Chain lube for wet _and_ dry?

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:53:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 09:11, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2016 11:02 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 06:47, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2016 7:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 16:49, Doug Landau wrote:

The old days were definitely not good when it comes to
gear ratios. I
think those corncob cassettes have ruined many folks'
knee joints. On my
old Shimano 600EX set I crammed a 32T in there.
Officially it's not
supposed to be able to shift up there but I could get it
to work. As one
grows older 28T ain't always enough when the smallest
ring up front is 42T.

With a 39 it is, tho


The BCD is too large for that on the old Shimano cranks :-(


How old? Shimano went to 130mm in late 1972, 15 years
before Campagnolo
moved to 39t-compatible format.


The bike was custom-built in 1982. Years later I inquired at
another LBS and they said there is no fitting ring smaller
than 42T for this 600 series crank.

It was similar with UG cassette where I could not find one
with large cogs and "mountain" gear spacing. So I hacked an
HG cassette by grinding down parts of the wider inner
splines with a Dremel. Now that the UG hub has failed and I
replaced it with a 7-speed HG hub I can just buy HG
cassettes without needing to hack them. Although it's easy
to do and allows mix and match to replace that one worn
sprocket.


Your LBS was misinformed. All Shimano 600 road cranks are 130mm for
sizes 39t and larger.


Yes, it is 130mm BCD. I wonder if one could get 39T for it somewhere.
That would max out the rear derailer though because since the addition
of 32T in back that is at its limits for large-large and small-small
situations. Not that I'd use that but there can always be an accidental
mis-shift. Chain length has become very critical now.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Once again the problem is not with the equipment but with how you want to use it. All you'd have to do is spend a few bucks on a new rear derailler or even a used one. Gads!

Cheers

On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:03:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 10:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2016 11:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 09:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:02:29 PM UTC-4, Joerg
wrote:
On 2016-10-01 06:47, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2016 7:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 16:49, Doug Landau wrote:

The old days were definitely not good when it comes
to gear
ratios. I think those corncob cassettes have ruined many
folks' knee joints. On my old Shimano 600EX set I
crammed a
32T in there. Officially it's not supposed to be able to
shift up there but I could get it to work. As one grows
older 28T ain't always enough when the smallest ring up
front is 42T.

With a 39 it is, tho


The BCD is too large for that on the old Shimano cranks
:-(


How old? Shimano went to 130mm in late 1972, 15 years
before
Campagnolo moved to 39t-compatible format.


The bike was custom-built in 1982. Years later I inquired at
another LBS and they said there is no fitting ring
smaller than 42T
for this 600 series crank.

It was similar with UG cassette where I could not find
one with
large cogs and "mountain" gear spacing. So I hacked an HG
cassette
by grinding down parts of the wider inner splines with a
Dremel.
Now that the UG hub has failed and I replaced it with a
7-speed HG
hub I can just buy HG cassettes without needing to hack
them.
Although it's easy to do and allows mix and match to
replace that
one worn sprocket.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The catalogue for the Shimano Arabesque 600 crankset shows
that it
could take an inner ring or 39 - 45 teeth and an outer
ring of 48 -
53 teeth and that's the 1983 catalogue. The earlier
Shimano AX
cranksets used the same chainrings.


It's not Arabesque but EX. As Andy said it should take 39T,
if one can get it. However, with 32T in back the rear
derailer would have a hard time accommodating the slack. I
really don't want to give up that 32T cog.



If you need a lower gear then by all means set up a lower gear.

Our Santana tandems for example run 130mm x 74mm triples with a 36t low
cassette using standard Shimano rear changers. Nothing special or exotic.


Modern sets can do that, like the Deore XT on my MTB. I'd have to
essentially scrap all the 600EX stuff and replace it. But it's ok, after
training long enough there are only a few hills I have a hard time
climbing with 42/32. During that time my weight increased 12lbs but zero
added waistline. It's probably all in the leg muscles which are much
thicker now.

On Wednesday I saw a guy pushing this to the extreme. On the worst climb
of my weekly route down towards the valley he rode up and down and up
and down, with a pain-expressing face.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Or you could do a VERY SIMPLE search on the web and buy either a used or NOS long cage Shimano 600 EX rear derailler.

Sometimes Joerg I wonder if you actually ride a bike.

Cheers

Op 2-10-2016 om 2:26 schreef Sir Ridesalot:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:34:29 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
If I had 28T up front I'd also be happy. But that is hard on the chain.
Snipped
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Oh good grief Joerg! Admit it. Nothing works for you and you're only happy if you can complain about how delice every bicycle compoent or part is. Why don't you just buy a gasoline powered dirt bike and then have someone weld on a bottom bracket shell and derailler hanger so you can use pedals instead of the gasoline motor? Heck get that fantastic Rolhoff rear hub and forget about the derailler. then you'd have motorcycle quality parts on a pedal bicycle and never have another breakdown.

Cheers


He is too cheap to make that happen or he needs the attention heren.

Lou

On 2016-10-01 16:21, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 2:49:04 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 14:14, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:17:59 AM UTC-7, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2016 8:08 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 13:41, jbeattie wrote:


The Biketown bike is a massive boat anchor. The owners
should pay a weight-mile tax.


For many people (including me) weight doesn't matter. Whole
nations, in fact. Regular Dutch bikes are like boat anchors.
Yet the great masses over there love and ride them. A key
reason being that they are almost indestructible even when
heavily overloaded. It was very normal back in the days to
have your girlfriend ride along on the luggage rack and to
some extent it still is.

The key factors are terrain and distance, with terrain
dominating. If you are riding where it's dead flat (like
Amsterdam) then bike weight doesn't matter much at all. If
most bike rides are less then three miles (like Amsterdam) it
matters even less. But AFAIK nobody posting here rides in such
a flat area.

I'm so far from being a weigh weenie that some of my weight
weenie friends joke about it. But I know a lighter bike is
more responsive, and can be more fun. It's also way easier to
lift onto a roof rack or otherwise carry. I do wish my folding
bike were lighter, for that reason.


Plus, the Biketown bike makes the usual Dutch commuter look like
a time trial bike.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/bike-...-your-new-bike




How did they manage to push them to 59lbs? Even my all decked out MTB
with a 60Wh Li-Ion battery, thick heavy tubes and so forth only
clocks in at 38lbs. With lock and tools it's 40lbs.

How much of a grade is that volcano? Quote "I feel all 59 pounds of
this bike" either sounds like it must be steep or the rider wasn't
too strong. I often haul stuff on my bikes and I don't feel 20-30
extra pounds as much of a difference.

I guess you must be superman.


Nah. I have thicker leg muscles than those guys but very likely not
their endurance, I'd be out of breath sooner.


... Tabor is short and not that steep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkCFE-FBVyQ It's a popular course for
the after work races, and it does feel steep after about lap 7.


Can we build quieter road bikes again like in the good old days? No
wonder people think their chain lube lasts forever. They won't hear the
squealing.

That looks like an easy ride. A rider in decent shape could even pull a
keg trailer up there. So maybe the author of that 59lbs bike article
needs more training.


... In
California, they do crits around business parks. We use a little
volcano -- and a raceway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6pruxdPS4g


We use this for "pedal to the metal" rides:

http://centralcaliforniacycling.com/...SouthCanal.jpg

and this for fun rides:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs-m2Cefx18




Unlike Joerg, I don't need or want a bicycle suitable for
fleeing the dust bowl.
https://diaryofamadbabyboomer.files....dust_truck.jpg




It does pay off when riders using the same trail complain about frequent
breakdowns and I hardly ever have any. If I need to reach Latrobe
via singletrack by 1:15pm I usually get there by 1:15pm regardlesss
of trail conditions.

Interestingly, I ride with the woman's national enduro champion, and
she rarely has problems -- and rides a CF bike.
http://ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb12355116/p5pb12355116.jpg Same with my
usual crew of friends. Even my old-guy DH champion brother uses OTC
bikes and has few problems -- some, but not anything that requires
special engineering.

I'm sure neither of them ride super gonzo-gnar like that in Cameron
Park.


It's not gonzo-gnar, it's this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...te_003_lhp.jpg

One of the reasons why I don't like riding with more than one or two
others. To many forced breaks for flat fixes. Sometimes pinch flats turn
out to not really be fixable. Other times we have to stop every 15mins
to pump up a tire because either we missed one of a dozen holes or ran
out of patches. A torn off valve stem in the middle of nowhere is the
real fun. This just does not happen with my bikes.

Some 'solutions" on bikes are unbelievable. Earlier this year I hollered
at an MTB rider in front of me to stop. The rear brake hose dangled
dangerously close to the spokes. It was an expensive MTB yet the
fastening was done with some sort of glorified zip tie. Of course,
eventually that became brittle and broke. Luckily I always carry a few
cable ties and two minutes later were were both back on the trail.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2016-10-01 17:35, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 3:03:55 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 10:24, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/1/2016 11:56 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-10-01 09:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:02:29 PM UTC-4, Joerg
wrote:
On 2016-10-01 06:47, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/30/2016 7:10 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 16:49, Doug Landau wrote:

The old days were definitely not good when it
comes to gear ratios. I think those corncob
cassettes have ruined many folks' knee joints. On
my old Shimano 600EX set I crammed a 32T in there.
Officially it's not supposed to be able to shift up
there but I could get it to work. As one grows
older 28T ain't always enough when the smallest
ring up front is 42T.

With a 39 it is, tho


The BCD is too large for that on the old Shimano
cranks :-(


How old? Shimano went to 130mm in late 1972, 15 years
before Campagnolo moved to 39t-compatible format.


The bike was custom-built in 1982. Years later I inquired
at another LBS and they said there is no fitting ring
smaller than 42T for this 600 series crank.

It was similar with UG cassette where I could not find one
with large cogs and "mountain" gear spacing. So I hacked an
HG cassette by grinding down parts of the wider inner
splines with a Dremel. Now that the UG hub has failed and I
replaced it with a 7-speed HG hub I can just buy HG
cassettes without needing to hack them. Although it's easy
to do and allows mix and match to replace that one worn
sprocket.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

The catalogue for the Shimano Arabesque 600 crankset shows
that it could take an inner ring or 39 - 45 teeth and an
outer ring of 48 - 53 teeth and that's the 1983 catalogue.
The earlier Shimano AX cranksets used the same chainrings.


It's not Arabesque but EX. As Andy said it should take 39T, if
one can get it. However, with 32T in back the rear derailer
would have a hard time accommodating the slack. I really don't
want to give up that 32T cog.



If you need a lower gear then by all means set up a lower gear.

Our Santana tandems for example run 130mm x 74mm triples with a
36t low cassette using standard Shimano rear changers. Nothing
special or exotic.


Modern sets can do that, like the Deore XT on my MTB. I'd have to
essentially scrap all the 600EX stuff and replace it. But it's ok,
after training long enough there are only a few hills I have a hard
time climbing with 42/32. During that time my weight increased
12lbs but zero added waistline. It's probably all in the leg
muscles which are much thicker now.

On Wednesday I saw a guy pushing this to the extreme. On the worst
climb of my weekly route down towards the valley he rode up and
down and up and down, with a pain-expressing face.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Or you could do a VERY SIMPLE search on the web and buy either a used
or NOS long cage Shimano 600 EX rear derailler.


If possible I'd like to keep the bike as is. Else I could simply fit an
MTB derailer. Anyhow, going from 42T in front to 39T isn't such a huge
difference. In back I already went to the max available. My leg muscles
are trained enough by now to be able to do the hills around here with
what I've got.


Sometimes Joerg I wonder if you actually ride a bike.


About 4000mi/year or 3x the mileage of my car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/