brave new world...

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:57�pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:28 am, jim beam wrote:
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - not even bar-cons allow shifting from
the hoods, you know, where you have your hands when you're standing on a
climb.
Funny, I didn't need to do that yesterday. �While I have used my bar-
cons to shift while standing...
you stand holding the bottom of the bars??? �and retain sufficient grip
to pull against each pedal stroke??? �you're bull****ting krygowski.

Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing.

not with your hands on the hoods you didn't.


If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. Or your level of skill.

no krygowski, i like to shift and keep my hands on the hoods - in
exactly the same position as when i ride. as do the vast majority of
other users.



I hardly ever need to do that. �What's
"awesome" for one rider is negligible for another, I guess.
I've got index on some bikes, but still ride friction on others. �I
agree with John Schubert: �I'm underwhelmed by indexing's advantages.
it's because you're a fred sitting on your fredly ass the whole damned
time, that's why. �if you're standing, you /can't/ take your hands off
to shift. �****ing idiot.

No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. That's obvious by your statements.

But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off.

eh - as you recall???????? you don't appear to be very certain about a
process with which you claim to be familiar!!!! clearly it can't be a
process you do very often!!! you're a ****ing bull****ting idiot krygowski.



I slide them down
to the shifters. YMMV.

i'd love to see you do it without!!!! ****ing idiot.



And yes, I may be a fred. My bikes usually have fenders, I don't
shave my legs, none of my wheels have less than 32 spokes, I tend to
have bags on my bikes, and I don't own STI. And I do a lot of
climbing while in the saddle. Try it. It's efficient.

either you're trying to be condescending - and not being smart enough to
pull it off - or you're just too idiotic to read back thread and see
where i refer to hands on the hoods while climbing. but you're a
****ing idiot krygowski



That bike's been coast to coast and on dozens of local and
international tours, almost all with camping gear. Somehow, it's been
ridden thousands upon thousands of miles with nothing broken except
one spoke, and that occurred when a friend stepped on the side of the
rear wheel.
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - vacuum degassed steels have been
available for spokes since the late 70's.
Hmm. �When you implied there was a lot wrong with the "old stuff," I
didn't realize you were referring to the antiques that Carl shows
pictures of!
i'm not. �and you know it. �****ing bull****ting idiot.

:-) You're hilarious when you spew!

But anyway - it's obvious that a touring bike from the '80s can give
decades of excellent service.

it's obvious????? if ridden so often that you remain unfamiliar with
how to shift, that bike will /undoubtedly/ last forever!!! you're a
****ing idiot krygowski.


Regarding my tourer and the way I ride
it, Zog was right: There's nothing wrong with the old stuff. No
matter how much ex-metallurgists fawn over every new "must have"
gimmick on the market.

oh dear, trying to put false words in my mouth about what i buy. but i
guess that's to be expected because you're a ****ing idiot krygowski.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Aug 3, 4:57*pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:28 am, jim beam wrote:
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - not even bar-cons allow shifting from
the hoods, you know, where you have your hands when you're standing on a
climb.

Funny, I didn't need to do that yesterday. *While I have used my bar-
cons to shift while standing...

you stand holding the bottom of the bars??? *and retain sufficient grip
to pull against each pedal stroke??? *you're bull****ting krygowski.

Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing. If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. Or your level of skill.

I hardly ever need to do that. *What's
"awesome" for one rider is negligible for another, I guess.

I've got index on some bikes, but still ride friction on others. *I
agree with John Schubert: *I'm underwhelmed by indexing's advantages.

it's because you're a fred sitting on your fredly ass the whole damned
time, that's why. *if you're standing, you /can't/ take your hands off
to shift. *****ing idiot.

No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. That's obvious by your statements.

But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off. I slide them down
to the shifters. YMMV.

And yes, I may be a fred. My bikes usually have fenders, I don't
shave my legs, none of my wheels have less than 32 spokes, I tend to
have bags on my bikes, and I don't own STI. And I do a lot of
climbing while in the saddle. Try it. It's efficient.

That bike's been coast to coast and on dozens of local and
international tours, almost all with camping gear. Somehow, it's been
ridden thousands upon thousands of miles with nothing broken except
one spoke, and that occurred when a friend stepped on the side of the
rear wheel.
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - vacuum degassed steels have been
available for spokes since the late 70's.

Hmm. *When you implied there was a lot wrong with the "old stuff," I
didn't realize you were referring to the antiques that Carl shows
pictures of!

i'm not. *and you know it. *****ing bull****ting idiot.

:-) You're hilarious when you spew!

But anyway - it's obvious that a touring bike from the '80s can give
decades of excellent service. Regarding my tourer and the way I ride
it, Zog was right: There's nothing wrong with the old stuff. No
matter how much ex-metallurgists fawn over every new "must have"
gimmick on the market.

- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

Antiques? Please, rideable originals! Highwheeler freaks _really_ like
to ride their penny-farthings.

(One of my great regrets is that a silly disease won't let me take
advantage of the inevitable kind offers to just hop up and take
irreplaceable antiques for a quick spin--imagine having to say sorry,
but I can't even drive that Ferrari around the block because I can't
tell if I'm pushing on the gas, the brake, or the clutch.)

Anyway, to address the burning question of newfangled devices, others
on RBT have mentioned shifting barcons while standing, just like you:

"Also, the old trope [2] about not being able to shift while standing
with bar-cons is not true. Oh, it's not as easy as I'd like, but it's
certainly doable. I spent about 15 miles doing it last summer when I
broke my seatpost bolt."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...4a334aa94d27a2

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 18:00:30 GMT, Ryan Cousineau
wrote:

In article ,
Zog The Undeniable wrote:

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
We are entering a brave new world in cycling, where all that came before
can now be forgotten. Electronic shifting, and Looks new BB50 shell
are just the tip of the iceberg. Massive cranks, with spindles as wide
as baseball bats, integrated bb's with bearings the size of marbles. And
all of this is controlled by electronic shifters, guided by integrated
GPS units. Not that long ago, innovation was defined by how many spokes
you could remove from the wheel, without the wheel collapsing.
Remember Sheldon Brown's one spoke wheel, in his spoof of the
engineering of that day. Forget the mistakes of the past, now that the
price point is up, real engineers are now designing how we will ride in
the future. Are you ready to face this brave new world?

No. There wasn't anything wrong with the old stuff, except maybe quill
stems. I'm sure there was a point (about 1980) when we actually had
standards and virtually everything was interchangeable - now it's a
bugger's muddle, as they say in the north of England.

Someone's going to correct me, but here are what I think would have been
the standards that were alive in 1980. Note that I've also listed bits
that might have already been obsolescent, but were closer to being alive
than they are today:

-Italian, Raleigh and ISO BBs. French or Swiss?
-Japanese, French, and ISO forks and headsets
-25.4, 26.0. and 31.8 handlebars
-wheels: 27", 700C, 26", plus about a dozen different standards used on
city bikes around the world, plus another dozen small-wheel standards
for kids bikes and such.
-two semi-compatible square-taper spindle standards, plus whatever was
left of cottered cranks

I'd say the BB situation today is arguably better. Italian is a small
part of the market, Raleigh, French, and Swiss are dead. Cannondale has
made its BB30 standard openly available, and Trek and Look are,
admittedly, offering proprietary BBs, but only on their very high-end
bikes. Pinarello MOst died on the vine; don't be fooled by MOst XC or
whatever they're selling now, it's just an Italian BB again.

I'd say the headset situation is both better and worse. Japanese and
French are gone, but integrated headsets are standards-crazy.

Handlebars? Probably better. Both road and MTB bikes are moving to the
31.0 standard, with all others looking to become obsolete.

As for spindles, the complete integration of crank and spindle has
(depending on your viewpoint) either made this situation much better or
much worse.

Dear Ryan,

Three additions rather than corrections.

Axles and cones.

This will never be good, but the choice now seems to be Shimano, Campy,
or a bunch of readily available (from SKF-type bearing vendors)
cartridge bearing sizes.

Seat post diameters.

I can't decide if seat post diameters have gotten better, worse, or
about the same. It seems like there is a bit more standardization, but
not so anyone would notice.

It's hard to mount a clincher tire on a tubular rim, and vice-versa.

Again, I doubt the situation is much different. It used to be that
racers would run tubulars, with most other riders running clinchers.

I suspect fewer low-category racers are riding tubies, and virtually no
"casual" riders do so today (unless they got into the sport a long time
ago), but the small weight advantage of tubulars persists, and so do
their use, and if anything, the rise of cyclocross in North America has
meant a resurgence of interest in tubulars.

Meanwhile, tubeless tires are becoming quite popular with the XC
mountain bike racing crowd, and one of these days Shimano may end up
convincing the world to use them on the road, too. At least the current
tubular rims can all be retrofit to normal clinchers.

So I'd say that while clinchers are an easy choice today, tubies are
here for a while longer.

***

Compared to mountain bikers, though, roadies are pikers when it comes to
making up new standards to fit their new problems. There are at least
three competing standards for front and rear axles (through-axles at the
front, various innovations at the rear to make the wheel stronger or
accomodate a suspension pivot centred on the rear axle), a 1.5" headset
standard, the E-type derailer mount, the ISCG mount, and on top of that,
they seem to have inherited most of the worst road-bike neo-standards.


At least the MTBers seem to genuinely standardize on a lot of this stuff
rather than invent three different solutions.

Oh yeah, and they've seen both V-brakes, which obsoleted old brake
levers, and disc brakes, which now feature two competing brake mounts
and two competing disc mounts (4-bolt Formula having been consigned to
the dustbin of history).

I'd love to envision an eventual period of fallout and stasis at which
point most key bike dimensions will be standardized for a reasonable
amount of time, but I think the only part of me that believes in such a
possibility is very naive. Even if, say, BB30 decisively wins the war to
be the new BB standard, how long before some company decides that BB60
will let them make a slightly lighter bike with a slightly stiffer
drivetrain?

Interestingly, there's one place that seems to be "under-renewed,"
standards-wise: the pedal interface. Shimano AX was a big bust. Jobst
has proposed the conical interface for years without creating any
obvious interest. And Look seems to have invented a pedal-crank
interface that is for them and them alone.

So how long can crank and pedal makers resist the siren call of a
revised interface? The obvious design goal would be to make the
interface big and secure enough to make a Ti spindle a viable choice, or
(even more daring!) aluminum.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:57 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:28 am, jim beam wrote:
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - not even bar-cons allow shifting from
the hoods, you know, where you have your hands when you're standing on a
climb.
Funny, I didn't need to do that yesterday. While I have used my bar-
cons to shift while standing...
you stand holding the bottom of the bars??? and retain sufficient grip
to pull against each pedal stroke??? you're bull****ting krygowski.

Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing. If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. Or your level of skill.

I hardly ever need to do that. What's
"awesome" for one rider is negligible for another, I guess.
I've got index on some bikes, but still ride friction on others. I
agree with John Schubert: I'm underwhelmed by indexing's advantages.
it's because you're a fred sitting on your fredly ass the whole damned
time, that's why. if you're standing, you /can't/ take your hands off
to shift. ****ing idiot.

No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. That's obvious by your statements.

But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off. I slide them down
to the shifters. YMMV.

And yes, I may be a fred. My bikes usually have fenders, I don't
shave my legs, none of my wheels have less than 32 spokes, I tend to
have bags on my bikes, and I don't own STI. And I do a lot of
climbing while in the saddle. Try it. It's efficient....

Did not Jan "Fred" Ullrich do a lot of climbing while seated?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

Tom Sherman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:57 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 3, 10:28 am, jim beam wrote:
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - not even bar-cons allow shifting
from
the hoods, you know, where you have your hands when you're standing
on a
climb.
Funny, I didn't need to do that yesterday. While I have used my bar-
cons to shift while standing...
you stand holding the bottom of the bars??? and retain sufficient grip
to pull against each pedal stroke??? you're bull****ting krygowski.

Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing. If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. Or your level of skill.

I hardly ever need to do that. What's
"awesome" for one rider is negligible for another, I guess.
I've got index on some bikes, but still ride friction on others. I
agree with John Schubert: I'm underwhelmed by indexing's advantages.
it's because you're a fred sitting on your fredly ass the whole damned
time, that's why. if you're standing, you /can't/ take your hands off
to shift. ****ing idiot.

No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. That's obvious by your statements.

But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off. I slide them down
to the shifters. YMMV.

And yes, I may be a fred. My bikes usually have fenders, I don't
shave my legs, none of my wheels have less than 32 spokes, I tend to
have bags on my bikes, and I don't own STI. And I do a lot of
climbing while in the saddle. Try it. It's efficient....

Did not Jan "Fred" Ullrich do a lot of climbing while seated?

some freds are so fredly, they have to lie down on the job - sitting's
too much for them.

-snip much-
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
At least the current
tubular rims can all be retrofit to normal clinchers.

I don't think that is true.

Perhaps you were thinking of Tufo's 'tubular cincher' tire for clincher
rims??
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:36:14 -0500, A Muzi
wrote:

-snip much-
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
At least the current
tubular rims can all be retrofit to normal clinchers.

I don't think that is true.

Perhaps you were thinking of Tufo's 'tubular cincher' tire for clincher
rims??

Dear Andrew,

My guess was that Ryan had tubeless in mind, instead of tubular.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Aug 3, 10:28 am, jim beam wrote:
you're a ****ing idiot krygowski - not even bar-cons allow shifting from
the hoods, you know, where you have your hands when you're standing on a
climb.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Funny, I didn't need to do that yesterday. While I have used my bar-
cons to shift while standing...

On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, jim beam wrote:
you stand holding the bottom of the bars??? and retain sufficient grip
to pull against each pedal stroke??? you're bull****ting krygowski.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing. If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. Or your level of skill.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
I hardly ever need to do that. What's
"awesome" for one rider is negligible for another, I guess.
I've got index on some bikes, but still ride friction on others. I
agree with John Schubert: I'm underwhelmed by indexing's advantages.

On Aug 3, 4:57 pm, jim beam wrote:
it's because you're a fred sitting on your fredly ass the whole damned
time, that's why. if you're standing, you /can't/ take your hands off
to shift. ****ing idiot.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. That's obvious by your statements.

But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off. I slide them down
to the shifters. YMMV.

And yes, I may be a fred. My bikes usually have fenders, I don't
shave my legs, none of my wheels have less than 32 spokes, I tend to
have bags on my bikes, and I don't own STI. And I do a lot of
climbing while in the saddle. Try it. It's efficient.

Also, we can finally be certain that Whiskey Dick doesn't actually ride
a bike. It is possible that he remembers the Huffy BMX bike he had as
child, though.
--
Paul M. Hobson
..:change the f to ph to reply:.

On Aug 3, 11:18*pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:


Sorry, "jim," but again, I have used my barcons to shift while
standing. *

not with your hands on the hoods you didn't.

Correct. And if you re-read, you'll see I never claimed I did. That
was just a "beamish" attempt at a straw man.

If you can't, there must be something different about your
riding style. *Or your level of skill.

no krygowski, i like to shift and keep my hands on the hoods - in
exactly the same position as when i ride. *as do the vast majority of
other users.

As I said, what's "awesome" for one person is negligible for another.
I like to ride with my hands on the hoods, and I often climb with my
hands on the hoods. But I'm coordinated enough to move my hand 8" or
so to shift, if necessary. YMMV.

I must say, you'd have had a hard time riding a racing bike before STI
was invented! Can you imagine, having to move your hands all the way
to the downtube?

"Hey guys, we'd better stop and wait. 'jim beam' fell off his bike
again!"

I hardly ever need to do that. ...
No, all we can really deduce is that if _you're_ standing, _you_ can't
take your hands off to shift. *That's obvious by your statements.
But as I recall, I don't really take my hands off.

eh - as you recall???????? *you don't appear to be very certain about a
process with which you claim to be familiar!!!! *clearly it can't be a
process you do very often!!! *you're a ****ing bull****ting idiot krygowski.

:-) As I said, "jim," I hardly ever need to do that. I've noticed
that your spittle and spewing tends to make you lose track of the
conversation.

But it's been fun talking to you, as usual! You're always good for a
smile! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Aug 3, 11:47*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski



wrote:
On Aug 3, 4:57*pm, jim beam wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Hmm. *When you implied there was a lot wrong with the "old stuff," I
didn't realize you were referring to the antiques that Carl shows
pictures of!


Dear Frank,

Antiques? Please, rideable originals! Highwheeler freaks _really_ like
to ride their penny-farthings.

(One of my great regrets is that a silly disease won't let me take
advantage of the inevitable kind offers to just hop up and take
irreplaceable antiques for a quick spin--imagine having to say sorry,
but I can't even drive that Ferrari around the block because I can't
tell if I'm pushing on the gas, the brake, or the clutch.)

I sympathize! I've tried highwheelers several times. While they look
daunting from ground level, the riding sensation is grand! They're
incredibly easy to balance at slow speeds, and the view is superb.

OTOH, it's damned hard to go fast on one. I have a friend who's done
several centuries on his, and I can't imagine the stamina it takes to
do that.

The only part that made me a bit nervous was trying to find the rear
footpeg to dismount. But that's because I never tried a fast downhill
or a panic stop!

- Frank Krygowski