Groupsets

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 1:47:01 AM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 8 Jun 2020 10:30:13 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie:

My back-up to the dyno on my commuter is a L&M Urban 800 all in one.

That part wouldn't get an admittance in Germany, and rightfully so,
because it's just a flashlight.

IMO, our rules are somewhat arbitrary and too restrictive, but this part
we got right, from the very beginning.

When exactly was that "very beginning" you refer to?

Groan. Now we're going down the StVZO rabbit hole. The benefit of the L&M Urban series is that they have a nice pulsing (not flashing) light that helps differentiate a rider from surrounding light sources like other bike and car headlights. Having a reasonably bright round beam is also nice for the trail/dirt segments on my commute home. I can also switch it around between bikes and throw it on my fast bike if it is dreary and I want to use a pulsing DRL. It was also a sale-table item and a SEVENTH the price of my underwhelming LUXOS B and SP PD8 set-up, not including the CR18 rim, spokes and time it took me to build the wheel and drill and tap the crown of my hole-less disc commuter fork. Being able to use it off the bike like a flashlight is also a good thing.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT),
jbeattie wrote:

You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry
(or whatever the word might be).

Retrogrouchiness?

--
Ted Heise West Lafayette, IN, USA

On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 12:59:25 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

BTW, not my club. I don't belong to any clubs, but my across the street neighbor, Mary, rides with Portland Velo.


Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.


These are sport bikes on a sport ride, which is what we we're talking about.. Most people don't need a handlebar bag big enough for two Chihuahuas for sport riding. Or bells or kickstands. I'm sure most of these people have commuter bikes, at least judging by Mary's garage full of bikes -- and based on me and my cohorts.


Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

Gee, my commuter bike and its predecessors -- which have seen hundreds of thousands of miles commuting -- wouldn't pass muster. No large bags, no bells, no mirrors, and this time of year -- no dyno. I do have fenders. I guess I would get partial credit.

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 11:51:03 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 12:59:25 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ROTFLMAO!

Sorry but can't resist but I did try.

Give up the Dura Ace AX stuff because it doesn't matter? I like the loos and the function of it and STILL have it on one of my bicyles. Not bad for 37 years old (at least) components. Good grief, Kool-Stop pads are still being made for those brake calipers.

Back in the early 1980's when I first got my Dura Ace AX equipped bike I nearly did an endo when I hit the brakes hard to prevent getting squeezed between a parked vehicle and a streetcar on a curve. Thos brakes are very positive if setup correctly.

The lack of a rear outer cable housing is nice too.

I have images of my Dura Ace AX equipped bike posted he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...57668352149242

I have Biopace on a coupe of my bikes and contrary to popular belief (a misconception since they were first introduced) you CAN spin with Biopace chainrings. I really like them on the hills as they do a remarkable job of smoothing out the pedals stroke.

I like Uniglide cassettes with a modern chain because you can flip all but the screw-on cog to double the service life of those other cogs once they've become worn.

Just because racers don't or didn't like something doesn't mean that it was bad.

Dura Ace AX is not my cup of tea, but that bike shows a lot of care -- built to the component group and pristine. It's like a museum piece. IMO, AX was the first time Shimano stopped chasing Campagnolo and went its own way. Next up was SIS and then STI and market dominance. I don't know if racers had trouble with AX, but in 1980, most people were still racing on Campagnolo, including me, and most people were not willing to leap into AX, which had some weird parts with those OS spindle pedals, etc. It was also just a weird time in bicycle history with a lot of stuff hitting the market -- Mavic groups and Modolo and odd-ball this and that.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/9/2020 2:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 12:59:25 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ROTFLMAO!

Sorry but can't resist but I did try.

Give up the Dura Ace AX stuff because it doesn't matter? I like the loos and the function of it and STILL have it on one of my bicyles. Not bad for 37 years old (at least) components. Good grief, Kool-Stop pads are still being made for those brake calipers.

Back in the early 1980's when I first got my Dura Ace AX equipped bike I nearly did an endo when I hit the brakes hard to prevent getting squeezed between a parked vehicle and a streetcar on a curve. Thos brakes are very positive if setup correctly.

The lack of a rear outer cable housing is nice too.

I have images of my Dura Ace AX equipped bike posted he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...57668352149242

I have Biopace on a coupe of my bikes and contrary to popular belief (a misconception since they were first introduced) you CAN spin with Biopace chainrings. I really like them on the hills as they do a remarkable job of smoothing out the pedals stroke.

I like Uniglide cassettes with a modern chain because you can flip all but the screw-on cog to double the service life of those other cogs once they've become worn.

Just because racers don't or didn't like something doesn't mean that it was bad.

Careful, Sir. Statements like that will get you branded a retrogrouch!

(That's a very nice looking bike.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:59:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

Frank, I believe that you are missing the boat. What I want to do is
every morning when you get up simply repeat the mantra "New Is Better"
ten times. In no time at all you will attain the same pinnacles of
consumerism as the rest of America.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 18:43:47 UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 11:51:03 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 12:59:25 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country.
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ROTFLMAO!

Sorry but can't resist but I did try.

Give up the Dura Ace AX stuff because it doesn't matter? I like the loos and the function of it and STILL have it on one of my bicyles. Not bad for 37 years old (at least) components. Good grief, Kool-Stop pads are still being made for those brake calipers.

Back in the early 1980's when I first got my Dura Ace AX equipped bike I nearly did an endo when I hit the brakes hard to prevent getting squeezed between a parked vehicle and a streetcar on a curve. Thos brakes are very positive if setup correctly.

The lack of a rear outer cable housing is nice too.

I have images of my Dura Ace AX equipped bike posted he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...57668352149242

I have Biopace on a coupe of my bikes and contrary to popular belief (a misconception since they were first introduced) you CAN spin with Biopace chainrings. I really like them on the hills as they do a remarkable job of smoothing out the pedals stroke.

I like Uniglide cassettes with a modern chain because you can flip all but the screw-on cog to double the service life of those other cogs once they've become worn.

Just because racers don't or didn't like something doesn't mean that it was bad.

Dura Ace AX is not my cup of tea, but that bike shows a lot of care -- built to the component group and pristine. It's like a museum piece. IMO, AX was the first time Shimano stopped chasing Campagnolo and went its own way.. Next up was SIS and then STI and market dominance. I don't know if racers had trouble with AX, but in 1980, most people were still racing on Campagnolo, including me, and most people were not willing to leap into AX, which had some weird parts with those OS spindle pedals, etc. It was also just a weird time in bicycle history with a lot of stuff hitting the market -- Mavic groups and Modolo and odd-ball this and that.

-- Jay Beattie.

Yes,and a lot of that oddball stuff is now orphaned and has been orphaned for years. Parts for some of those orphaned components are hideously expensive now.

Btw, I sometimes use a handlebar bag on a "sport" ride. It's usual is behind the saddle.

You can see how it's mounted on this mock-up.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...57662865565180

Cheers

On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 20:06:15 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/9/2020 2:51 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020 12:59:25 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 9:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/8/2020 7:07 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 2:08:05 PM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
...But we bought our first
bicyles, both Peugeot, in 1978, both with handlebar bags and I'm using
these ever since, on every bike I owned up to now.

People are different, you know?

Exactly. Thus my response to Frank's suggestion that people who don't have a lot of bags and doo-dads are somehow inauthentic cyclists.

Sounds to me like you're re-writing history, which is foolish when posts
are still available online.

As I remember, you were the first to bring up handlebar bags, saying to
Wolfgang "And for just riding around, do you really have a handlebar
bag that big? You could put two Chihuahuas in there."

My "if your "riding around" bike is never used for anything practical,
you're free to omit bags entirely. YMMV." was my response to _your_
jibes. (If I demanded handlebar bags earlier, please point to my post.)

You continued with "I was just wondering if you dragged all that suff
around for fun riding. You don't have to justify a work bike -- although
that particular bike looked to be in dire straights [sic]."

Was the implication that Wolfgang _does_ have to justify it for a "fun
riding" bike? If so, why? Because it doesn't match _your_ preferences?
Sheesh!

Not everybody wants to ride a stripped down racing bike while sporting
overstuffed jersey pockets. Some of us have found that we're faster than
our friends riding full racing bikes, so why try for more speed? Some of
us found that switching to a racing bike lost more in versatility than
it gained in speed and enjoyment. Some of us have found we're just as
fast with a bag installed. Some of us really aren't into "sport riding"
anyway.

People are different, you know?


Yes, which is my point. You seem to sneer at modernity more than I sneer at curmudgeonry (or whatever the word might be).

It should be obvious that there's a bit of bias there.

Unless one has a bag or mirror or dyno, he or she is merely a pretender and not a practical cyclist. I find that odd, being that I spend a lot of time on a bike with people who spend lots of time on bikes in a town with lots of people on bikes, and when you get out into the country on a ride, this is what you see: https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...57632139896627

Those photos aren't unusual at all. They could be photos of one of our
club rides; although on some of ours, one of the heavy guys with a beard
would be riding with upright bars and a backpack (which I've tried to
talk him out of, BTW), another guy would be riding a Velo Orange style
touring bike with nice hammered aluminum fenders and the most garish
handlebar bag I've seen. Another rider (former club president and daily
commuter) would have been on his recumbent two years ago. Now he's got
an more conventional bike but with straight bars. (He's the one whose
rear disc took several tries to silence.) And we'd be on our old tandem,
usually at the front. But most riders look very much like yours.

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish bike, but all these people seem to be fine without lugging around bags and dynos and bells and DT shifters and what-have-you on their club ride out there in the owl clover. They are practical cyclists for what they are doing. Granted, they're not going to stop and pick up a gallon of milk at the market, but that's not the point of their ride.

Jay, you're perilously close to proving my point about "practical
cyclists."

What are those guys doing? They're going for a fun ride in the country..
That's lovely, and I do it all the time - but it's as low on the
"practical" scale as watching a movie or swimming laps in a pool. In
general, the more a person's bike is stripped down, the less he (or she)
uses it for anything beyond recreational rides. I think that's a very
strong correlation.

Do you need more than a tiny bag on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never use this bike to get something at the store." Do you need a bell
on your bike? Not if you say "I'll never ride in proximity to
pedestrians." Do you need lights on your bike? Not if you say "I'll
never ride at night." Do you need fenders? Not if you say "I'll never
ride in the rain." But please don't pretend those choices leave the bike
just as practical!

As to "modernity": What I do pretty often is wonder about the advantages
and disadvantages of the latest promoted technology. I ask if the
purported improvements are really worth having, especially for the type
of riding I and most people actually do and aspire to. I think those are
good topics for discussion.

It's still a pretty free country. You still have the choice of following
every trend or every wildly promoted product, and you've had that
starting back in the 1970s. You'd have gone to narrower and narrower and
narrower tires, because they were faster - until the last few years,
you'd go to wider tires because they were faster.

You'd have gone to all Shimano AX because aerodynamic components are so
important - and given them up in a couple years because they didn't matter.

You could have raved about the power increase from BioPace non-round
chainrings. Until you learned the racers didn't like them, so you could
remove them. Until maybe five years ago, when Wiggins and Froome put
them on again because they were so much better.

You could say that 12 speeds (2x6) were the bees knees, until they were
eclipsed by 14 speeds, or maybe 21. Then 16, or 24. Then 18, or 27. All
the way up to 22 speeds, or maybe 33. But then oops, 11 speeds (1x11)
suddenly became best - not as many as 2x6.

You could say a tire full of slimy goop is way way better than a tire
with a tube. Or maybe the other way around; I'm not sure where you or
the industry are with that question right now. But hey, whatever this
week's opinion is, that opinion is correct!

Do I even have to mention wheel diameters?

If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

Which doesn't mean you're not free to buy what you like, or whatever
they tell you to like. But it also doesn't mean we should stop talking
about advantages and disadvantages of technology.

--
- Frank Krygowski

ROTFLMAO!

Sorry but can't resist but I did try.

Give up the Dura Ace AX stuff because it doesn't matter? I like the loos and the function of it and STILL have it on one of my bicyles. Not bad for 37 years old (at least) components. Good grief, Kool-Stop pads are still being made for those brake calipers.

Back in the early 1980's when I first got my Dura Ace AX equipped bike I nearly did an endo when I hit the brakes hard to prevent getting squeezed between a parked vehicle and a streetcar on a curve. Thos brakes are very positive if setup correctly.

The lack of a rear outer cable housing is nice too.

I have images of my Dura Ace AX equipped bike posted he

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...57668352149242

I have Biopace on a coupe of my bikes and contrary to popular belief (a misconception since they were first introduced) you CAN spin with Biopace chainrings. I really like them on the hills as they do a remarkable job of smoothing out the pedals stroke.

I like Uniglide cassettes with a modern chain because you can flip all but the screw-on cog to double the service life of those other cogs once they've become worn.

Just because racers don't or didn't like something doesn't mean that it was bad.

Careful, Sir. Statements like that will get you branded a retrogrouch!

(That's a very nice looking bike.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Fitting. I'm retro and some days I'm a r eal grouch. I guess that makes me moder retro grouch. LOL

Cheers