Groupsets

On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
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.

I realized the Cosco error after posting. RIP Kirtland. I remember struggling between Eclipse and Kirtland and preferring the look of Kirtland and compatibility with the brand new Blackburn racks. People talk about the good old days and how the market doesn't support REAL cyclists, etc., etc. There are far more rack and bag options now than there were 45 years ago, including the Rivendell exotics and whatever retro bag Jan Heine is hawking these days.

BTW, fun fact, Jim Blackburn graduated a few years ahead of me from SJSU and did his rack as a school project. I saw him and his Econovan full of racks back in the day but never talked with him. I think he was kind of cranky..

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/10/2020 10:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
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.

I realized the Cosco error after posting. RIP Kirtland. I remember struggling between Eclipse and Kirtland and preferring the look of Kirtland and compatibility with the brand new Blackburn racks. People talk about the good old days and how the market doesn't support REAL cyclists, etc., etc. There are far more rack and bag options now than there were 45 years ago, including the Rivendell exotics and whatever retro bag Jan Heine is hawking these days.

BTW, fun fact, Jim Blackburn graduated a few years ahead of me from SJSU and did his rack as a school project. I saw him and his Econovan full of racks back in the day but never talked with him. I think he was kind of cranky.

-- Jay Beattie.

Yup, my rear Kirtlands went on a ?1st generation? Blackburn rack, circa
1976. I wasn't fond of Eclipse's proprietary mounting system either,
but the hooks on my Kirtland panniers broke quickly, replaced under
warranty by their beefier-version hook.

I was young & strong (& foolish), and carried WAY too much stuff/weight
when touring, perhaps the cause of the broken hooks.

Mark "That which did not kill me made me stronger" J.

On Wednesday, 10 June 2020 14:54:44 UTC-4, Mark J. wrote:
On 6/10/2020 10:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 10, 2020 at 9:40:27 AM UTC-7, Mark J. wrote:
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.

On 8/6/20 11:53 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2020 9:28 PM, James wrote:
On 6/6/20 1:54 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What matters is total gear range for a given task or terrain.
Minimizing percent change between gears is far, far less critical.
But that's what the industry has been selling for a long time.

That's why I find it frustrating to ride my gravel bike at times on
the road compared to my road bike.Â* The percent change between gears
on the gravel bike in the vicinity of gearing that I want to use on
the road is bigger than on my road bike and consequently I cannot find
a gear that is close to right.

I think it's obvious that people have different tolerances for that.
Perhaps it's due in part to their habitual levels of exertion - that is,
faster people are more likely to demand exactly the right gear ratio.

But then there's my fast friend who seldom shifts her gears...


So what is far far less critical for some is highly desirable to others.

Yes, I can roll along at a dawdle in some gear between about 50 rpm and
80 rpm. It doesn't bother me. But if I want to get somewhere in a
hurry, I want to be between 90-100rpm at my maximum sustainable exertion
level. So when the wind shifts a little or the gradient changes a
fraction, I need another gear that is pretty close in percentage change.

Thankfully bicycle technology allows for all sorts of riding and
requirements.

--
JS

On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:20:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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.

Unique in the U.S.

I read that:
"It's more likely now that 42%-45% of marriages will end in divorce in
the US. The main factor that has caused this decrease is that marriage
rates have declined. Fewer people in the U.S. are getting married,
opting for co-habitation or remaining single."
--
cheers,

John B.

Am Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie
:

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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). 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

That's not modernity, that's a kind what we call "Vereinssport" in
Germany, sport clubs. There are people who like to come together like
that, but on vintage bicycles, or perhaps just for drinking. A defining
category is the uniform, so a plastic helmet fits.

Different from Frank, who, as far as I know, enjoys some club activity,
I never prefered extensive company while riding, because I don't need it
and because I don't like the habits. But I share a lot of Franks views
wrt. utility cycling and cycling in general.


Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish
bike,

Is that so? Years ago, when looking around for a regional bicycle club
my children might have been interested in, there wasn't a single one
_not_ enforcing a helmets on their members. At that time almost no
cyclist ( 1%) in Germany and Europe was wearing a helmet, we didn't
have a helmet law, still haven't (knock on wood). But these clubs could
enforce it, and did. Why? Because their federal organization said so.
Because _their_ sponsors said so. So, ok, they needn't us, we needn't
them, good riddance!


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.

All these people jogging around seem to be fine without lugging around a
bicycle, too. Your point?

You make fun of me having ridden to work on a bicycle equipped with a
side stand. You make fun of me using a handlebar bag on my moderately
new race bike, or the one used for riding to work from 1995 to 2010.
Because these people can do without.

Wait ... what? These people arent't riding to work. But, as you say,
you could do without. Great. Again, what's your point? Do I have to do,
likewise?

I'm quite happy with my handlebar bags on my race bikes. I'm even happy
to still have that old and somewhat rusted race bike around (using it
installeed in a Tacx trainer during winter).

When my current, moderately new race bicycle broke, a few days before
starting into the holidays, I even restored it to a usable state, by
mounting new tires, a new chain and, of course, a mount for that old
Ortlieb classic handlebar bag, in order to have a working backup bicycle
to ride around in the south of france, last year. I'm very happy that
I didn't need the backup, though, because I like to ride a bike which is
not as worn as that old one, because it is not as heavy, because it has
more gears and more range and shifting is easier. But I'm not making
fun of young students riding around town, using old racing bikes with
downtube levers. It might sometimes be fashion, especially if young
girls do that, but mostly it's just practical. These bicycles are cheap,
robust, not as clumsy as a cheap dutch type biycle, easy to carry on
stairs, get into a bus or park in some backside corner at the
university.



They are practical cyclists for what they are doing.

Define "practical cyclists".


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.

So?



And for Wolfgang, note the fenders:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...7632139896627/

Well, a group of people riding in the rain, on biycles which look like
randonneurs, just like the one you made fun of, initially.

These probably aren't the people I would make fun off, I don't know.
These, however, are.

https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20050918/PICT4923.jpg


I took that photo a warm, sunny day in the middle of September, in
Burgundy, a region of France which isn't either especially rainy nor is
especially hilly. That ramp was perhaps the most steep ramp of what you
find there, it's mostly reasonably flat. These people wheren't riding
fast, either. But there clothing looks like what one would need for a
bicycle tour right from death valley in summer to siberia in winter.
What we see her most probably is one of those organized groups rides for
people who need a lot of preparation, logistics, including a support
vehicle for a 60 km ride, people who fear nothing more than dehydration
and a broken skull.

If I'm not mistaken, we where riding for most of the day, on that day,
we picknicked using stuff I carried in a small backpack. My wife used
her handlebar bag mostly for carrying a map of the region.


We call them "frienders." You show up with clip-ons or
flapless rear fender, and you get shunned around here -- or
relegated to the back of the group.

You seem to believe that I need to be lectured about how a fender works.
You are wrong. The last time I used this bike in a group ride was when
the fender you made fun of was still intact, because in 1996, the bike
was new. I've already shown a picture. If you'd like to see a real
fender, perhaps youl'd like to see one of the dutch type bicyle I used
in Masuria? Those holidays are good for a story about group rides, too.
A bus load of people barely able to ride a bicycle is a recipe for
desaster. One the very first group ride, two people (parents) collided
with their handlebars, one father broke his arm. Afterwars, the group
leader ordered all people to keep distance. Fortunately, even then we
avoided group rides, that's why we weren't affected. I with pleasure
those long bike rides in Poland, with my two young sons on their small
bikes, from village to village.

In fact, I need to
lengthen the flap on my Synapse fenders. One of my friends
showed up with clip-ons on our rainy Sunday ride, and we
almost unfriended him.

Sure. I bought one of those clip-ons perhaps 40 years ago, for reasons I
don't remember anymore. It's still unused.

On the other hand, I've used my old race bike in wet weather, too, even
in heavy rain. You don't need rain or to wear a Sauna Suit like the
people shown above, in order to get wet, on a sunny day, just riding
fast for a while will do. A heavy summer rain won't change that much.
Your shoes get wet, though. That's bad.

So I didn't use a raincoat, but gaiters or overshoes made from neopren,
to protect the shoes.


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Am Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:46:58 +0200 schrieb Sepp Ruf
:

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 8 Jun 2020 10:30:13 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie:

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

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

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

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

A lapse. With oncoming traffic, "Abblendlicht" low beam was mandatory
for cars and for bicyles, even long ago, when I was a child, this isn't
a new restriction, but an old one I agree to. I'm not really interested
in legal archaeology.

The fact that an unrestricted "Fernlicht", high beam wasn't and still
isn't allowed for bicycles is an unfortunate decision, which was and is
still wrong today. It is getting worse, because in comparison, there is
almost no effective regulation for cars, so even the low beam of a
modern car is able to blind oncoming traffic, in any real life road
conditions.
--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

Am Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:25:53 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie
:

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

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

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

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

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

Groan. Now we're going down the StVZO rabbit hole. The
benefit of the L&M Urban series is that they have a nice
pulsing (not flashing) light that helps differentiate a
rider from surrounding light sources like other bike and car
headlights.

I'm quite happy that almost nobody uses such a stroboscope around here,
because it is illegal and rightly so.

Such a differentiation does cyclists no good, and a stroboscopic light
makes recognition of that light in the 3d space difficult and, depending
on the frequency of the pulses, even impossible.

Leave that kind of stuff for marking obstacles and the like. An cyclist
isn't an obstacle, it's just vehicle. Your car doesn't start to blink
like a funfair booth, when you drive it slowly, for a reason.



Having a reasonably bright round beam is also
nice for the trail/dirt segments on my commute home.

Don't confuse high beam with low beam and especially, don't confuse
brightness with missing beamforming optics.


I can
also switch it around between bikes and throw it on my fast
bike if it is dreary and I want to use a pulsing DRL.

We each have a Ixon IQ for the race bikes, older, but quite similar to
this one.

https://www.bumm.de/de/produkte/akku.../1922qmla.html

On my current race bike, there is a mount on the front brake bracket, on
the Panasonic there is a mount on the left side of the fork, my wife has
the standard mount for the handle bar on her scot.

Different to your toy, it's a real low beam headlight which is strong
enough to lit the road in front of me _and_ it gives me visibility for
oncoming and crossing traffic. But it doesn't blind that traffic, too,
because there is a sharp border, similar to a cars low beam.

I've occasionally used that Ixon as a flashlight, it is quite powerfull,
but usually I prefer a smaller Fenix flashlight.

On the dirt bike you made fun of, there is a dyno hub in the front
wheel, as I already mentioned, plus an automatic headlight from bumm,
with similar optics.

There are products with more power (candela/lux/whatever), because
generators and LED became more efficient in the meantime, but even this
old stuff is more than good enough for what we currenty use and need.

I don't need a light which wastes most of its power to light the trees,
or, worse, to blind other people. As I said, I'd like our lawmakers to
remove some of the restrictions to be applied to cycle lighting, only,
like higb beams, but agree to the notion that a biyclist has to use a
non blinding low beam in the dark, strong enough to make him or her
visible for relevant traffic.


--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

On 6/11/2020 8:51 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie:

Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish
bike,

Is that so? Years ago, when looking around for a regional bicycle club
my children might have been interested in, there wasn't a single one
_not_ enforcing a helmets on their members. At that time almost no
cyclist ( 1%) in Germany and Europe was wearing a helmet, we didn't
have a helmet law, still haven't (knock on wood). But these clubs could
enforce it, and did. Why? Because their federal organization said so.
Because _their_ sponsors said so. So, ok, they needn't us, we needn't
them, good riddance!

Our bike club was founded in 1973 or so. In all those years, there's
never been a requirement to wear a helmet on club rides. Mandating
helmets was proposed a few times in the past, but easily voted down with
little discussion. Almost all members currently wear them, of course,
because fashion is weird and powerful, but there were a few who didn't.
My wife and I wore them ONLY on club rides for precisely one reason: I
didn't want to spend our rides arguing about helmets. I didn't want to
make it an issue.

Well: Two or three years ago, the new slate of officers decided they
wanted to make helmets mandatory for all club rides. (Also, they chose
to make every member signing a brand new "hold harmless" release form
for every ride, despite having signed a release form at each membership
renewal!)

Of course I objected to this mandatory helmet rule. This led to the most
contentious meetings our club has ever had. People were shouting at
each other in meetings. And the strongest argument from the main helmet
proponent was "Every other club does this!"

In the end, the club did not impose that new helmet rule; people are
still free to wear what they choose. But one beneficial effect is this:
My wife and I no longer bother with the helmets even on club rides. As I
said, I wore it just because I didn't want to make it an issue.

They chose to make it an issue.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 5:51:20 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Mon, 8 Jun 2020 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT) schrieb jbeattie
:

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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). 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

That's not modernity, that's a kind what we call "Vereinssport" in
Germany, sport clubs. There are people who like to come together like
that, but on vintage bicycles, or perhaps just for drinking. A defining
category is the uniform, so a plastic helmet fits.

Different from Frank, who, as far as I know, enjoys some club activity,
I never prefered extensive company while riding, because I don't need it
and because I don't like the habits. But I share a lot of Franks views
wrt. utility cycling and cycling in general.



Now, you don't have to wear a helmet or ride a racing-ish
bike,

Is that so? Years ago, when looking around for a regional bicycle club
my children might have been interested in, there wasn't a single one
_not_ enforcing a helmets on their members. At that time almost no
cyclist ( 1%) in Germany and Europe was wearing a helmet, we didn't
have a helmet law, still haven't (knock on wood). But these clubs could
enforce it, and did. Why? Because their federal organization said so.
Because _their_ sponsors said so. So, ok, they needn't us, we needn't
them, good riddance!

Wow, so much anger. When USCF now USAC passed a rule requiring helmets in races, I wore a helmet. In fact, I was wearing a helmet most of the time anyway. They also required signed waivers, a license and wins/places to ride in my category. The oppression was monumental -- so I quit after 25 years.


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.

All these people jogging around seem to be fine without lugging around a
bicycle, too. Your point?

BTW, looking at that picture, its crimson clover and not owl clover. But anyway, to repeat myself, again: calling sport riders pretenders or poseurs because they don't have bags, bells, whistles, lights, dyos, etc., etc. is dopey. They're pleasure riding and don't need to be equipped to pick-up gallons of milk -- or liters in Europe.


You make fun of me having ridden to work on a bicycle equipped with a
side stand. You make fun of me using a handlebar bag on my moderately
new race bike, or the one used for riding to work from 1995 to 2010.
Because these people can do without.

Wait ... what? These people arent't riding to work. But, as you say,
you could do without. Great. Again, what's your point? Do I have to do,
likewise?


Well, that is the point. They're not going to work. They're riding around out in the Willamette Valley. Why should they have a bunch of stuff on their bikes?

I'm quite happy with my handlebar bags on my race bikes. I'm even happy
to still have that old and somewhat rusted race bike around (using it
installeed in a Tacx trainer during winter).

Excellent. One should be happy with his or her purchases. I've never seen the need for a handlebar bag on a race bike for sport riding or training, but I don't care if you use one. I just don't want to hear that someone without a bag on his or her race bike is somehow less of a cyclist.

When my current, moderately new race bicycle broke, a few days before
starting into the holidays, I even restored it to a usable state, by
mounting new tires, a new chain and, of course, a mount for that old
Ortlieb classic handlebar bag, in order to have a working backup bicycle
to ride around in the south of france, last year. I'm very happy that
I didn't need the backup, though, because I like to ride a bike which is
not as worn as that old one, because it is not as heavy, because it has
more gears and more range and shifting is easier. But I'm not making
fun of young students riding around town, using old racing bikes with
downtube levers. It might sometimes be fashion, especially if young
girls do that, but mostly it's just practical. These bicycles are cheap,
robust, not as clumsy as a cheap dutch type biycle, easy to carry on
stairs, get into a bus or park in some backside corner at the
university.

O.K.? I make fun of young students for reasons other than their bikes, like they step off the curbs looking at iPhones and disobey every pedestrian rule on the books. I commute home past a urban university. I'd be happy if more of them were on bikes.



They are practical cyclists for what they are doing.

Define "practical cyclists".


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.

So?



And for Wolfgang, note the fenders:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/krheap...7632139896627/

Well, a group of people riding in the rain, on biycles which look like
randonneurs, just like the one you made fun of, initially.

I made fun of your bike, which looked pretty beaten down, and I made fun of Frank for his constant criticism of people who didn't cover their bikes in bags, bells, dynos, etc. We're on twin tracks here. I did ask why one needed such a large handlebar bag for sport riding, which I admit was implicitly making fun of it -- so you can let me have it for that, but I'll continue to roll my eyes at people out for a sport ride with a handlebar bag and a lot of stuff.


These probably aren't the people I would make fun off, I don't know.
These, however, are.

https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20050918/PICT4923.jpg


I took that photo a warm, sunny day in the middle of September, in
Burgundy, a region of France which isn't either especially rainy nor is
especially hilly. That ramp was perhaps the most steep ramp of what you
find there, it's mostly reasonably flat. These people wheren't riding
fast, either. But there clothing looks like what one would need for a
bicycle tour right from death valley in summer to siberia in winter.
What we see her most probably is one of those organized groups rides for
people who need a lot of preparation, logistics, including a support
vehicle for a 60 km ride, people who fear nothing more than dehydration
and a broken skull.

Meh. It looks like a rider on a road bike with a wind jacket. It would be more striking to me if the guy had a bike covered with stuff for a sport ride.

If I'm not mistaken, we where riding for most of the day, on that day,
we picknicked using stuff I carried in a small backpack. My wife used
her handlebar bag mostly for carrying a map of the region.

A handlebar bag would be good for a picnic, and I'll consider one the next time I'm going on a picnic.



We call them "frienders." You show up with clip-ons or
flapless rear fender, and you get shunned around here -- or
relegated to the back of the group.

You seem to believe that I need to be lectured about how a fender works.
You are wrong. The last time I used this bike in a group ride was when
the fender you made fun of was still intact, because in 1996, the bike
was new. I've already shown a picture. If you'd like to see a real
fender, perhaps youl'd like to see one of the dutch type bicyle I used
in Masuria? Those holidays are good for a story about group rides, too.
A bus load of people barely able to ride a bicycle is a recipe for
desaster. One the very first group ride, two people (parents) collided
with their handlebars, one father broke his arm. Afterwars, the group
leader ordered all people to keep distance. Fortunately, even then we
avoided group rides, that's why we weren't affected. I with pleasure
those long bike rides in Poland, with my two young sons on their small
bikes, from village to village.

Sounds like fun, although I'm not talking about touring. Touring bags for touring. I'm all for them.

BTW, holiday riding with my son is domestic and generally an adventure in anoxia. https://attheu.utah.edu/home-page/be...alt-lake-city/ He's in the middle when he was back in college. Now an old picture. On the left, winner of Leadville and now pro cyclist. On the right, Cat 1/2 crazy climber who did 32,000 feet of climbing on a single in-town hill to get his Everest. Long story there. Everything worth riding in SLC is above 5K feet, which is an adjustment for an old man coming from sea level.

In fact, I need to
lengthen the flap on my Synapse fenders. One of my friends
showed up with clip-ons on our rainy Sunday ride, and we
almost unfriended him.

Sure. I bought one of those clip-ons perhaps 40 years ago, for reasons I
don't remember anymore. It's still unused.

On the other hand, I've used my old race bike in wet weather, too, even
in heavy rain. You don't need rain or to wear a Sauna Suit like the
people shown above, in order to get wet, on a sunny day, just riding
fast for a while will do. A heavy summer rain won't change that much.
Your shoes get wet, though. That's bad.

So I didn't use a raincoat, but gaiters or overshoes made from neopren,
to protect the shoes.

Sauna suits are great for riding in the rain in near freezing to all the way up to maybe 55 degrees F. After that, even with zips and Goretex/Event, etc., you typically soak from the inside out. The problem around here is that summer rain riding often takes you to different zones. You can go from 60F and rain to 35F and slush in May early June on a ride from my doorstep.. No need to go on holiday.

Speaking of snow, my semi-holiday ride is actually riding up to Timberline and summer skiing. https://www.timberlinelodge.com/imag...1522855241.jpg Ski with biki chicks. https://www.onthesnow.com/news/a/632...r-ends-mt-hood My wife drives the car. I'm not carrying skis on my bike because I'm not a true utility cyclist. It's reopened! https://www.timberlinelodge.com/


-- Jay Beattie.