Groupsets

On 6/9/2020 6:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

Right. They are on a "sport ride." So they, or most of them, have chosen
a bike that's good only for sport riding. By definition, that's not
versatile.

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.

OK, two points partial credit. But back when I routinely did "sport
rides" I did have a handlebar bag, and one of the ones I used certainly
qualifies as large. I have a bell too, because ... why not? Weight?
Really? My mirror is on my glasses and weighs 3 grams. Yes, fenders.

My bike's a touring bike, so it's relatively heavy - about 25 pounds
naked. But back when I was really in shape, I more than kept up with all
but the fastest club riders. I never felt the need to go Spartan
fragile. I still don't.

[description of many trends skipped]
If you don't see churning in that picture, and if you don't see cyclists
following fashion, you're not looking.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

And once again, I didn't say any (or many) did buy new bikes for just
one more cog. But I do think that people are perfectly satisfied with N
cogs until their buddy's new bike has N+1. That seals the fate of their
next bike. It will have N+1 even if it costs a lot extra - and makes no
practical difference whatsoever.

And yes, there will be some who will just upgrade the transmission
components on their bike.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. ...

I have at least briefly tried almost everything we discuss here. And
I've already said STI is pretty much necessary for the very few who
race. But note that as I said, bicycling =/= racing for all but a few.

Speaking of such things - 11 speeds, 11 teeth, etc. - I remember Frank
Berto reporting, way back in the '70s or '80s, about the number of gears
and available high gears. He made reference to his son who raced, and
said that his times and his results were the same whether his smallest
cog was 14 teeth or something much smaller. We've seen that race history
data shows no huge improvements. We've seen that climbing speeds seem to
be influenced only by weight, not gear spacing or stiffness or
aerodynamics or whatever.

Someone trying to nose out a buddy in a finishing sprint probably needs
STI. Maybe they can even use an 11 tooth cog. Others may say they like
those things, but they're hardly requirements. If someone chooses
something else, there's no need to mock them or call their bike a
"dumpster find."
--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/9/2020 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:


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.

Ouch. I think that would hurt!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:37:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/9/2020 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:


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.

Ouch. I think that would hurt!

I mentioned the above to my wife and she says the mantra should be
modified "New is Better! (except for my wife)"
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:39:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

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.

1X was basically abandoned for road bikes. I never owned it. Its standard for MTBs.

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.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders.. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. 11sp Ultegra STI is a really fine system, but if you want the little shriek-purr of Di2, go for it. It works great. I affirmatively hate bar ends. I whack my knees on them, and they're just in the wrong place for me. DT shifters are inconvenient and incompatible with most modern frames anyway. On my rain ride today getting throttled over hill and dale (mostly hill), it was a pleasure to just tap the lever and shift up while death gripping the hoods as the hill got steeper and steeper, watching my buddy ride away through the bursting orange spots in my field of vision. If I were dragging around some boat anchor festooned with bags and bells and lights, I would have had an aneurysm.

I returned home past the food carts and supermarket -- and didn't stop. Had I needed a gallon of milk, I would have been miserable carrying it home in my hand (which I have done). But I wasn't on a shopping trip. I have bikes for that, and a car and my feet. Yes. I do drive a car now and then. Shameful, I know.

-- Jay Beattie.

We agree on most things including giving each other hell. But after you've told me about riding with your son and his group I want you to watch yourself. I'm sure of myself because I will give up when the signs are there but I don't know about you and I'm seeing too many heart attacks in the group these days.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:43:47 PM UTC-7, 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.

I took the Emonda over Palomares today. Other than being slow I felt pretty good. I suppose the effects of those pills are wearing off. I can see that it is going to take a lot of the normal rides to regain my fitness.

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:49:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:39:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

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.

1X was basically abandoned for road bikes. I never owned it. Its standard for MTBs.

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.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. 11sp Ultegra STI is a really fine system, but if you want the little shriek-purr of Di2, go for it. It works great. I affirmatively hate bar ends. I whack my knees on them, and they're just in the wrong place for me. DT shifters are inconvenient and incompatible with most modern frames anyway. On my rain ride today getting throttled over hill and dale (mostly hill), it was a pleasure to just tap the lever and shift up while death gripping the hoods as the hill got steeper and steeper, watching my buddy ride away through the bursting orange spots in my field of vision. If I were dragging around some boat anchor festooned with bags and bells and lights, I would have had an aneurysm.

I returned home past the food carts and supermarket -- and didn't stop.. Had I needed a gallon of milk, I would have been miserable carrying it home in my hand (which I have done). But I wasn't on a shopping trip. I have bikes for that, and a car and my feet. Yes. I do drive a car now and then. Shameful, I know.

-- Jay Beattie.

We agree on most things including giving each other hell. But after you've told me about riding with your son and his group I want you to watch yourself. I'm sure of myself because I will give up when the signs are there but I don't know about you and I'm seeing too many heart attacks in the group these days.

Thanks for your concern. My breathing is off this year, and after having two pulmonary embolisms after a ski accident years ago, being SOB is terrifying. If it persists after the allergy season, I will go to the doctor. The asthma inhaler isn't doing the trick, and I forgot to take my hits today.

BTW, I was riding with my neighbor and best bike friend -- who is on fire this year and ten years younger, but in years past, we were much closer, with me beating him maybe two out of the last seventeen years. With my son, I just waive good bye, but when its your long time peer, its a lot harder to just let go.

Lunch rides are also brutal because there is zero warm up -- or maybe 3/4 of a mile before we start climbing, and he hits the climb at full speed. I need an warm up! Damn! Basically this climb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&app=desktop Lovely pavement. They make a wrong turn and then get back on course, and it keeps going up after the video stops -- and then you ride a few more climbs looping around the west hills. Not terribly long, but when you hit the gas right out of the front door, it sure feels long. Wish I had my handlebar bag -- to throw up in.

Actually, I have a 1975 Kirkland front bag that actually smells like vomit from sitting so long in a box in my attic. I should put that on my Emonda. Sweet! That metal bracket bag holder would do wonders for my CF bars.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/9/2020 9:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:37:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/9/2020 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:


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.

Ouch. I think that would hurt!

I mentioned the above to my wife and she says the mantra should be
modified "New is Better! (except for my wife)"

:-)

It's probably no surprise, but I've still got my original wife.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/9/2020 11:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:49:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:39:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

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.

1X was basically abandoned for road bikes. I never owned it. Its standard for MTBs.

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.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. 11sp Ultegra STI is a really fine system, but if you want the little shriek-purr of Di2, go for it. It works great. I affirmatively hate bar ends. I whack my knees on them, and they're just in the wrong place for me. DT shifters are inconvenient and incompatible with most modern frames anyway. On my rain ride today getting throttled over hill and dale (mostly hill), it was a pleasure to just tap the lever and shift up while death gripping the hoods as the hill got steeper and steeper, watching my buddy ride away through the bursting orange spots in my field of vision. If I were dragging around some boat anchor festooned with bags and bells and lights, I would have had an aneurysm.

I returned home past the food carts and supermarket -- and didn't stop. Had I needed a gallon of milk, I would have been miserable carrying it home in my hand (which I have done). But I wasn't on a shopping trip. I have bikes for that, and a car and my feet. Yes. I do drive a car now and then. Shameful, I know.

-- Jay Beattie.

We agree on most things including giving each other hell. But after you've told me about riding with your son and his group I want you to watch yourself. I'm sure of myself because I will give up when the signs are there but I don't know about you and I'm seeing too many heart attacks in the group these days.

Thanks for your concern. My breathing is off this year, and after having two pulmonary embolisms after a ski accident years ago, being SOB is terrifying. If it persists after the allergy season, I will go to the doctor. The asthma inhaler isn't doing the trick, and I forgot to take my hits today.

BTW, I was riding with my neighbor and best bike friend -- who is on fire this year and ten years younger, but in years past, we were much closer, with me beating him maybe two out of the last seventeen years. With my son, I just waive good bye, but when its your long time peer, its a lot harder to just let go.

In my experience: Your fitness will decrease. You can train hard and
reduce the rate of decrease, but it will decrease. And it seems that as
you get older, it decreases more quickly.

I have one tough friend who, in late spring maybe 25 years ago, told me
"I just can't get in shape this year!" He was a highway patrolman
charged with leading the post in morning exercises and quite dedicated
to fitness. But it just stopped working for him, and obviously disturbed
him.

He still rides a bit, at age 101. But that means he was, back then,
about the age I am now.

I think you need to embrace the change. Become this guy.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/74/38...65c47c6e33.jpg
Find joy in it. And just keep moving.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 8:36:42 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:49:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:39:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

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.

1X was basically abandoned for road bikes. I never owned it. Its standard for MTBs.

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.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. 11sp Ultegra STI is a really fine system, but if you want the little shriek-purr of Di2, go for it. It works great. I affirmatively hate bar ends. I whack my knees on them, and they're just in the wrong place for me. DT shifters are inconvenient and incompatible with most modern frames anyway. On my rain ride today getting throttled over hill and dale (mostly hill), it was a pleasure to just tap the lever and shift up while death gripping the hoods as the hill got steeper and steeper, watching my buddy ride away through the bursting orange spots in my field of vision. If I were dragging around some boat anchor festooned with bags and bells and lights, I would have had an aneurysm.

I returned home past the food carts and supermarket -- and didn't stop. Had I needed a gallon of milk, I would have been miserable carrying it home in my hand (which I have done). But I wasn't on a shopping trip. I have bikes for that, and a car and my feet. Yes. I do drive a car now and then.. Shameful, I know.

-- Jay Beattie.

We agree on most things including giving each other hell. But after you've told me about riding with your son and his group I want you to watch yourself. I'm sure of myself because I will give up when the signs are there but I don't know about you and I'm seeing too many heart attacks in the group these days.

Thanks for your concern. My breathing is off this year, and after having two pulmonary embolisms after a ski accident years ago, being SOB is terrifying. If it persists after the allergy season, I will go to the doctor. The asthma inhaler isn't doing the trick, and I forgot to take my hits today.

BTW, I was riding with my neighbor and best bike friend -- who is on fire this year and ten years younger, but in years past, we were much closer, with me beating him maybe two out of the last seventeen years. With my son, I just waive good bye, but when its your long time peer, its a lot harder to just let go.

Lunch rides are also brutal because there is zero warm up -- or maybe 3/4 of a mile before we start climbing, and he hits the climb at full speed. I need an warm up! Damn! Basically this climb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&app=desktop Lovely pavement. They make a wrong turn and then get back on course, and it keeps going up after the video stops -- and then you ride a few more climbs looping around the west hills. Not terribly long, but when you hit the gas right out of the front door, it sure feels long. Wish I had my handlebar bag -- to throw up in.

Actually, I have a 1975 Kirkland front bag that actually smells like vomit from sitting so long in a box in my attic. I should put that on my Emonda.. Sweet! That metal bracket bag holder would do wonders for my CF bars.

My warmups are taking longer and longer. It started out as 10 minutes 10 years ago when I recovered from the concussion and last year I would be 20 minutes or a little more climbing the local hill on my way to the ride and yesterday I was 18 miles into the ride on the climb before I started getting there. I could have thrown a rock to the top of the climb by then. I can only hope I return after I get back to my normal rides.

On 6/9/2020 8:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 7:49:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:39:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

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.

1X was basically abandoned for road bikes. I never owned it. Its standard for MTBs.

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.

I see people who have probably purchased bikes in the last ten to fifteen years. It looks like they're riding a bunch of OE stuff except the fenders. Is everyone who has bought a bike in the last ten to fifteen years just giving in to fashion?

I don't know anyone who upgraded from 10sp to 11sp or 12sp just to get one more cog. If they exist, I don't know them.

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.


Have you tried the technology? Go buy a modern bike and report back. I raced on DT friction shifters for decades, then SIS, STI and now I even have a bike with UDi2. I can actually compare all those systems. 11sp Ultegra STI is a really fine system, but if you want the little shriek-purr of Di2, go for it. It works great. I affirmatively hate bar ends. I whack my knees on them, and they're just in the wrong place for me. DT shifters are inconvenient and incompatible with most modern frames anyway. On my rain ride today getting throttled over hill and dale (mostly hill), it was a pleasure to just tap the lever and shift up while death gripping the hoods as the hill got steeper and steeper, watching my buddy ride away through the bursting orange spots in my field of vision. If I were dragging around some boat anchor festooned with bags and bells and lights, I would have had an aneurysm.

I returned home past the food carts and supermarket -- and didn't stop. Had I needed a gallon of milk, I would have been miserable carrying it home in my hand (which I have done). But I wasn't on a shopping trip. I have bikes for that, and a car and my feet. Yes. I do drive a car now and then. Shameful, I know.

-- Jay Beattie.

We agree on most things including giving each other hell. But after you've told me about riding with your son and his group I want you to watch yourself. I'm sure of myself because I will give up when the signs are there but I don't know about you and I'm seeing too many heart attacks in the group these days.

Thanks for your concern. My breathing is off this year, and after having two pulmonary embolisms after a ski accident years ago, being SOB is terrifying. If it persists after the allergy season, I will go to the doctor. The asthma inhaler isn't doing the trick, and I forgot to take my hits today.

BTW, I was riding with my neighbor and best bike friend -- who is on fire this year and ten years younger, but in years past, we were much closer, with me beating him maybe two out of the last seventeen years. With my son, I just waive good bye, but when its your long time peer, its a lot harder to just let go.

Lunch rides are also brutal because there is zero warm up -- or maybe 3/4 of a mile before we start climbing, and he hits the climb at full speed. I need an warm up! Damn! Basically this climb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&app=desktop Lovely pavement. They make a wrong turn and then get back on course, and it keeps going up after the video stops -- and then you ride a few more climbs looping around the west hills. Not terribly long, but when you hit the gas right out of the front door, it sure feels long. Wish I had my handlebar bag -- to throw up in.

Actually, I have a 1975 Kirkland front bag that actually smells like vomit from sitting so long in a box in my attic. I should put that on my Emonda. Sweet! That metal bracket bag holder would do wonders for my CF bars.

In my experience, the Kirtland brackets don't get along with the cables
coming out from under the bar tape. Or maybe they would, IF you could
get the bracket in place, but you can't with the cables in the way.

(Gratuitous pedantry: Kirkland is from Costco, Kirtland is from Boulder.
My bag stinks too, I think it's urethane breakdown.)

Mark J.