Wider tires, All-road bikes

wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 3:43:22 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 25/01/2019 00:19, Mark J. wrote:

I've been tempted to buy a cheap fat bike for the novelty; I expect it
would handle like a tank.


I got a cheap adventure (like a cross) bike, 40mm tyre, as a stopgap
when my normal road bike was out of action for a few weeks.

The results were very surprising. The geometries were the same, the tyre
rolling resistance didn't appear to be much different and the extra 4kg
didn't appear to make much difference to my speed.

On the plus size it was a more comfortable to ride, it felt slightly
more solid on the road.

I now ride it all the time in preference to my road bike.




Few years back I bought a cheap but relaxed CX bike pre adventure bikes
etc, it had its issues mainly it’s brakes which where canti and couldn’t
cope with being used like a MTB lite, it’s weight I generally didn’t
notice, I even took it up Mt Teide

I replaced it last year with a adventure bike, which main advantages are
better brakes cable disk vs canti and 2/9 vs 3/7 gearing.

It is my road bike, I do tend to run CX sized tyres as generally is more
choice and to give mud clearance. But I do notice how it rides bumps and
frankly is much more grip, some will be the type of tyres, some the size.

I don’t appear to be any slower, checking my times. Any differences are
marginal.

Roger Merriman

I had exactly the same problem with my Ridley XBow. Then I bought a set
of TRP 9.0 V-brakes and all of the stopping problems disappeared.

On my Redline Conquest I fitted Avid hydraulic disks and the braking was
WAY too strong. So strong that it is difficult to modulate it. I would
suspect that if I were doing it again I would use those tiny diameter road bike disks.


I assume they where mini Vs? Either way in the end though I used posh pads
to improve the brakes, I was unconvinced that there would be much
improvement for my use, ie MTB lite in many cases.

I’ve never yet had a Hydro system that was too powerful, don’t get me wrong
the play MTB has far more powerful brakes than the old Commute beast, so I
if I forget it’s a bit of surprise how much bite, how quickly but you adapt
quickly.

Roger Merriman

On 1/27/2019 7:30 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:50:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:35:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 6:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
...

... checking my times... Any differences are
marginal.

These days, that applies to almost every "improvement" regarding bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The unit of improvement is not always time.

Sure. But doesn't the principle still apply? Which real-world criteria
have seen huge improvements in the last decade?

My goodness Frank, today we have plastic bicycles, 11 speed gears,
soft plastic safety helmets and tubeless tires.

What more could anyone ask for?

A steel frame, one fixed gear, a wool cap and tubulars, obviously! ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/27/2019 8:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 3:43:22 AM UTC-8, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 25/01/2019 00:19, Mark J. wrote:

I've been tempted to buy a cheap fat bike for the novelty; I expect it
would handle like a tank.


I got a cheap adventure (like a cross) bike, 40mm tyre, as a stopgap
when my normal road bike was out of action for a few weeks.

The results were very surprising. The geometries were the same, the tyre
rolling resistance didn't appear to be much different and the extra 4kg
didn't appear to make much difference to my speed.

On the plus size it was a more comfortable to ride, it felt slightly
more solid on the road.

I now ride it all the time in preference to my road bike.




Few years back I bought a cheap but relaxed CX bike pre adventure bikes
etc, it had its issues mainly it’s brakes which where canti and couldn’t
cope with being used like a MTB lite, it’s weight I generally didn’t
notice, I even took it up Mt Teide

I replaced it last year with a adventure bike, which main advantages are
better brakes cable disk vs canti and 2/9 vs 3/7 gearing.

It is my road bike, I do tend to run CX sized tyres as generally is more
choice and to give mud clearance. But I do notice how it rides bumps and
frankly is much more grip, some will be the type of tyres, some the size.

I don’t appear to be any slower, checking my times. Any differences are
marginal.

Roger Merriman

I had exactly the same problem with my Ridley XBow. Then I bought a set
of TRP 9.0 V-brakes and all of the stopping problems disappeared.

On my Redline Conquest I fitted Avid hydraulic disks and the braking was
WAY too strong. So strong that it is difficult to modulate it. I would
suspect that if I were doing it again I would use those tiny diameter road bike disks.


I assume they where mini Vs? Either way in the end though I used posh pads
to improve the brakes, I was unconvinced that there would be much
improvement for my use, ie MTB lite in many cases.

I’ve never yet had a Hydro system that was too powerful, don’t get me wrong
the play MTB has far more powerful brakes than the old Commute beast, so I
if I forget it’s a bit of surprise how much bite, how quickly but you adapt
quickly.

My worry about touchy brakes is about reflex action in a true emergency
situation. I've written about the time I was on a 30mph downhill and a
couple deer walked out of the woods. It was the hardest braking I'd ever
done at high speed, and I feel lucky to not have crashed.

I was on a bike I've ridden for over 30 years. I modulated the
cantilever brakes perfectly. But I think if I had new discs with low
hand effort, I'd almost certainly have locked them up and gone down hard.

Granted, such an experience is extremely rare for me. But I'd still like
all my bikes to require roughly the same amount of brake lever force.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 22:47:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 7:30 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:50:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/27/2019 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:35:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 6:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
...

... checking my times... Any differences are
marginal.

These days, that applies to almost every "improvement" regarding bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The unit of improvement is not always time.

Sure. But doesn't the principle still apply? Which real-world criteria
have seen huge improvements in the last decade?

My goodness Frank, today we have plastic bicycles, 11 speed gears,
soft plastic safety helmets and tubeless tires.

What more could anyone ask for?

A steel frame, one fixed gear, a wool cap and tubulars, obviously! ;-)

:-)


Cheers,
John B.

Frank Krygowski wrote:

:I was on a bike I've ridden for over 30 years. I modulated the
:cantilever brakes perfectly. But I think if I had new discs with low
:hand effort, I'd almost certainly have locked them up and gone down hard.

:Granted, such an experience is extremely rare for me. But I'd still like
:all my bikes to require roughly the same amount of brake lever force.

you get used to it. It doesn't take much. One of my bikes has drop
bars with interrupter levers. The interruppters requirie much much
less force than the regular levers on the drops. I've never had a
problem with figuring out how hard to squeze. IN even moderatly good
traction you have a surprisingly long time to react to the rear wheel
lifting as the front wheel locks. On ice, not so much, but even then
a front skid can be survived.

--
sig 117

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:05 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:35:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 6:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
...

... checking my times... Any differences are
marginal.

These days, that applies to almost every "improvement" regarding bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The unit of improvement is not always time.

Sure. But doesn't the principle still apply? Which real-world criteria
have seen huge improvements in the last decade?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Huge is a subjective term so I not gonna argue with that. That asside I say that almost every bike part is improved on one or more aspects. Price, performance, ease of use/installation time/maintenance, weight, strength, comfort.

Lou

wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:05 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:35:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 6:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
...

... checking my times... Any differences are
marginal.

These days, that applies to almost every "improvement" regarding bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The unit of improvement is not always time.

Sure. But doesn't the principle still apply? Which real-world criteria
have seen huge improvements in the last decade?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Huge is a subjective term so I not gonna argue with that. That asside I
say that almost every bike part is improved on one or more aspects.
Price, performance, ease of use/installation time/maintenance, weight, strength, comfort.

Lou


+1

--
duane

On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 3:25:52 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Monday, January 28, 2019 at 12:50:05 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 27, 2019 at 5:35:39 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/27/2019 6:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
...

... checking my times... Any differences are
marginal.

These days, that applies to almost every "improvement" regarding bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The unit of improvement is not always time.

Sure. But doesn't the principle still apply? Which real-world criteria
have seen huge improvements in the last decade?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Huge is a subjective term so I not gonna argue with that. That asside I
say that almost every bike part is improved on one or more aspects.
Price, performance, ease of use/installation time/maintenance, weight, strength, comfort.

Lou


+1

--
duane

Missing from that list, however, is durability. 10/11/12 speed chains and cassettes wear faster. The modern world presents trade-offs.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 7:19:13 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/24/2019 2:49 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:31:58 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 6:27:30 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:50:47 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:07:50 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot

I'm beginning to see bikes over here with what appear to be 4 inch, or
maybe larger, tires. They look much like a hard tail MTB but with much
wider forks.

Fatbikes have been out for a while now. The only thing that irritates me about them is that they bitch about 'skinny' MTBs riding on "their" trails and leaving ruts - ignoring the fact that the trails they ride are usually multi-use, and get beat to **** by walkers, snowshoes, xc skis, and horses. I call them "fatbike fashionistas".


As I don't ride "in the bush" I only see the so called "fat bikes" on
the road, but they certainly look cumbersome.


They are definitely better suited to snow and soft sand. There's also a versatility factor: You can run 700C road wheels and go for long road rides or run a set of 4" tires and head off into the dunes. No matter what you do, they are quite slow - a lightweight version is in the 12 kilo range, even with light wheels.

I had assumed that due to the much wider tires that the hubs would be
much wider also and that a conventional bike wheel wouldn't fit.

I believe that /is/ the case with the "Fat" bikes for which I've seen
the specs. E.g. Trek's "Farley 7" lists the front hub as 150x15 and the
rear as 197x12. I interpret those to mean the front is 150mm lock nut
to lock nut, with a 15mm through-axle, and the back is 197mm o.l.n.

Yes, that's spot-on. I didn't mean to imply you could take a road bike wheel and slap it on a fatbike. You would need wheels built with proper hubs, but running a 700C road rim and tire wouldn't be a problem.


As for slower, a heavy bike should be faster going down the hills,
shouldn't it :-)

I've been tempted to buy a cheap fat bike for the novelty; I expect it
would handle like a tank.

Yes, cheap ones do. Expensive ones handle like lighter tanks, but they're a lot easier to get used to.


Mark J.

On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 09:31:58 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 6:27:30 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:50:47 -0800 (PST), Zen Cycle
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:07:50 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot

I'm beginning to see bikes over here with what appear to be 4 inch, or
maybe larger, tires. They look much like a hard tail MTB but with much
wider forks.

Fatbikes have been out for a while now. The only thing that irritates me about them is that they bitch about 'skinny' MTBs riding on "their" trails and leaving ruts - ignoring the fact that the trails they ride are usually multi-use, and get beat to **** by walkers, snowshoes, xc skis, and horses. I call them "fatbike fashionistas".


As I don't ride "in the bush" I only see the so called "fat bikes" on
the road, but they certainly look cumbersome.


They are definitely better suited to snow and soft sand. There's also a versatility factor: You can run 700C road wheels and go for long road rides or run a set of 4" tires and head off into the dunes. No matter what you do, they are quite slow - a lightweight version is in the 12 kilo range, even with light wheels.

I had assumed that due to the much wider tires that the hubs would be
much wider also and that a conventional bike wheel wouldn't fit.

Yes, you would need wheels built with appropriate hubs, but a road rim with road tires would be fine.


As for slower, a heavy bike should be faster going down the hills,
shouldn't it :-)

To a point - rolling resistance of a fat tire patch and the inability to get into a tuck - I'm pretty sure a competent road rider on a mid-range racing bike could out-descend an equally skilled rider on a fatbike.



Cheers,
John B.