Creeping brake pad drag

jbeattie writes:

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:02:32 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 2:00:26 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:



My point was not that I would actually make one. My point was that
manual (non-STI) shifting is a truly simple system. Despite your
claims, Di2 is not a simple system. The complexity is hidden inside an
unrepairable box that you replace if it goes bad, but the complexity
is there.

For either system, equally, most of the complexity is hidden in the
design of the chain, and gears. The chain is unrepairable, and all of
us replace it when it goes bad. When the zombie apocalypse comes, we'll
ride bicycles just as long as the chain supply holds out, and no longer.

Focus, please! The difference in complexity between the two
systems is not the
chain, the cogs or the mechanical parts of the derailleur -
i.e. the parallelogram
linkage and the jockey wheel setup. Those are essentially
identical, whether
moved by cable or Di2.

Once you start riding a chain-driven, rubber tired, multi-gear bicycle,
you have eaten the apple of complex, throw-away industrial products.
Things that no single person knows how to make -- recall Doug
Cimperman's postings here on making tires, and as I recall he was buying
all the materials he practically could. Now this argument sometimes
meets resistance from those unfamiliar with the engineering mode of
thought, but my point is that the additional complexity, if there is
any, of replacing springs and bespoke clockwork with batteries and
microprocessors, is /negligible/, it is /in the noise/.

No sense worrying about it at all.

There are reasons to prefer older stuff, it's proven, and you know how
to deal with it. I understand that attitude as an extremely late
adopter myself. I buy my coffee with folding money, I heat my house
with steam, I shift my bicycle using friction shifters on the downtube,
I long for the world of payphones, and know of two lonely holdouts
in my vicinity.

Steam heat is incredibly complex compared to a simple forced-air,
which is just a fan and a burner. My hydronic system looks like
something out of the engine room in Das Boot -- and the piping for the
steam system of my childhood was covered in asbestos and topped with
JM blue mud, so I least I know which bankrupt company to sue when I
get meso. And with no ductwork, you're screwed if you want AC unless
you do some retrofit Unico or split system.

Steam heat made wonderful sense before homes were electrified, you just
shoveled some coal in the morning and fired her up, no pumps needed. If
it got too hot inside, you opened another window. I don't see a lot of
forced air heating here, it's mostly hot water, some of which are
converted steam systems.

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

I would prefer not to have to carry an expensive tracking device with me
everywhere I go, but I'm a Luddite.

Paper money doubles transaction time at most registers.
I would like to get rid of tip screens, however. Why should I tip you
for handing me a coffee across the counter? It's gotten
ridiculous. All social media could be unplugged, IMO. If I weren't
typing this post, I'd probably be doing something productive.

I don't see the time advantage for non-cash at all, perhaps because most
customers fumble with various cards, and the payment systems seem always
to delay a noticeable time. Maybe with tracking device payments it's
different, but I don't want to go there.

The reason you leave a tip is so that they make your coffee when they
see you, instead of after you pay. Saves time, gruntles your barista.

What I don't like are the transitions between the new and the old --
first generation low volume flush toilets, fluorescent bulbs, early
silica compound tires -- my leaking first generation Goretex
tent. Early adopting doesn't pay.

-- Jay Beattie.

--

On Monday, 25 November 2019 12:53:23 UTC-5, duane wrote:
On 11/25/2019 10:43 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2019 09:27:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:57:17 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the video and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

1. no flappy clothes,
2. position on your bike,
3. better tires,
4. aero wheels,
5. aero bike

Lou

One of the tests in that video was a retro bike with modern kit/clothing and another test was with a modern bike with modern kit/clothing. Thus whatever difference there was should have been due to the differences with the bicycles alone not the rider. I do wonder now though if they used the same tires on all of the bikes?

Cheers


While your question about performance advantage is interesting, for
those of us that aren't pure racers the real benefit (IMO) of a modern
road bike to a "retro" bike would be more about ease of use and
dependability. I'm thinking brifters over down tube friction shifters,
clipless pedals over toe straps, wider range gearing, less weight to
carry up hills etc. etc. etc.

I have Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo circa 2001 levers on my touring bike because I like that I can keep both hands on the Ergo body whilst shifting and riding up a steep hill or riding in a strong gusting cross wind. I like the Ergos even better than the barend shifters.

I prefer my toe-clips and straps for touring and casual riding. I've had far too many falls when I was unable to disengage my foot from a clipless pedal during a panic stop. Alos, with the toe-clips and straps I can wear just about any shoes including my rubber boots. I do have clipless pedals on my Campagnolo equipped MIELE SLX bike and clipless pedals for my FIORI with a Campagnolo Triomphe groupset on it.

On my MTBs I use bare-end shifter becasue all but one of my MTBs has a drop-bar on it with Aero brake levers. My MTB with a straight bar has Deore indexed thumb-shifters. Nothing except friction is a simple and as reliable as a thumbshifter. the index Deore ones I have can be switched to friction if needed.

As far as wider range gearing goes. I don't need 11, or 12 teeth cogs on my road bikes and definitely don't need them on my MTBs or touring bikes. I'd far prefer a 36 or even 38 cog on those bikes.

The thing is, different bicyclists have different needs and/or wants. thus for some of us the old stuff is fine.

I have always been curious as to exactly how much difference all the newfangled aero stuff actually made. When I first looked at Campagnolo Ergo levers and Shimano Brifters I marvelled at their apparent mass and wondered how they could be any lighter than an aero brake lever and a downtube or bar-end shifter. Ditto for the oversize threadless forks, headsets and stems.

Cheers

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:48:44 PM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 08:25:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 5:50:31 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 5:36:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 10:58:13 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

What incredible complexity?

Lou

Upthread, I described the workings of a friction shifter in maybe 50 words or
so. Except for the design of the derailleur's mechanics (which is essentially
the same for both friction shifting and Di2) my description is very nearly
enough for a competent machinist to make a working system. It's that simple.

Can you do the same now for Di2? Don't omit a sufficiently thorough explanation
of the micro code and a description of the actuator in the derailleur. Describe
it well enough that someone can make one, plus program the code.

Why does anyone have to make one for their own. Shimano/Sram/Campagnolo did that for me.

Similarly, if you like we can compare descriptions of what to check if each
shifting system stops moving the derailleur. I know what to do if my rear
derailleur cable breaks and my bike is stuck in the smallest cog. Two times
(in 50+ years) I've fixed that on the road, far from home.

I don't make choices which if it went wrong isn't the end of the world or life threatening based on something that may happen once in 25 years. When it happens I deal with it. Probably I ride home or nearest bike shop in a not optimal gear like you wil do if a cable snapped and you don't carry a spare and/or the tools to replace it. Nobody carries a spare cable for their normal rides. Of coarse in this sort of discussions people are always far from home and in de middle of nowhere which they almost never do.

Tell us what you should do if your Di2 gets stuck in the smallest cog.

Like I said I deal with it like you have to deal with it. But I'm still waiting for 6 years now for that to happen with my Di2 system.

The comparison should show which is complex and which is not.

Why do all mechanical people get nervous when electronics are involved? In my line of work the mechanical parts are the least reliable not the circuit boards or the software once tested and debugged. Electronic shifting is not a complex system and not inherently unreliable. Don't compare a downtube friction shifter with Di2 shifting a 11-12 speed gear systems. That is another discussion. A simple motor and some switches replace all the mechanical parts within a STI shifter and a cable. Can you shift a 11 speed reliable with a downtube friction shifter by the way?

Lou

Re shifting a 11 speed with a down tune shifter. I've never tried it
but I can, and do, shift a 10 speed reliable with a down tube shifter
:-)

And for those who can't I might mention Eddy Merckx who was said to
have stated "shifting? I haven't missed a shift since I was eight
years old" :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Even Eddy changed his mind. Look what he is selling now:

https://www.eddymerckx.com

Lou

I'm pretty sure that those are constructed by Trek. Eddy markets them.

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

On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 8:02:32 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 2:00:26 PM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:



My point was not that I would actually make one. My point was that
manual (non-STI) shifting is a truly simple system. Despite your
claims, Di2 is not a simple system. The complexity is hidden inside an
unrepairable box that you replace if it goes bad, but the complexity
is there.

For either system, equally, most of the complexity is hidden in the
design of the chain, and gears. The chain is unrepairable, and all of
us replace it when it goes bad. When the zombie apocalypse comes, we'll
ride bicycles just as long as the chain supply holds out, and no longer.

Focus, please! The difference in complexity between the two
systems is not the
chain, the cogs or the mechanical parts of the derailleur -
i.e. the parallelogram
linkage and the jockey wheel setup. Those are essentially
identical, whether
moved by cable or Di2.

Once you start riding a chain-driven, rubber tired, multi-gear bicycle,
you have eaten the apple of complex, throw-away industrial products.
Things that no single person knows how to make -- recall Doug
Cimperman's postings here on making tires, and as I recall he was buying
all the materials he practically could. Now this argument sometimes
meets resistance from those unfamiliar with the engineering mode of
thought, but my point is that the additional complexity, if there is
any, of replacing springs and bespoke clockwork with batteries and
microprocessors, is /negligible/, it is /in the noise/.

No sense worrying about it at all.

There are reasons to prefer older stuff, it's proven, and you know how
to deal with it. I understand that attitude as an extremely late
adopter myself. I buy my coffee with folding money, I heat my house
with steam, I shift my bicycle using friction shifters on the downtube,
I long for the world of payphones, and know of two lonely holdouts
in my vicinity.

Steam heat is incredibly complex compared to a simple forced-air,
which is just a fan and a burner. My hydronic system looks like
something out of the engine room in Das Boot -- and the piping for the
steam system of my childhood was covered in asbestos and topped with
JM blue mud, so I least I know which bankrupt company to sue when I
get meso. And with no ductwork, you're screwed if you want AC unless
you do some retrofit Unico or split system.

Steam heat made wonderful sense before homes were electrified, you just
shoveled some coal in the morning and fired her up, no pumps needed. If
it got too hot inside, you opened another window. I don't see a lot of
forced air heating here, it's mostly hot water, some of which are
converted steam systems.

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

I would prefer not to have to carry an expensive tracking device with me
everywhere I go, but I'm a Luddite.

Paper money doubles transaction time at most registers.
I would like to get rid of tip screens, however. Why should I tip you
for handing me a coffee across the counter? It's gotten
ridiculous. All social media could be unplugged, IMO. If I weren't
typing this post, I'd probably be doing something productive.

I don't see the time advantage for non-cash at all, perhaps because most
customers fumble with various cards, and the payment systems seem always
to delay a noticeable time. Maybe with tracking device payments it's
different, but I don't want to go there.

The reason you leave a tip is so that they make your coffee when they
see you, instead of after you pay. Saves time, gruntles your barista.

What I don't like are the transitions between the new and the old --
first generation low volume flush toilets, fluorescent bulbs, early
silica compound tires -- my leaking first generation Goretex
tent. Early adopting doesn't pay.

-- Jay Beattie.

--

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

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

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

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

Cheers

On 11/25/2019 12:53 PM, Duane wrote:
On 11/25/2019 10:43 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2019 09:27:59 UTC-5, Â* wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:57:17 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the
video and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance
and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money
on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

1. no flappy clothes,
2. position on your bike,
3. better tires,
4. aero wheels,
5. aero bike

Lou

One of the tests inÂ* that video was a retro bike with modern
kit/clothing and another test was with a modern bike with modern
kit/clothing. Thus whatever difference there was should have been due
to the differences with the bicycles alone not the rider. I do wonder
now though if they used the same tires on all of the bikes?

Cheers


While your question about performance advantage is interesting, for
those of us that aren't pure racers the real benefit (IMO) of a modern
road bike to a "retro" bike would be more about ease of use and
dependability.Â* I'm thinking brifters over down tube friction shifters,
clipless pedals over toe straps, wider range gearing, less weight to
carry up hills etc. etc. etc.

But again, it's diminishing returns.

Brifters compared to my preferred bar-end shifters? It's "Do I move my
hand 8 inches or not." Hardly a big deal.

Clipless pedals are, overall, less easy to use, because I have to change
my shoes to use them. My toe clips work with every pair of shoes I own,
except hiking boots; and two bikes I have with flat pedals work with boots.

Wider range gearing? My touring bike and tandem go from something like
24 gear inches to 100 or 105 gear inches. That's decades old technology,
three in front and five or six in back.

Lighter weight helps, but it helps in direct proportion to total
bike+rider weight, not in proportion to bike weight. So each pound is
just half a percent change, unless you're already a featherweight. And
it only matters when climbing hills. Oh, and maybe when carrying your bike.

Some of those are improvements, but the improvements are small. Others
are a wash at best. Buy what you like, but realize you may "like" it
because you were told to like it, by advertising or fashion or your peers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:32:59 PM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 18:03:26 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 11:59:10 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 3:33:45 PM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 24 November 2019 15:14:40 UTC-5, Duane wrote:


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

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

"Needed"?

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

When else are they "needed"?

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

I came across this video:

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

Lou

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

Cheers

I don't quite get those numbers. I used to sprint for lights and could go as much as 36 mph (58 kph) and that was with retro bikes and kit. (now perhaps 24-5)

Even now when I'm feeling good I'm doing 20-21 mph for a long distance - as much as an hour. (32-34kph)

And I can't keep up with the group.

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 4:01:56 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/24/2019 4:39 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 1:58:13 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In my view, putting immense complexity into a sealed black box
does not make a system "simple."

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

Because all modern bikes use a plastic cable router under the bottom bracket I've never had to lubricate those. Older frames with steel routers did have to be cleaned and lubed or they would wear grooves in the frame that could wear out the cable where it crossed.


You'd be surprised.
Yes, classic over-the-BB steel guides were worse but we
regularly solve mystery shift troubles by brushing out the
dead worms, energy drink and crud from a nylon guide and
adding a drop of oil.

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

I have absolutely no doubt that some people can break anything. But I think my practices represent Joe Normal and I just haven't seen it.

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 4:04:44 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 12:14:40 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 7:32:57 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

BTW, I'm curious how many bikes you own, and how many have electronic
shifting. I have five bikes that I ride regularly, so I suspect
converting all to electronic shifting would be quite expensive. Have you
done that?

I have 7 bikes and I will end up this year with 11000 km. Two of the
bikes are ridden less than 500 km/yr. Two of them have Di2. I don't
convert bikes to Di2 they already had Di2 when bought. If I would buy a
new bike it will be equipped with electronic shifting.

Lou


11000 km is pretty impressive. I do about half that but the season here
is April through November. I gave up on riding in snow.

I’m down to one road bike. It doesn’t have Di2 or disc brakes but I expect
the next bike will have both. Not that I’ll shop for that but I doubt road
bikes will come without them. My friends that have Di2 now have it for
the most part because the bike they liked came with it. They seem to like
it and I haven’t heard of anyone complaining about problems.

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

The lever effort has gotten so light for the latest Ultegra 11sp and
shifting so accurate that Di2 is truly a luxury item for non-racers.
It's nice, but not an imperative for me. I was riding my Emonda SLR
yesterday with rim brakes and cable shifting, and it was great. No bad
stops and no missed shifts. It was dry, though. Today was wet, and I
would have taken my Di2 disc Synapse, but instead I went for a walk with
my wife through the fairy kingdom down the street at Tryon Creek State
Park. https://www.oregonhikers.org/w/image...leyBridge1.jpg I
needed a day off.


I have 11 speed SRAM and it works well. But honestly a typical 105 setup
today is light years ahead of the stuff we rode in the old days with
friction shifters and toe clips. Anyone can argue that new tech isn’t
necessary. Seems silly. Like I said my next bike will likely have
electronic shifting because it will be standard.

My daily commute mileage is short, but commuting every day -- even if
short -- takes it out my legs, and I had a pretty good speed run
yesterday, so I went for a walk today. Soon Sunday will be the weekly
ski day if scientifically proven global warming doesn't ruin the season..

-- Jay Beattie.


We’ve had snow cover since November 11 which is pretty unusual. Normally I
can commute until December. I’m on my trainer now and will be skiing
soon.

I put the internal cable 105 10 speed stuff on my Ridley XBow and the different between that shifting and the Campy Record was night and day. If I wasn't used to shifting with my thumbs I would change over in a second.

On Sunday, November 24, 2019 at 7:26:35 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:48 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 19:34:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/24/2019 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 14:09:57 -0500, Radey Shouman
wrote:
John B. writes:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:38:47 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 20:12:07 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:30:21 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
On Saturday, 23 November 2019 18:43:26 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:58:10 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, November 23, 2019 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

- snippity snip snip -

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

How so?

(2019 -1885) /2 is more than your age.

It is? I was born in 1932, so ....


...so you're "well over" 67 and Mr Shouman's right.

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

From his comments about a B50 I estimate him to be about 85.

On 11/25/2019 1:28 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2019 12:53:23 UTC-5, duane wrote:
On 11/25/2019 10:43 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 25 November 2019 09:27:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:57:17 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/24/2019 8:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


So, just how much difference do those wattage differences from the video and which numbers I posted make in real life?


I just ran some numbers. Lou can check me, but here's what I got.

I fitted an equation to the "modern kit, modern bike" curve - the one
that said 25kph takes only 79 Watts (not counting rolling resistance and
drivetrain friction). The equation I got was
Power = 0.0097 * speed ^ 2.7918

The "retro" bike took 87 Watts to go 25kph. So I backsolved to find out
what speed the "modern" bike would go with 87 Watts.

I came up with 26.05 kph.

In other words, if you ditched your "retro" bike with round tubes,
square section rims, old style handlebars, etc. and spent the money on a
super-sleek aero modern bike, a 25kph rider would be able to go 26 kph.

In miles per hour, that bike would take a 15.5 mph rider all the way up
to 16.1 mph. Roughly half a mile per hour faster.

I note that you get almost as much benefit switching from wrinkled wool
clothing to an aero racing suit.

So anyone NOT riding in a super-sleek racing suit should first buy one
of those and carefully measure how much difference it makes on your
normal rides. You can probably get a set of race clothes for a hundred
bucks. See for yourself what that much difference feels like before you
spend $2000+ on a full aero bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

1. no flappy clothes,
2. position on your bike,
3. better tires,
4. aero wheels,
5. aero bike

Lou

One of the tests in that video was a retro bike with modern kit/clothing and another test was with a modern bike with modern kit/clothing. Thus whatever difference there was should have been due to the differences with the bicycles alone not the rider. I do wonder now though if they used the same tires on all of the bikes?

Cheers


While your question about performance advantage is interesting, for
those of us that aren't pure racers the real benefit (IMO) of a modern
road bike to a "retro" bike would be more about ease of use and
dependability. I'm thinking brifters over down tube friction shifters,
clipless pedals over toe straps, wider range gearing, less weight to
carry up hills etc. etc. etc.

I have Campagnolo 9-Speed Mirage Ergo circa 2001 levers on my touring bike because I like that I can keep both hands on the Ergo body whilst shifting and riding up a steep hill or riding in a strong gusting cross wind. I like the Ergos even better than the barend shifters.

I prefer my toe-clips and straps for touring and casual riding. I've had far too many falls when I was unable to disengage my foot from a clipless pedal during a panic stop. Alos, with the toe-clips and straps I can wear just about any shoes including my rubber boots. I do have clipless pedals on my Campagnolo equipped MIELE SLX bike and clipless pedals for my FIORI with a Campagnolo Triomphe groupset on it.

On my MTBs I use bare-end shifter becasue all but one of my MTBs has a drop-bar on it with Aero brake levers. My MTB with a straight bar has Deore indexed thumb-shifters. Nothing except friction is a simple and as reliable as a thumbshifter. the index Deore ones I have can be switched to friction if needed.

As far as wider range gearing goes. I don't need 11, or 12 teeth cogs on my road bikes and definitely don't need them on my MTBs or touring bikes. I'd far prefer a 36 or even 38 cog on those bikes.

The thing is, different bicyclists have different needs and/or wants. thus for some of us the old stuff is fine.

+1


I have always been curious as to exactly how much difference all the newfangled aero stuff actually made. When I first looked at Campagnolo Ergo levers and Shimano Brifters I marvelled at their apparent mass and wondered how they could be any lighter than an aero brake lever and a downtube or bar-end shifter. Ditto for the oversize threadless forks, headsets and stems.

Cheers