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release.

--
JS

I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I
would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like
blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just
can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly
until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross
bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they
can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake
releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10
mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus
you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the
disk through the brake pads without knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not
be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that
cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire
roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and
rougher the MTB will shine.

What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing
problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car,
where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider.

Roger Meriman

Concerning the wheels I should add that you can't sit on the ground and
play mechanic very easily and you end up standing and somehow trying to
balance the bike without a wheel of finding some spot to lean the bike
while you play mechanic on the wheel. Putting the wheel back in under
these circumstances is clumsy at best.

Why not? Personally generally do just flip the bike over though it’s a
fairly cumbersome object it’s not heavy really so easy enough to just flip
it over should I need to. MTB will not fit but the Gravel bike with wheels
off will fit in the boot of the car, though admittedly I sometimes just
slot the forks on to the wheel, while sitting in the boot, both are easy
enough.

Roger Merriman


I don't know what sort of equipment you have but it would be a cold day
in hell when I balanced my bike upside down on my $80 saddle and my $250 Record levers.


I live in the uk, and ride off road mostly, while things might get mud,
which they will anyway, soft ground is unlikely to harm the bike, clearly
if one was truely brutal I guess? And equally being off road bikes they
will get war wounds from use.

The bikes shouldn’t be inside down is one of the many old wives tails.

Roger Meriman

  #133  
Old February 4th 19, 01:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,927
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

On 1/2/19 7:48 am, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger
Merriman wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing
brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that
first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are
so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy
system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of
locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY
too easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake
modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you
can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You
seem to be contradicting that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of
gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you
have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate
much better because you can retain traction most of the time.


Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when
the rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain
tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as
you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which
starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little
- a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the
bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on
hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is
less traction.


Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must
move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear
wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding
courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle
slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically.
The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out
expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and
cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I
can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain
using disks other than cheaper replacement costs?


Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less
tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the
front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you
don't move your body backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If
you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why
would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems
on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear
that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace
the basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to
have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way
of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled
classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without
a quick release.

-- JS


I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes
I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't
like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually
I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it
mildly until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a
cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear
that they can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the
brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake
bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a
quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks
plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without
knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Earlier the conversation was about braking performance. Now you are
talking about climbing.

Just how often do you have to brake hard while riding up a steep hill?

--
JS
  #134  
Old February 4th 19, 07:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman
wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes
don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I
use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but
actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s
full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too
easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation
than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more
brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting
that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity
and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2"
wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better
because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the
rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre
contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to
brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you
over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a
32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike
can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard
surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less
traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move
your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from
lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly
wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The
reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive
carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable
metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes
if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper
replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre
on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake
and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body
backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you
are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would
you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that
a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the
basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have
a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide
tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics?
They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release.

--
JS

I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I
would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like
blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just
can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly
until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross
bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they
can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake
releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10
mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release.. Plus
you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the
disk through the brake pads without knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not
be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that
cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire
roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and
rougher the MTB will shine.

What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing
problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car,
where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider..

Roger Meriman

I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek
who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall
since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate
with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time
this was the very top of the line.


Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2
a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg.

My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and
what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very
light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close.

Roger Merriman


I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would
make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on
the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been
passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes.

Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000.

I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes
these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire
roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big
thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was
dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead
up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there
really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads
and what not.

By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between
road and MTB narrows.

Roger Merriman


It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline.
  #135  
Old February 4th 19, 07:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:14:00 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 1/2/19 7:48 am, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger
Merriman wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing
brakes don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that
first time I use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are
so instant, but actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy
system to use to it’s full, ie tyres at the point of
locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY
too easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake
modulation than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you
can achieve more brake effort without locking a wheel. You
seem to be contradicting that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of
gravity and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you
have 2" wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate
much better because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when
the rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain
tyre contact with the road or track surface better - however, as
you start to brake the suspension forks should compress which
starts to rotate you over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little
- a 32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the
bike can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on
hard surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is
less traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must
move your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear
wheel from lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding
courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle
slightly wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically.
The reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out
expensive carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and
cheaply replaceable metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I
can easily lock the brakes if I wish to. So what would I gain
using disks other than cheaper replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less
tyre on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the
front brake and send yourself over the bars, especially if you
don't move your body backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If
you are building a superlight bike with superlight components why
would you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems
on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear
that a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace
the basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to
have a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way
of wide tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled
classics? They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without
a quick release.

-- JS


I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes
I would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't
like blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually
I just can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it
mildly until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a
cross bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear
that they can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the
brake releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake
bikes have 10 mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a
quick release. Plus you have to thread the wheel between the forks
plus carefully insert the disk through the brake pads without
knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Earlier the conversation was about braking performance. Now you are
talking about climbing.

Just how often do you have to brake hard while riding up a steep hill?

--
JS


Maybe I got lost in the conversation - I was talking about MTB's being a good place to use disks because they can use them for their very heavy downhill loads whereas my cross bike can pass them easily on hard climbs save the very hardest in which the long wheelbase and low gears of an MTB win out.
  #136  
Old February 11th 19, 12:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Roger Merriman[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 175
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman
wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes
don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I
use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but
actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s
full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too
easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation
than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more
brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting
that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity
and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2"
wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better
because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the
rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre
contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to
brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you
over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a
32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike
can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard
surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less
traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move
your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from
lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly
wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically. The
reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive
carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable
metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes
if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper
replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre
on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake
and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body
backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you
are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would
you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that
a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the
basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have
a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide
tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics?
They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release.

--
JS

I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I
would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like
blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just
can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly
until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross
bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they
can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake
releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10
mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus
you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the
disk through the brake pads without knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not
be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that
cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire
roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and
rougher the MTB will shine.

What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing
problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car,
where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider.

Roger Meriman

I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek
who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall
since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate
with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time
this was the very top of the line.


Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2
a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg.

My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and
what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very
light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close.

Roger Merriman

I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would
make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on
the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been
passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes.

Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000.

I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes
these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire
roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big
thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was
dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead
up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there
really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads
and what not.

By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between
road and MTB narrows.

Roger Merriman


It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the
Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at
LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near
that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline.

High end XC are within that ball park, Trek Top Fuel is 22lb claimed,
Ridley Sablo being a XC MTB should be broadly in the same ball park and any
other higher end XC MTB would equally.

Roger Merriman


  #137  
Old February 12th 19, 02:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,260
Default Wider tires, All-road bikes

On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:44:51 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 5:07:55 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 12:47:07 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 5:07:40 PM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 31/1/19 5:02 am, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 2:59:39 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 30/1/19 6:13 am,
wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 6:07:16 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman
wrote:


You’d think it would be so, but really quite differing brakes
don’t seem to cause confusion. I will admit that first time I
use the MTB with is 180mm etc disks they are so instant, but
actually you don’t lock, it’s a very easy system to use to it’s
full, ie tyres at the point of locking but not quite etc.


If you're applying the disk brakes and hit a bump it is WAY too
easy to lock the brakes up.


Disk brakes are normally associated with better brake modulation
than rim brakes. That means with disk brakes you can achieve more
brake effort without locking a wheel. You seem to be contradicting
that.

-- JS

Not really. A full suspension MTB has a different center of gravity
and weighs twice what a road or cross bike does. When you have 2"
wide tires and a great deal of weight disks do modulate much better
because you can retain traction most of the time.

Whether the bike weighs 10 kg or 20 kg does not change much when the
rider weighs 80 - 90kg.

The biggest difference is that a full suspension MTB will retain tyre
contact with the road or track surface better - however, as you start to
brake the suspension forks should compress which starts to rotate you
over the bars, which is bad.

There are two problems with a xcross bike - it weighs very little - a
32 mm cross knobbie can easily have so much traction that the bike
can rotate around it's much high center of gravity. And on hard
surfaces you can lock the brakes very easily since there is less
traction.

Regardless of bike weight, if you're going to brake hard you must move
your body backwards as much as possible, to prevent the rear wheel from
lifting. Even motorcycle riders who do defensive riding courses learn this.

My gravel bike comes standard with 42mm tyres. It can handle slightly
wider. Not dissimilar to many MTB tyres.


With road bikes they reduced the size of the disks dramatically.. The
reason that they even went to disks was to not wear out expensive
carbon rims. So instead they wear out easily and cheaply replaceable
metal disks. Using Campy skeleton brakes I can easily lock the brakes
if I wish to. So what would I gain using disks other than cheaper
replacement costs?

Smaller disks on road bikes is because there is significantly less tyre
on the road - but it should still be possible to lock the front brake
and send yourself over the bars, especially if you don't move your body
backwards.


I am not anti-disk brakes but there are horses for courses. If you
are building a superlight bike with superlight components why would
you put an very un-aerodynamic and heavy disk brake systems on it?

3 months of riding my Colnago with carbon wheels show less wear that
a single month on aluminum wheels. Though I have to replace the
basalt brake pads all the time.


It facilitates easier CF rim use, and doesn't require rim brakes to have
a quick release so the brake pads can be moved out of the way of wide
tyres. You know the pros use 27 - 28 mm tyres for cobbled classics?
They won't get past properly adjusted rim brakes without a quick release.

--
JS

I don't think we agree on this: I weigh 84 kg and a 20 kg bike most
assuredly climbs slower than snot on a cold day. With my cross bikes I
would come up behind a FS 29er and try to pace him because I don't like
blowing by people as if I were better than they. But eventually I just
can't go that slow and have to pass. Though I try to do it mildly
until I'm out of sight.

I will say that really rough, steep climbs that you have to carry a cross
bike up these long wheelbase MTB's can carry such a low gear that they
can climb almost anything.

I have 28's on my Time VX Elite with an Ultegra group on it and the brake
releases work fine. Let's remember that today's disk brake bikes have 10
mm one piece axles and so there is no such thing as a quick release. Plus
you have to thread the wheel between the forks plus carefully insert the
disk through the brake pads without knocking them off.

That's why most of the road racing teams are not using disks


Unless they are E-MTB or possibly downhill a full suspension 29er will not
be 20kg, mine which is at best mid pack, is 12/13kg I’d agree that
cross/gravel bikes tend to climb shallower smoother climbs such as fire
roads faster, sometimes by quite a bit equally once it gets steeper and
rougher the MTB will shine.

What race mechanics may not find difficult shouldn’t really be a pressing
problem unless your a race mechanic, if your riding with a support car,
where wheel change speed matters then possibly something to consider.

Roger Meriman

I had a Gary Fisher HiFi 29er which was just before he sold out to Trek
who made the Trek HiFi. That bike was too heavy to weigh as I recall
since I hang my scale from an overhead nail in a shelf. But my estimate
with the seat pack and water bottle would easily be 20 kg. At the time
this was the very top of the line.


Looking that bike up they are (just) sub 12kg, a water bottle generally 1/2
a kg full, unless your bike packing a seat pack isn’t going to be, 7kg.

My old commute MTB with panniers and a bar bag is 20kg as it has locks and
what not, but the FS MTB is closer to the gravel bike, you can get very
light MTB not quite as light as roadie but remarkably close.

Roger Merriman

I ALWAYS carry a seatpack and have never been sorry that I do. That would
make the bike around 15 kg, There are a lot of full suspension bikes on
the trails around here and I have passed plenty of them and NEVER been
passed by one except downhill while I was riding my cross bikes.

Sure you can get a FS bike pretty near my cross bike weight for a mere $10,000.

I’d be surprised if your saddle pack, was over 1kg, even with inner tubes
these things are all quite light, catching MTB on a CX/gravel bike on fire
roads and what not is fairly easy, and weight doesn’t seem to be the big
thing, my first CX/gravel bike was really very cheap and heavy, was
dangerously close to my MTB in weight, but could still leave MTBs for dead
up such climbs, the newer and a fair bit lighter/better Gravel bike there
really isn’t much in it if the gradient is mild, such as most fire roads
and what not.

By the time folks add water bottles and what not the difference between
road and MTB narrows.

Roger Merriman


It is slightly less than one KG and a water bottle half that. So the
Ridley XBow weighs 23.6 lbs without the bag or bottle. That makes it at
LEAST 26.6 lbs or 12 kg. What full suspension bikes weight anywhere near
that figure? And the Ridley is a couple of lbs heavier than the Redline..

High end XC are within that ball park, Trek Top Fuel is 22lb claimed,
Ridley Sablo being a XC MTB should be broadly in the same ball park and any
other higher end XC MTB would equally.

Roger Merriman


Being that the Trek has a lifetime warranty on the frame I would think that would be the way to go. But that 22 lbs must be the smallest size that uses 27.5 wheels because all of the tests weigh in at 25 lbs. And then water bottles and your seatpack and wowser, you have a heavy bike. Now maybe those things being so damn slow on the climbs has to do with the full suspension bob and they have suspension lockouts now.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tires, the wider the better [email protected] Techniques 17 October 9th 07 08:21 AM
tires, the wider the better: but slower? datakoll Techniques 23 October 9th 07 05:05 AM
Putting wider tires on my Bike. modmans2ndcoming Techniques 2 April 17th 06 11:28 PM
Are wider tires easier to control? e39m5 Unicycling 2 September 17th 05 09:00 PM
Do I need wider tires? Dukester General 10 June 27th 05 02:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.