|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
Tosspot wrote:
On 1/13/19 11:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip But I know I'm an oddball retrogrouch. Lol. You could use that as a posting name :-) But boy, when they start selling carbon fiber inner wires for shifters, I'm jumping on those. And carbon fiber safety pins for keeping my pants cuffs out of the chain. Think of the weight savings!** ;-) See, there you go, I use velcro straps now because they are more comfortable, and don't distort wrt to the traditional mild steel ones, nobody foisted that on me, I can buy the old ones if I want, the velcro ones are better. Do you have a link for the CF ones...? If I could find carbon fibre safety pins to keep your trouser cuffs out of your chain, I'd buy them and send them to Frank, just to read the ensuing rant. :-) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:24:57 +0100, Tosspot
wrote: On 1/14/19 12:44 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 10:55:01 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap. They buy it because it's [marginally] better than what the had. Eg. I could buy this mountain bike https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950 Or I could buy this; https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper! Just ride. Not wrong :-) No, they buy it because they have no other choice. If I could, I would buy down-tube levers and top-mount shifters, but they are no longer available. I have three or four of the stupid Shimano push-button shifters. Every single one of them is broken. https://www.amazon.com/Shimano-Dura-.../dp/B001ONJSAK :-) In Franks defence, they do look nice, it's just ergo/brifters are more convenient. It depends greatly on what sort of terrain one is riding over. In Bangkok - built on an alluvial plain - they work very well. I used to make, perhaps two shifts in a 20 km ride :-) Cheers, John B. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue.* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in large part. Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while (~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available products today include a lot of great innovations. But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of "improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas that really turned out to be entirely useless. Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen that weren't obvious in their first appearance: Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc. I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good. Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones). When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI (Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour" tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost) weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly heavier. But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a pipe dream that would never take root. Clipless pedals This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work - and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers, etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing. BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind, or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless pedals were crazy. Indexed shifting Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that "clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter. Who knew? I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames, bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now. So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will. While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet. Mark J. Nice post. -- duane |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote: On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue.* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in large part. Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while (~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available products today include a lot of great innovations. But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of "improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas that really turned out to be entirely useless. Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen that weren't obvious in their first appearance: Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc. I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good. Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones). When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI (Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour" tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost) weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly heavier. But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a pipe dream that would never take root. Clipless pedals This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work - and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers, etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing. BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind, or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless pedals were crazy. Indexed shifting Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that "clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter. Who knew? I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames, bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now. So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will. While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet. Mark J. I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT needing 15 gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was more than enough. I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at times and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went back to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals. Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and tights to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee. I used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack on a bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL VBEG ;) I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to keep in the gear one wanted. I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent derailleurs and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America. I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the Ergos t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my downtube shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front and rear with just one hand at the same time. In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're Frank's favourite pedals. For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3 chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to shift my 9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike. Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group riding probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes. Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for different courses. At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to give us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding. That last sentence says it all. -- duane |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On 1/13/2019 8:57 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in large part. Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while (~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available products today include a lot of great innovations. But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of "improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas that really turned out to be entirely useless. Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen that weren't obvious in their first appearance: Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc. I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good. Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones). When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI (Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour" tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost) weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly heavier. But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a pipe dream that would never take root. Clipless pedals This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work - and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers, etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing. BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind, or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless pedals were crazy. Indexed shifting Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that "clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter. Who knew? I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames, bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now. So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will. While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet. Mark J. http://velobase.com/ViewComponent.as...d-c614029c2627 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote: On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in large part. Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while (~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available products today include a lot of great innovations. But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of "improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas that really turned out to be entirely useless. Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen that weren't obvious in their first appearance: Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc. I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good. Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones). When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI (Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour" tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost) weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly heavier. But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a pipe dream that would never take root. Clipless pedals This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work - and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers, etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing. BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind, or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless pedals were crazy. Indexed shifting Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that "clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter. Who knew? I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames, bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now. So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will. While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet. Mark J. I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT needing 15 gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was more than enough. I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at times and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went back to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals. Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and tights to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee. I used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack on a bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL VBEG ;) I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to keep in the gear one wanted. I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent derailleurs and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America. I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the Ergos t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my downtube shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front and rear with just one hand at the same time. In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're Frank's favourite pedals. For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3 chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to shift my 9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike. Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group riding probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes. Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for different courses. At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to give us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding. That last sentence says it all. -- duane Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a victim of marketing. When I bought my first serious roadbike I had the choice between 3 saddles: junk, crap and doesn't fit..... Lou |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:28:05 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote:
wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap. They buy it because it's [marginally] better than what the had. Eg. I could buy this mountain bike https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950 Or I could buy this; https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper! Just ride. Not wrong :-) No, they buy it because they have no other choice. If I could, I would buy down-tube levers and top-mount shifters, but they are no longer available. I have three or four of the stupid Shimano push-button shifters. Every single one of them is broken. Well, this is a bike tech group (notwithstanding the 90% ratio of politics, helmets and general personal defamation posts). Learn how to fix them. Well, maybe someone can offer some pointers. They all have the same problem: the pawls fail to catch when downshifting. Is this just a problem with the lube gumming up or has something worn out? I suppose I should just bite the bullet and pull one apart one day. I just hate the damn things. What's the point? |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On 1/14/2019 9:29 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:28:05 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote: wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap. They buy it because it's [marginally] better than what the had. Eg. I could buy this mountain bike https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950 Or I could buy this; https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper! Just ride. Not wrong :-) No, they buy it because they have no other choice. If I could, I would buy down-tube levers and top-mount shifters, but they are no longer available. I have three or four of the stupid Shimano push-button shifters. Every single one of them is broken. Well, this is a bike tech group (notwithstanding the 90% ratio of politics, helmets and general personal defamation posts). Learn how to fix them. Well, maybe someone can offer some pointers. They all have the same problem: the pawls fail to catch when downshifting. Is this just a problem with the lube gumming up or has something worn out? I suppose I should just bite the bullet and pull one apart one day. I just hate the damn things. What's the point? Shimano Rapid Fire type or a copy? Yes they often respond well to a flush with XMart spray lubricant. No harm in trying that. Also ensure cable is not rusted/kinked/binding/frayed/damaged which is more likely. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
What is the point of tubeless tires?
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 4:58:26 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:29 AM, wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 2:28:05 PM UTC-5, Ralph Barone wrote: wrote: On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-5, Tosspot wrote: On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote: Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders? Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_. Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!" then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever. Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim. I take issue. Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble, yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes. I see what you are saying, but people don't *buy* crap. They buy it because it's [marginally] better than what the had. Eg. I could buy this mountain bike https://www.walmart.com/ip/26-Roadma...Black/55376950 Or I could buy this; https://www.damianharriscycles.co.uk...8-touring-bike By your argument, the first is a clear winner, because it's every bit as good as the latter and 600 bucks cheaper! Just ride. Not wrong :-) No, they buy it because they have no other choice. If I could, I would buy down-tube levers and top-mount shifters, but they are no longer available. I have three or four of the stupid Shimano push-button shifters. Every single one of them is broken. Well, this is a bike tech group (notwithstanding the 90% ratio of politics, helmets and general personal defamation posts). Learn how to fix them.. Well, maybe someone can offer some pointers. They all have the same problem: the pawls fail to catch when downshifting. Is this just a problem with the lube gumming up or has something worn out? I suppose I should just bite the bullet and pull one apart one day. I just hate the damn things. What's the point? Shimano Rapid Fire type or a copy? Yes they often respond well to a flush with XMart spray lubricant. No harm in trying that. Also ensure cable is not rusted/kinked/binding/frayed/damaged which is more likely. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Never had any trigger shifters of rapid fire shifters that could not be fixed by flushing them with light lubricant like Brunox in my case. Lou |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tubeless Tires. | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | November 18th 18 10:09 PM |
Tubeless Tires | [email protected] | Techniques | 16 | August 20th 18 03:57 PM |
Tubeless Tires | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | April 12th 17 03:49 AM |
tubeless tires | steve | Techniques | 2 | March 14th 08 12:18 PM |
Tubeless tires | MT | Techniques | 2 | March 30th 05 09:08 AM |