Creeping brake pad drag

John B. writes:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:30:46 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:09:57 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:38:47 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 20:12:07 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:30:21 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple
than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no
sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and
then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no
computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting
is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in
some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember
the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the
folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this
year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever
reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they
pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike,
and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has
mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic
early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's
a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists -
and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical
systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into
diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between
"simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and
just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

Once it's totally perfected, widespread and trickled-down to
mid-range groupsets; I can see electronic shifting getting
popular with touring bicyclists. There would be no problems with
cables. I have bicycles with downtube shifters and I have
bicycles with downtube shifters AND tubular tires. MY road
touring bicycle has Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo levers on
it. Ratcheting front shifter lever mechanism. Why? Because I like
being able to have two hands on the handlebar when honking up a
hill or riding in strong cross winds on my loaded touring
bike. Franks and YMMV. I DO KNOW what works best for ME.

Cheers

Yes, I agree with you. When the price drops there will undoubtedly be
a lot of bicycles sold with electric shifting. And, I'm sure that as
more and more devices are developed/invented to eliminate any and all
requirement for physical activity they will be marketed... and
purchased.

And yes, I hear you... Oh! I wouldn't have to take my hands off the
handle bars. Really? Of course about the first thing that young
people do after finally learning to ride a bicycle is practice riding
"hands off".

And the great improvement of electric shifting over what exists today
seems to be that instead of flicking your first finger to shift you
now can simply press the tip of your finger on a tiny button.... and
for that you get to pay in the neighborhood of $1,500. Ohhh, such a
bargain :-)

One can only assume that the next step in eliminating any and all
requirement for physical activity will be the electric bicycle.And, of
course, it is:

https://tinyurl.com/urcmt3r
Electric bicycles are showing strong year-over-year growth in the
U.S., with dollar sales growing by 95 percent in the 12 months ending
July 2017, and unit sales up 96 percent, according to global
information company The NPD Group. A $64.9 million category today,
electric bicycle sales have nearly tripled over the last 36 months.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, sometimes it's hard to tell if you're trying to be funny or
obtuse. LOL VBEG

Cynical.

Here we have a two wheel vehicle that within living memory has largely
been a toy for adolescents and the poor who either couldn't get a
drivers license or were too poor to afford a "car" which suddenly
blossom out into a $12,000 plastic thing, which the great bulk of the
modern U.S. public wouldn't take if you paid them to.
Mechanically a design that dates back to about 1850, some 170 years
ago and a relatively simple designed then, with no major design
changes from then to now.

1850? We must have read different histories. 1890 is more like it for a
modern-looking safety bicycle, something that could reasonably be used
for transportation by people of ordinary ability. Add twenty years or
so to include people of ordinary means. The bicycle is, as much as the
automobile, or the airplane, a product of the modern industrial age.
A usable safety bicycle chain could no more have been manufactured in
1850 than a moon rocket.

Well, you came closer than I did :-)

https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-i...history-365776
A major breakthrough came in 1885 with John Kemp Starley's the
creation of (or maybe "return to" is more accurate) a bike design that
featured a rider perched much lower between two wheels of the same
size, coupled with a sprocket and chain system that drove the bike
from the rear wheel. This was the same basic "diamond frame" design
still in use in today's bikes.

As for making chains. As Starley designed and apparently built a
bicycle using a chain it is apparent that chains suitable for use as a
drive chain were in existence and as I doubt that they suddenly
appeared out of the blue just in time for building the first modern
bicycle I would suggest that they existed prior to 1885. Perhaps as
early as 1850 :-)

Big leather belts (scary things, really), and giant gear trains were
widely used for industrial power transmission back around 1850. I'm
sure there was a development process for roller chains that reaches back
further than I might guess. I'll bet the early ones were big and
clunky, hand made, and cost a minor fortune. I still think that chains
so cheap that ordinary cyclists could throw them away had to wait for
the twentieth century.

I once worked in a shop that used overhead shafts and leather belts to
power the machines and to be frank there was nothing wrong with them
as they powered the machines (the ultimate reason for having them), it
was easy to change speed and they allowed the entire shop to be
powered by one motor/engine, which of course was the reason that the
idea was born... imagine, you have, oh say, 10 machines in your shop
and you need to power them.... how do you do it, given that it is in
the early 1900's?

I agree with you that cyclists now throw chains away rather than
repair them but is that a factor of the cost of the chain or the fact
that cyclists, particularly in the U.S., have a much larger disposable
budget?

How do you fix a chain that has worn past its limit?

But to get back to my premise that linked roller chains must have been
available, and likely relatively common, before the building of the
"safety" bicycle in the late 1880's.

Is it likely that anyone will build something for which the components
aren't commonly available? Was the first solid state radio built with
the hope that someone would invent the transistor?

No, but transistors were a lot more expensive back then. You can buy
literally millions of them for what you used to pay for four or five.

In other words, you've been alive for well over half the history of the
safety bicycle.

How so?

1885 to 2019 is 134 years, twice 67.
--
cheers,

John B.


--

John B. writes:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, 25 November 2019 13:21:56 UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

[ ... ]


My niece got me a cell phone because she was concerned about me being
alone out in the countryside if I needed medical or mechanical
assistance.

I carry a small hand phone when riding for the same reason, except in
my case I did fall and broke my pelvis and was able to call my wife to
come and help me.

I too prefer paying by cash so as to avoid being tracked and I also
forgo the use of so-called customer loyalty cards, because those are
just tracking devices too to track your purchases.

The only problem I have with using cash is when the cashier's machine
doesn't tell them how much change to give me. It seems that very few
cashiers hereabouts these days can do a simple mathematical
calculation to determine the correct amount of change to give me.

Here just about every cash register does that calculation for the
cashier and as you say, I've never seen a cashier that could "make
change". In fact the sales receipt prints out the total bill, tax,
amount paid and the "change".

Same here. When they first introduced the fancy cash registers, they
did the talking. Customers hated it. Now the machines just do the
smart stuff.

Between media like Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter etc. and debit and
loyalty card, that a lot of people simply have no idea as to just
how much of their privacy they've given up. Kind of scary when you
think about it.

Cheers

I grew up in a small New England town and find this "modern" idea of
"privacy" a bit humorous as growing up practically everyone in town
knew who I was, where I lived, approximately how much money my father
made, what sort of car we drove and if they had kids my age,
approximately how well I was doing in school :-)

But you knew the same things about them, which is the difference.

I remember people used to carry cards with their name and address and
even their telephone number. Calling, or maybe business, cards they
were called.

Business cards are alive and well, calling cards not so much.

On 11/25/2019 1:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I too prefer paying by cash so as to avoid being tracked and I also forgo the use of so-called customer loyalty cards, because those are just tracking devices too to track your purchases.

....

Between media like Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter etc. and debit and loyalty card, that a lot of people simply have no idea as to just how much of their privacy they've given up. Kind of scary when you think about it.

From
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir.../#22923cfb6668


"An angry man went into a Target [department store] outside of
Minneapolis, demanding to talk to a manager:

“My daughter got this in the mail!� he said. “She’s still in high
school, and you’re sending her coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are
you trying to encourage her to get pregnant?�

The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was talking about. He
looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was addressed to the man’s
daughter and contained advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery
furniture and pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and
then called a few days later to apologize again.

On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed. “I had a
talk with my daughter,� he said. “It turns out there’s been some
activities in my house I haven’t been completely aware of. She’s due in
August. I owe you an apology.�

Turns out their software was able to tell that from purchases of certain
types of lotions, supplements, etc.

We shop at just one grocery store, the one that's most pleasant to reach
by bike. When we haven't been there for a while they send us a bunch of
coupons in the mail. Their accuracy is pretty astonishing. It's often
exactly what we're running out of, in exactly the right brand.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/25/2019 9:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/25/2019 1:35 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


I too prefer paying by cash so as to avoid being tracked
and I also forgo the use of so-called customer loyalty
cards, because those are just tracking devices too to
track your purchases.

...

Between media like Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter etc. and
debit and loyalty card, that a lot of people simply have
no idea as to just how much of their privacy they've given
up. Kind of scary when you think about it.

From
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir.../#22923cfb6668


"An angry man went into a Target [department store] outside
of Minneapolis, demanding to talk to a manager:

“My daughter got this in the mail!� he said.
“She’s still in high school, and you’re sending her
coupons for baby clothes and cribs? Are you trying to
encourage her to get pregnant?�

The manager didn’t have any idea what the man was
talking about. He looked at the mailer. Sure enough, it was
addressed to the man’s daughter and contained
advertisements for maternity clothing, nursery furniture and
pictures of smiling infants. The manager apologized and then
called a few days later to apologize again.

On the phone, though, the father was somewhat abashed.
“I had a talk with my daughter,� he said. “It turns
out there’s been some activities in my house I haven’t
been completely aware of. She’s due in August. I owe you
an apology.�

Turns out their software was able to tell that from
purchases of certain types of lotions, supplements, etc.

We shop at just one grocery store, the one that's most
pleasant to reach by bike. When we haven't been there for a
while they send us a bunch of coupons in the mail. Their
accuracy is pretty astonishing. It's often exactly what
we're running out of, in exactly the right brand.



Right, that's how their systems work by design.

Which is why I pay retail price in cash. Using a card or
coupon or 'preferred customer discount' or what have you
opens the door to all manner of distasteful things. No thanks.

Or as they say in the software racket, "When the product is
'free', you are the product."

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

On 11/25/2019 6:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:41:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2019 11:45 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I don't miss payphones except for finding stray coins in coin returns. As a kid, they were a gold mine -- along with that penny gum machine at the Woolworths that would keep producing balls if you twisted the handle just far enough but not too far. I also like TV remotes and not having to flip LPs, which I still do, but it is an inconvenience. Paper money doubles transaction time at most registers.

I disagree about the paper money - at least, if the customer is (even)
older than I am. I've been stuck behind ladies baffled by the choice of
"Debit" vs. "Credit" plus "What's a PIN number? Oh, I've got that in
here somewhere..." Which is not to mention people backing up the line by
trying to call up the store's app on their new phone to find the online
coupon for ten cents off on Q-tips.

There have been times I wished they'd brought in a dozen of their
chickens' eggs to trade for their Geritol.

Yesterday we went shopping for a dish washer... and bought one. The
shop (Home Pro) suggested that my wife pay by credit card so she
produced her card and the cashier scanned it, typed up the bill and
presented a small electronic gizmo for my wife's signature.... the
signature gizmo didn't work so we had to paid in cash.

And speaking of electronic signatures: I occasionally get a personal
check that I need to cash. And during the past year, we've had some
visits to medical facilities where we needed to sign permission forms or
acknowledge privacy policies.

In both cases, instead of a paper form, a little 2" x 5" electronic pad
was shoved toward me. I was asked to apply my signature with an
electronic pen.

Did I just sign medical permission? Did I just sign to accept the cash
from the check? Or did I just sign away the title to my home plus my
entire retirement account? These days, there may be no way to tell.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:19:11 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:19:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2019 2:19 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:32:59 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 18:03:26 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJ06mro5fw

Lou

So the differences between a retro bike with modern kit and a modern bike with modern kit are @25hph 8 watts, @35 kph 21 Watts, and @45 kph 25 Watts. I'm not up on the Watts measurements so must ask, just how significant are those increases?

Cheers

I ride with a power meter for two years now so I think I got a feeling about numbers. For me from my experience:
recovery ride 100-110 Watts, average speed about 25-26 km/hr,
relative easy ride 140-150, Watts average speed about 28-29 km/hr
average ride 180-190 Watts, average speed about 30-31 km/hr
pushing really hard 200-210, average speed about 32-33 km/hr.
All flat terrain and moderate temperature and wind concitions.

So 15 -20 Watt increase in average power is very significant in intensity.

I know Lou is just estimating and remembering, so it's rough data. In
particular, if you plot those, you'll see the 5th data point appears to
be off the curve a bit.

But the slope of the plot also shows that even at moderate speeds (25
kph) it takes quite a power difference to gain just a little speed. Or,
in the context of the "aero" discussion, it takes quite a large change
in aerodynamics to make you noticeably faster.

(Yes, in a close race, a tiny change can be the difference between
winning and losing. But nobody responded to my query by saying "I still
race!" Is it only James that still does that?)

No, Jay told the story of racing with his son. I believe that the
outcome was that Jay fell off and broke his finger :-(

No, I was just riding with my son when he crashed on a wet descent, and I cartwheeled over him. I stopped racing him years ago. My son is a giant watt factory -- if he wants to drop me, he does. The race lasts for about ten seconds.

BUT every weekend is still a de facto race with my old-dude riding buddies, some of whom still race. I don't need the latest and greatest equipment to ride with them, but a light, responsive bike is a lot of fun even if you're not racing. Di2 is nice, but not necessary, and I would argue that discs are necessary or at least a huge benefit when riding in wet weather. Discs also give you fender clearance, and for group riding, fenders are required -- or at least SOP here in PDX. https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...7632139896627/

-- Jay Beattie.

I still wonder about brakes.

Yes, I've heard all bout disks but I have built two bikes with Vee
Brakes that had sufficient braking force to lock a wheel(s), either
front or back or both on wet and dry pavement.

And Yes, I tested it. After reading one or another of the various "Oh
my disks are wonderful" posts I went out in a torrential downpour (my
wife thought I'd gone mad) and tested it. Yup, I could skid either the
front, rear, or both together. A day or so later, when it didn't rain,
I tested it again, on a blacktop road, and still works.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 11/25/2019 9:38 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:19:11 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:19:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/25/2019 2:19 AM, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:32:59 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 18:03:26 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


You’re arguing with people that had the same sort of argument about
brifters.

Some people still argue that Brifters or Ergos aren't needed on ANY bicycle.

"Needed"?

I'd say brifters are needed to be competitive in a criterium race. They're
often, but not always, needed to be competitive in the final sprint of a road
race.

When else are they "needed"?

I wonder how heated the arguments would have been had the internet been around when the transition from wooden frames or from wooden wheels to metal ones or from solid rubber tires to pneumatic tires?

When pneumatic tires were introduced, it became impossible to win a race on
solid tires. The difference in rolling resistance was that dramatic. So was
the difference in comfort.

The same can be said about multiple gears. Very soon, everybody saw the advantages
and knew the benefits outweighed the detriments.

But since then, returns on technology have diminished. The benefits of most
innovations since, oh, 2000 or so are barely measurable in most situations.

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mJ06mro5fw

Lou

So the differences between a retro bike with modern kit and a modern bike with modern kit are @25hph 8 watts, @35 kph 21 Watts, and @45 kph 25 Watts. I'm not up on the Watts measurements so must ask, just how significant are those increases?

Cheers

I ride with a power meter for two years now so I think I got a feeling about numbers. For me from my experience:
recovery ride 100-110 Watts, average speed about 25-26 km/hr,
relative easy ride 140-150, Watts average speed about 28-29 km/hr
average ride 180-190 Watts, average speed about 30-31 km/hr
pushing really hard 200-210, average speed about 32-33 km/hr.
All flat terrain and moderate temperature and wind concitions.

So 15 -20 Watt increase in average power is very significant in intensity.

I know Lou is just estimating and remembering, so it's rough data. In
particular, if you plot those, you'll see the 5th data point appears to
be off the curve a bit.

But the slope of the plot also shows that even at moderate speeds (25
kph) it takes quite a power difference to gain just a little speed. Or,
in the context of the "aero" discussion, it takes quite a large change
in aerodynamics to make you noticeably faster.

(Yes, in a close race, a tiny change can be the difference between
winning and losing. But nobody responded to my query by saying "I still
race!" Is it only James that still does that?)

No, Jay told the story of racing with his son. I believe that the
outcome was that Jay fell off and broke his finger :-(

No, I was just riding with my son when he crashed on a wet descent, and I cartwheeled over him. I stopped racing him years ago. My son is a giant watt factory -- if he wants to drop me, he does. The race lasts for about ten seconds.

BUT every weekend is still a de facto race with my old-dude riding buddies, some of whom still race. I don't need the latest and greatest equipment to ride with them, but a light, responsive bike is a lot of fun even if you're not racing. Di2 is nice, but not necessary, and I would argue that discs are necessary or at least a huge benefit when riding in wet weather. Discs also give you fender clearance, and for group riding, fenders are required -- or at least SOP here in PDX. https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...7632139896627/

-- Jay Beattie.

I still wonder about brakes.

Yes, I've heard all bout disks but I have built two bikes with Vee
Brakes that had sufficient braking force to lock a wheel(s), either
front or back or both on wet and dry pavement.

And Yes, I tested it. After reading one or another of the various "Oh
my disks are wonderful" posts I went out in a torrential downpour (my
wife thought I'd gone mad) and tested it. Yup, I could skid either the
front, rear, or both together. A day or so later, when it didn't rain,
I tested it again, on a blacktop road, and still works.
--
cheers,

John B.


Works in a nice civilized place like Thailand but not out in
the muddy wilds of a Portland Cyclocross:

https://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/60....172857679.jpg

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

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:40:33 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/25/2019 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 17:40:13 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/25/2019 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:30:46 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:09:57 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:38:47 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 20:12:07 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:30:21 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple
than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no
sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and
then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no
computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting
is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in
some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember
the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the
folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this
year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever
reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they
pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike,
and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has
mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic
early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's
a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists -
and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical
systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into
diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between
"simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and
just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

Once it's totally perfected, widespread and trickled-down to
mid-range groupsets; I can see electronic shifting getting
popular with touring bicyclists. There would be no problems with
cables. I have bicycles with downtube shifters and I have
bicycles with downtube shifters AND tubular tires. MY road
touring bicycle has Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo levers on
it. Ratcheting front shifter lever mechanism. Why? Because I like
being able to have two hands on the handlebar when honking up a
hill or riding in strong cross winds on my loaded touring
bike. Franks and YMMV. I DO KNOW what works best for ME.

Cheers

Yes, I agree with you. When the price drops there will undoubtedly be
a lot of bicycles sold with electric shifting. And, I'm sure that as
more and more devices are developed/invented to eliminate any and all
requirement for physical activity they will be marketed... and
purchased.

And yes, I hear you... Oh! I wouldn't have to take my hands off the
handle bars. Really? Of course about the first thing that young
people do after finally learning to ride a bicycle is practice riding
"hands off".

And the great improvement of electric shifting over what exists today
seems to be that instead of flicking your first finger to shift you
now can simply press the tip of your finger on a tiny button.... and
for that you get to pay in the neighborhood of $1,500. Ohhh, such a
bargain :-)

One can only assume that the next step in eliminating any and all
requirement for physical activity will be the electric bicycle.And, of
course, it is:

https://tinyurl.com/urcmt3r
Electric bicycles are showing strong year-over-year growth in the
U.S., with dollar sales growing by 95 percent in the 12 months ending
July 2017, and unit sales up 96 percent, according to global
information company The NPD Group. A $64.9 million category today,
electric bicycle sales have nearly tripled over the last 36 months.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, sometimes it's hard to tell if you're trying to be funny or
obtuse. LOL VBEG

Cynical.

Here we have a two wheel vehicle that within living memory has largely
been a toy for adolescents and the poor who either couldn't get a
drivers license or were too poor to afford a "car" which suddenly
blossom out into a $12,000 plastic thing, which the great bulk of the
modern U.S. public wouldn't take if you paid them to.
Mechanically a design that dates back to about 1850, some 170 years
ago and a relatively simple designed then, with no major design
changes from then to now.

1850? We must have read different histories. 1890 is more like it for a
modern-looking safety bicycle, something that could reasonably be used
for transportation by people of ordinary ability. Add twenty years or
so to include people of ordinary means. The bicycle is, as much as the
automobile, or the airplane, a product of the modern industrial age.
A usable safety bicycle chain could no more have been manufactured in
1850 than a moon rocket.

Well, you came closer than I did :-)

https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-i...history-365776
A major breakthrough came in 1885 with John Kemp Starley's the
creation of (or maybe "return to" is more accurate) a bike design that
featured a rider perched much lower between two wheels of the same
size, coupled with a sprocket and chain system that drove the bike
from the rear wheel. This was the same basic "diamond frame" design
still in use in today's bikes.

As for making chains. As Starley designed and apparently built a
bicycle using a chain it is apparent that chains suitable for use as a
drive chain were in existence and as I doubt that they suddenly
appeared out of the blue just in time for building the first modern
bicycle I would suggest that they existed prior to 1885. Perhaps as
early as 1850 :-)

Big leather belts (scary things, really), and giant gear trains were
widely used for industrial power transmission back around 1850. I'm
sure there was a development process for roller chains that reaches back
further than I might guess. I'll bet the early ones were big and
clunky, hand made, and cost a minor fortune. I still think that chains
so cheap that ordinary cyclists could throw them away had to wait for
the twentieth century.

I once worked in a shop that used overhead shafts and leather belts to
power the machines and to be frank there was nothing wrong with them
as they powered the machines (the ultimate reason for having them), it
was easy to change speed and they allowed the entire shop to be
powered by one motor/engine, which of course was the reason that the
idea was born... imagine, you have, oh say, 10 machines in your shop
and you need to power them.... how do you do it, given that it is in
the early 1900's?

I agree with you that cyclists now throw chains away rather than
repair them but is that a factor of the cost of the chain or the fact
that cyclists, particularly in the U.S., have a much larger disposable
budget?

But to get back to my premise that linked roller chains must have been
available, and likely relatively common, before the building of the
"safety" bicycle in the late 1880's.

Is it likely that anyone will build something for which the components
aren't commonly available? Was the first solid state radio built with
the hope that someone would invent the transistor?

In other words, you've been alive for well over half the history of the
safety bicycle.

How so?

1885 to 2019 is 134 years, twice 67.
--
cheers,

John B.


My understanding of it is that while Leonardo and others
drafted chain design earlier, it was the advent of modern
inexpensive quality steel, and related industrial machining
processes, which made the original block chain practical.


https://www.thedrive.co.uk/car-acces...-of-the-chain/

" In 1832, a French inventor called Gull was awarded a patent to make
a chain similar to a modern-day bicycle chain and the so-called Gull
chain is still used today in hanging and suspension applications."
...
By the late 19th century, the bushing came along to change the chain
industry further. Chains that featured bushings had much greater
resistance to wear then the Gull chains because the bushings provided
a bearing to protect the pin. This is when chains really started to
develop and to be used in more and more industries and applications.
Steel bushing chains were used in bicycles, as well as in the
rear-wheel drive of early cars and even in the propeller drive of the
Wright Brothers\u2019 1903 aeroplane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_chain
Obsolete chain designs previously used on bicycles included the block
chain, the skip-link chain, and the Simpson lever chain. The first
chains were of a simple, bushing-less design. These had inherent
reliability problems and a bit more friction (and mechanical
efficiency losses) than modern chains.

https://www.bridgemanimages.co.uk/en...184304/summary
Bicycle by Guilmet and Meyer, 1869 (metal)

As I wrote in another thread. Would the early makers of chain drive
bicycles have designed their product for a part that didn't exist,
i.e., the chain, with the hope that someone else would develop it?

So my thesis is that chain suitable for use in transmitting force must
have existed before the first chain drive bicycle was designed.
--
cheers,

John B.


Other way around. Invented specifically for bicycles, then
applied elsewhere.

You mean a guy was standing there with his newly invented "safety
bicycle" looking at the sprockets on the back wheel and the pedals and
scratching his head and a bloke burst out of the jungle shouting,
"Here! Try this new chain that I invented just for you"?

I don't think that things work that way. I suspect that chains were in
use and initially were adapted to these first "safety bicycles" and as
they became popular people started developing improved versions of the
chain.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 20:57:36 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:30:46 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:09:57 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:38:47 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 20:12:07 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:30:21 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

From a user standpoint, Di2 is very simple -- more simple
than cables. No tension adjustment or lubrication, and no
sticking after riding in muck. You have to charge it now and
then -- and you can get fussy with programming (on bike, no
computer necessary for certain settings). Electronic shifting
is not an imperative, and it's expensive, but its a
reasonable choice.

Well, sure, everything is a reasonable choice for someone in
some situations.

But "no tension adjustment or lubrication"? I can't remember
the last time I
did a so-called tension adjustment on anything but the
folding bike; and for
whatever reason, that one seemed to settle down early this
year. I think all
my shift cables are lined with plastic, but for whatever
reason, I don't ever
seem to have to lubricate them. Well, except for where they
pass through that
open plastic channel under the bottom bracket of one bike,
and that's only
very rarely. Other lubrication? A Di2 derailleur still has
mechanical pivoting
joints, doesn't it?

It's OK if someone wants to buy e-shifting. And given basic
early adopter psychology, plus normal pride of ownership, it's
a given that most who spend
many hundreds of dollars for its tiny benefits will say it's worth it.

But it seems obvious that 99.9999% of the world's cyclists -
and even cycling
enthusiasts - get along just fine with mechanical
systems. This choice proves
that, at best, bike technology is now way, way deep into
diminishing returns.

And I really do think there's an important difference between
"simple to use
because of incredible complexity built into a tiny box" and
just plain "simple."
That difference shows up when something goes wrong.

- Frank Krygowski

Ah, but Frank. You apparently understand, It is NEW! (and therefore
obviously better :-)

And USians apparently have an almost unlimited amount of disposable
income - I read the other day that "shopping", i.e., going to the
Mall, is now considered a form of entertainment.

And, of course, one has to "keep up with the Jones" and one way to do
it is to have a more expensive bicycle. (we have at least one bloke
here who drops the casual mention of his $4,000 bike into the
conversation at frequent intervals).

What could be more up-market than electrical shifting. It is NEW, it
is EXPENSIVE, I got it and you don't. What better reasons could
possible be imagined for owning something?
--
cheers,

John B.

Once it's totally perfected, widespread and trickled-down to
mid-range groupsets; I can see electronic shifting getting
popular with touring bicyclists. There would be no problems with
cables. I have bicycles with downtube shifters and I have
bicycles with downtube shifters AND tubular tires. MY road
touring bicycle has Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo levers on
it. Ratcheting front shifter lever mechanism. Why? Because I like
being able to have two hands on the handlebar when honking up a
hill or riding in strong cross winds on my loaded touring
bike. Franks and YMMV. I DO KNOW what works best for ME.

Cheers

Yes, I agree with you. When the price drops there will undoubtedly be
a lot of bicycles sold with electric shifting. And, I'm sure that as
more and more devices are developed/invented to eliminate any and all
requirement for physical activity they will be marketed... and
purchased.

And yes, I hear you... Oh! I wouldn't have to take my hands off the
handle bars. Really? Of course about the first thing that young
people do after finally learning to ride a bicycle is practice riding
"hands off".

And the great improvement of electric shifting over what exists today
seems to be that instead of flicking your first finger to shift you
now can simply press the tip of your finger on a tiny button.... and
for that you get to pay in the neighborhood of $1,500. Ohhh, such a
bargain :-)

One can only assume that the next step in eliminating any and all
requirement for physical activity will be the electric bicycle.And, of
course, it is:

https://tinyurl.com/urcmt3r
Electric bicycles are showing strong year-over-year growth in the
U.S., with dollar sales growing by 95 percent in the 12 months ending
July 2017, and unit sales up 96 percent, according to global
information company The NPD Group. A $64.9 million category today,
electric bicycle sales have nearly tripled over the last 36 months.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, sometimes it's hard to tell if you're trying to be funny or
obtuse. LOL VBEG

Cynical.

Here we have a two wheel vehicle that within living memory has largely
been a toy for adolescents and the poor who either couldn't get a
drivers license or were too poor to afford a "car" which suddenly
blossom out into a $12,000 plastic thing, which the great bulk of the
modern U.S. public wouldn't take if you paid them to.
Mechanically a design that dates back to about 1850, some 170 years
ago and a relatively simple designed then, with no major design
changes from then to now.

1850? We must have read different histories. 1890 is more like it for a
modern-looking safety bicycle, something that could reasonably be used
for transportation by people of ordinary ability. Add twenty years or
so to include people of ordinary means. The bicycle is, as much as the
automobile, or the airplane, a product of the modern industrial age.
A usable safety bicycle chain could no more have been manufactured in
1850 than a moon rocket.

Well, you came closer than I did :-)

https://www.liveabout.com/bikes-an-i...history-365776
A major breakthrough came in 1885 with John Kemp Starley's the
creation of (or maybe "return to" is more accurate) a bike design that
featured a rider perched much lower between two wheels of the same
size, coupled with a sprocket and chain system that drove the bike
from the rear wheel. This was the same basic "diamond frame" design
still in use in today's bikes.

As for making chains. As Starley designed and apparently built a
bicycle using a chain it is apparent that chains suitable for use as a
drive chain were in existence and as I doubt that they suddenly
appeared out of the blue just in time for building the first modern
bicycle I would suggest that they existed prior to 1885. Perhaps as
early as 1850 :-)

Big leather belts (scary things, really), and giant gear trains were
widely used for industrial power transmission back around 1850. I'm
sure there was a development process for roller chains that reaches back
further than I might guess. I'll bet the early ones were big and
clunky, hand made, and cost a minor fortune. I still think that chains
so cheap that ordinary cyclists could throw them away had to wait for
the twentieth century.

I once worked in a shop that used overhead shafts and leather belts to
power the machines and to be frank there was nothing wrong with them
as they powered the machines (the ultimate reason for having them), it
was easy to change speed and they allowed the entire shop to be
powered by one motor/engine, which of course was the reason that the
idea was born... imagine, you have, oh say, 10 machines in your shop
and you need to power them.... how do you do it, given that it is in
the early 1900's?

I agree with you that cyclists now throw chains away rather than
repair them but is that a factor of the cost of the chain or the fact
that cyclists, particularly in the U.S., have a much larger disposable
budget?

How do you fix a chain that has worn past its limit?

You don't but when you are talking about, oh say, 1,000 hp being
transmitted through the chain you do get occasional breakage and that
can usually be repaired.


But to get back to my premise that linked roller chains must have been
available, and likely relatively common, before the building of the
"safety" bicycle in the late 1880's.

Is it likely that anyone will build something for which the components
aren't commonly available? Was the first solid state radio built with
the hope that someone would invent the transistor?

No, but transistors were a lot more expensive back then. You can buy
literally millions of them for what you used to pay for four or five.

The point isn't the cost of transistors it is rather that people do
not design or build stuff assuming that as soon as they get it built
that someone will invent that one little gizmo without which the
thing won't work.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:05:42 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 10:35:55 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, 25 November 2019 13:21:56 UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:

[ ... ]


My niece got me a cell phone because she was concerned about me being
alone out in the countryside if I needed medical or mechanical
assistance.

I carry a small hand phone when riding for the same reason, except in
my case I did fall and broke my pelvis and was able to call my wife to
come and help me.

I too prefer paying by cash so as to avoid being tracked and I also
forgo the use of so-called customer loyalty cards, because those are
just tracking devices too to track your purchases.

The only problem I have with using cash is when the cashier's machine
doesn't tell them how much change to give me. It seems that very few
cashiers hereabouts these days can do a simple mathematical
calculation to determine the correct amount of change to give me.

Here just about every cash register does that calculation for the
cashier and as you say, I've never seen a cashier that could "make
change". In fact the sales receipt prints out the total bill, tax,
amount paid and the "change".

Same here. When they first introduced the fancy cash registers, they
did the talking. Customers hated it. Now the machines just do the
smart stuff.

Between media like Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter etc. and debit and
loyalty card, that a lot of people simply have no idea as to just
how much of their privacy they've given up. Kind of scary when you
think about it.

Cheers

I grew up in a small New England town and find this "modern" idea of
"privacy" a bit humorous as growing up practically everyone in town
knew who I was, where I lived, approximately how much money my father
made, what sort of car we drove and if they had kids my age,
approximately how well I was doing in school :-)

But you knew the same things about them, which is the difference.

But most, if not all of your, mine, practically everyone's, details
are available for a couple of dollars.

Are you perhaps "Radey Shouman of Lowell, Massachusetts" ? Or perhaps
"A. Radey Shouman who was born in 1961".
(I didn't bother to pay the fee to get the rest of the data)

I remember people used to carry cards with their name and address and
even their telephone number. Calling, or maybe business, cards they
were called.

Business cards are alive and well, calling cards not so much.

Gad! You mean that gentlemen don't call and leave their card. Whatever
is the world coming to?
--
cheers,

John B.