A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Chinese Carbon Wheelset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 28th 19, 02:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On 8/28/2019 7:29 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:54:43 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping. You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
 seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
 than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
 even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
 interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
 than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations. All cranks for square taper BBs for example. If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?


I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--

Which is not needs.



Cheers,

John B.


I can only assume that you don't have your dictionary handy.

needs ~ adv 1. in such a manner as could not be otherwise
1. require as useful, just, or proper
2. have need of
This piano needs the attention of a competent tuner
3. have or feel a need for
always needs friends and money

need ~ noun uncommon
1. a condition requiring relief
she satisfied his need for affection;
2. anything that is necessary but lacking
he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs; I tried to supply
his wants
3. the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action
toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives
purpose and direction to behavior
4. a state of extreme poverty or destitution
their indigence appalled him; a general state of need exists among the
homeless

Got it?
--

Cheers,

John B.


And you just pointed out before that needy means being poor enough to
require help from others.

If you don’t see the difference I give up. Google something else.

And if you don’t want a CF road bike, don’t buy one. I don’t need one but
I want one and I’m not so needy that I can’t afford one.


"needs" help from others is a character flaw not an income
level.

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


Ads
  #102  
Old August 28th 19, 04:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote:

You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to
sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the
market demand?

That's extremely naive.

Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a
massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the
well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were
dropping, SUVs were rising.

But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out
it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM
turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising
for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs.
And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes.

It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising
didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive,
massive effort it is.

What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost
bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest.

Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make
money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad
market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart
phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market!

But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy
an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy
anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was
looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got
because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE
because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled --
buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it
is, take it or leave it."

This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel
frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and
opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a
California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon.

I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of
advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable
among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute
those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've
always been an ad skeptic.

I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the
most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto
Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in
general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like.
But the point is, they are told what to like.)

Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc
brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake
problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads:
Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever
this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there
are people that just gotta have it.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry
there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't
work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't
spend all that money.

Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon
fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better
gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh,
and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized
wheels if that matters. You really should get one.

If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a
gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists
who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or
28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short
distances, and it works fine.)

But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm?
Because they were stylish and promoted.

Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because
the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that
design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish
and promoted.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older
steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's
Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light
I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps
there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but
that didn't last long.


I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac
can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though.

The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone
with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound.

--
duane


The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better.
  #103  
Old August 28th 19, 04:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 7:36:53 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 21:39:49 UTC-4, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
Â*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic.. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?

--
duane


My bicycling needs vary depending on where I ride. My needs in a bicycle that I'm taking on a two-weeks long unsupported logging/mining roads tour/ride are far different than my bicycling needs if I'm riding a paved road route that's mostly flat. Then there are my wants if I decide to build a bicycle as an experiment which is what I did with one MTB with a drop handlebar and a 9-speed 11 to 19 teeth corncob cassette couple to a 28-38-48 crankset and with 1.5" x 26" smooth tread tires. That bike is a lot of fun to ride and I love it on the hills that aren't too steep. that bike meets my needs for certain routes I ride a lot. For someone else that bike could be a real beast to ride.

Cheers


Well, seems to me that what you're looking for is a normal touring bike with 32 x 700c semi-knobbies and no desire to go fast.
  #104  
Old August 28th 19, 04:38 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 2:54:45 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 01:39:47 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:57:36 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 01:29:00 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote:
On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote:


I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't
imagine why.


Imagine harder.

-- JS

Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN
"carbon paste" let alone used it for anything.



Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote:

"In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was
the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon
Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one."

So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent
Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But
Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part
Â*interfaces.

I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less
Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF
parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common.



To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle
that have no CF involved.

Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm.
Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low
torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham.

And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for
generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you
properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on
too far by over torquing the fastener.

Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an
aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes!

That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either
lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual
cyclist doesn't typically deal with.

Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque
wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people
are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt,
stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness.
Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie
mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners
have never heard of.

Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One
model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic.. The
other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the
delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!"
labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on
the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is
124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate."

A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125
grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better
:-)
--
But you guys don?t mock anyone do ya?


In the words of the great Carl Marx, "from those according to their
ability and to each according to their needs".
--

Cheers,

John B.


Cute.

No. History.
--

Cheers,

John B.


No, I meant you. Not Marx.

Who gets to define “needs”?

Given what appears to be the present U.S. political system it
apparently hasn't changed any since at least the 1700's. The "needy"
are, as always, the guys you want to vote for you.
--

Cheers,



Needs. Not needy. What are you on about? We were talking about cycling
and required equipment. Do you just google out of context words to find
nifty quotes?



I guess I probably do. I was replying to the guy who wrote, " Who
gets to define “needs”?"

Needy - "needy ~ adj 1. poor enough to need help from others"

--


Which is not needs.



Cheers,

John B.

duane


John live3s in a foreign country so that he can live upper class. Then he tells us that socialism which he himself doesn't practice is intellectual.

  #105  
Old August 28th 19, 04:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

I don't careif they're tracing how many Bear Claws I eat in a year. Or my Safeway shopping patterns. What is far more important and one that you can't get away from is your internet use. Google and Yahoo and Bing are fixated upon that and they actually believe that they can predict your reactions by what you say on-line. While I may argue with Jay, I have no doubt that we could be good riding partners. The same with most of the rest (excluding John who is so plainly nuts).
  #106  
Old August 28th 19, 04:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 6:49:26 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:

"needs" help from others is a character flaw not an income
level.


That reminds me of "The Bicycle Thief".
  #107  
Old August 28th 19, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:51:40 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote:

You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to
sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the
market demand?

That's extremely naive.

Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a
massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the
well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were
dropping, SUVs were rising.

But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out
it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM
turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising
for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs.
And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes.

It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising
didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive,
massive effort it is.

What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I
almost bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua
-- but I lost interest.

Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make
money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad
market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart
phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market!

But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy
an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy
anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was
looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I
got because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE
because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled --
buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it
is, take it or leave it."

This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel
frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids
and opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a
California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon.

I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of
advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable
among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute
those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've
always been an ad skeptic.

I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the
most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto
Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in
general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like.
But the point is, they are told what to like.)

Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc
brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake
problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads:
Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever
this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there
are people that just gotta have it.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry
there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't
work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't
spend all that money.

Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon
fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better
gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh,
and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized
wheels if that matters. You really should get one.

If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a
gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists
who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or
28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short
distances, and it works fine.)

But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm?
Because they were stylish and promoted.


Well, gravel riding is gaining popularity because people are tired of
dodging cars and don't want to ride single track. It's like saying
mountain biking is stylish. It's really a different sport, although one
can ride single track and gravel on a road bike. IMO, gravel bikes are
aspirational (people hoping to hit some gravel) or just fast comfort or
commuter bikes -- rather than being stylish.

And why did people buy bikes limited to 25mm tires? Who knows. Maybe
they wanted a fast bike and were stuck with 25mm max. Prior to discs,
racy bikes were spec'd for smaller tires -- but with discs, you can put
28mm tires on a Pinarello F12.
https://bikerumor.com/2019/05/01/pin...n-drops-grams/.
Discs are great and so are through axles which will give you lots of
free time not having to close QR levers for idiots.


Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because
the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that
design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish
and promoted.


Do you just make this up? All the people I know who own gravel bikes --
and its a lot -- buy them for gravel and end up using them as winter
bikes. One of my partners got a Scott aluminum gravel bike as a
commuter. It's a great commuter in Oregon -- cable discs and he can put
jumbo tires on for winter. It even has rack mounts.

Another friend got an Open Up pro deal because his friend knows Gerard
Vroomen. That one is a bit more aspirational.

And as a point of clarification, my wife ran my SuperSix into an
overhang. I was doing a mediation in Medford, and she was driving around
with her brother killing time until I got out.

-- Jay Beattie.


The entire groups I've ridden with have ridden normal road bikes on
gravel roads since the beginning of time. We all used to run 23 mm tires
so being 'limited to 25 mm' isn't a limitation at all. Larger tires
simply increase the rolling resistance and make you more tired. Why would
you want to do that? You need wider tires with knobs on them only if
you're doing steep downhills on loose dirt. Even then if there is a good
roll-out on the bottom you can just let it fly. At the bottom of the Los
Gatos dam there is one of those and if the hiking traffic isn't too thick
that is what I would do with my street bike. Makes a lot of noise and
frightens the walkers but I didn't find it a problem.


I think that the new concept is that wider tires change the contact patch
and so don’t increase rolling resistance. Not sure I understand that
correctly. For me, I find wider tires muddier when cornering so I prefer
the 23s. On my head rims I run them at 95psi so they’re comfortable enough
for me. I don’t ride on gravel if I can help it so there’s really no point
in using even 25s IMO.

This is all completely subjective and unscientific. But like I said
before, options are good. Ride what you like. Just ride.

--
duane
  #108  
Old August 28th 19, 04:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,546
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:49:49 PM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:19:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 1:09 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:03:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:39:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/26/2019 7:46 PM, Duane wrote:

You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to
sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the
market demand?

That's extremely naive.

Look at SUVs and pickup trucks as an example. Our area just took a
massive economic hit because GM closed the Lordstown plant where the
well-regarded Chevy Cruze was built. Their explanation? Cruze sales were
dropping, SUVs were rising.

But a local investigative reporter dug into the decision. It turns out
it was made back when Cruze sales were at their peak and rising. GM
turned down all advertising for the Cruze and turned up all advertising
for SUVs, specifically because profit per unit is much higher for SUVs.
And by golly, people bought more and more SUVs and fewer Cruzes.

It's naive to think advertising and promotion don't work. If advertising
didn't change market demand, advertising wouldn't be the massive,
massive effort it is.

What product have you purchased because of an advertisement? I almost
bought a Taco Bell taco because I liked the talking Chihuahua -- but I lost interest.

Yes, the market determines our choices, and the market wants to make
money -- and it wants us to chose new options, etc., etc. Bad
market! On the other hand, it did produce flush toilets, smart
phones, STI and all sorts of things I use every day and appreciate. Good market!

But you can market 'til the cows come home, and I'm not going to buy
an F350, and I certainly don't miss the Chevy Cruze or Chevy
anything. I haven't bought any bike item because of marketing. I was
looking for road discs when they were hard to find. Some things I got
because my cohorts were gushing about it. Some things I got OE
because I bought a complete bike. That's where you get corralled --
buying complete bikes, but that isn't marketing as much as "here it
is, take it or leave it."

This also leaves out lust items and objects of art like custom steel
frames. Those purchases defy marketing and are more like opioids and
opioid receptor issues. I can't tell you why I lusted after a
California Masi or an early Bruce Gordon.

I'd have a very hard time thinking of something _I_ bought because of
advertising, but that's not a fair test. I'm famously unfashionable
among those who know me, I'm not a TV watcher so I see few ads and mute
those that happen to be on, I do no recreational shopping, and I've
always been an ad skeptic.

I'm glad you won't buy an F350. But you can't seriously think that's the
most appropriate vehicle for the majority of people who buy them. Ditto
Cadillac Escalades, Jeeps of any flavor, and four wheel drive SUVs in
general. (And Andrew will probably say folks should buy what they like.
But the point is, they are told what to like.)

Getting back to bikes, the latest mini-craze in our bike club is disc
brakes and gravel bikes. Number of club incidences of caliper brake
problems: Zero. Number of club rides that venture onto gravel roads:
Zero. But like whatever the latest number of rear cogs, and whatever
this week's fashion for front chainrings (or chainring, singular) there
are people that just gotta have it.

According to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_industry
there's $167 billion annually betting that advertising works. It doesn't
work on everybody, but if it didn't work well enough, they wouldn't
spend all that money.

Again, you should be gushing about gravel bikes. They're just carbon
fiber or aluminum touring bikes from 1973 -- with discs and better
gearing -- and stiffer BBs, better steering and generally lighter. Oh,
and they can take larger tires -- a lot larger. And different sized
wheels if that matters. You really should get one.

If I ran my touring bike into a garage roof, I suppose I might look at a
gravel bike. I do think they're a better choice for a lot of cyclists
who currently run 23mm racing tires on bikes that can't fit 25mm or
28mm. (I do take my bike onto gravel pretty regularly for short
distances, and it works fine.)

But my point remains: Why did people ever buy the bikes limited to 25mm?
Because they were stylish and promoted.

Why are people buying gravel bikes now? In most cases, it's not because
the customers have thought about their real needs and decided that
design best satisfies them. They're buying them because they're stylish
and promoted.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Today very few bikes are limited to narrow tires. And none of the older
steel bikes were. I just pulled 18 mm tires off of my youngest daughter's
Bridgestone Synergy and 23's fit on it easily and if she wasn't so light
I could easily put 25's on there. I could put 28's on my Colnago. Perhaps
there was a short period in which bikes were limited to 23's or less but
that didn't last long.


I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac
can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though.

The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone
with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound.

--
duane


The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to
indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires
were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to
offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since
I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better.


The friend I’m talking about weighs probably 110. But I think her and her
husband explore sometimes so may encounter gravel more than me.

--
duane
  #109  
Old August 28th 19, 05:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 8:50:44 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to
indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires
were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to
offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since
I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better.


The friend I’m talking about weighs probably 110. But I think her and her
husband explore sometimes so may encounter gravel more than me.


Climbers used to often be as light as 110 lbs. Even Il Campionisimo (Coppi) was only 150 lbs.

  #110  
Old August 28th 19, 05:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Chinese Carbon Wheelset

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 11:50:44 UTC-4, Duane wrote:
Snipped
I don’t know of any road bikes that can’t take 25s these days. My Tarmac
can but I run 23s. Won’t take 28s though.

The new trend is wider tires actually. A friend just bought a Trek madone
with disc brakes and 32s. Seems like options abound.

--
duane


The rolling resistance tests that the factory teams ran seemed to
indicate that depending on the size of the rider, that 26 or 27 mm tires
were the lowest rolling resistance. When I was 190 lbs the 28's seemed to
offer the lowest rolling resistance and most comfortable ride. But since
I'm down to 185 the 25's seem to work better.


The friend I’m talking about weighs probably 110. But I think her and her
husband explore sometimes so may encounter gravel more than me.

--
duane


I have one of my road bikes shod with Schwalbe CX Pro Cyclo-Cross 30mm knobby tires. It's a very nice ride for those days when I might decided to ride one of the many dirt/gravel roads around here. Sometimes it's nice to have the option to cut my ride short by riding back along a dirt/gravel road rather than having to ride many, many kilometers (miles) to the next paved road that takes me towards my destination. That's yet another example of how needs/wants can vary even with the same bicyclist on different days or different rides.

I did find that tires can make a HUGE difference in how a bike feels and how it rides.

Cheers
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano Carbon Wheelset Brian Meahan Marketplace 0 May 12th 06 04:55 PM
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset + More Rod Marketplace 0 September 16th 05 09:30 PM
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More Rod Marketplace 0 September 15th 05 10:24 PM
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More Rod Marketplace 0 September 14th 05 10:39 PM
WTT: Zip 303 All Carbon Tubular Wheelset & Lots more Rod Marketplace 0 August 23rd 05 11:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.