Evaulating a bike

Tom Reingold wrote:
wrote:

The most important interfaces on a bicycle are where the rider and the
bike meet. Saddle. Handlebars/brake levers/shifters. And pedals.

I'm a computer person, but I don't see the relevance of looking at
"interfaces" on a bicycle.

Sure, the human/bike interfaces are important, since you have to (or
hope to) be on the bike for a while.

And having low enough gears to comfortably get up any hills you happen
to be climbing. Very important.

That's not so important. If you don't have low gears, you have a better
chance of learning to climb hills well. The super low gears that bikes
come with these days helps to ensure that riders never learn.

And if you don't use the opportunity to learn, that's OK, too. You can
walk up hills. Is that so bad?

My approach to difficult hills is to stop and rest when it gets really
hard. Then I resume on the bicycle. I don't like to walk. But it's fine
for some people.


--
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
This email address works, but only for a short time.

From your comments it is apparent you do not ride bikes.

Paul Cassel wrote:
Tom Reingold wrote:

That's not so important. If you don't have low gears, you have a better
chance of learning to climb hills well. The super low gears that bikes
come with these days helps to ensure that riders never learn.

And if you don't use the opportunity to learn, that's OK, too. You can
walk up hills. Is that so bad?

My approach to difficult hills is to stop and rest when it gets really
hard. Then I resume on the bicycle. I don't like to walk. But it's fine
for some people.


I'm in no danger of having too low gears. My lowest ratio is 2:1
(45:22). How does that help me learn to ride hills? I was hoping for an
easier low gear if I can find (and my machine handle) as much as a 32
for my largest cogset sprocket.

Your short cage Dura Ace 1980s rear derailleur will not clear a 32
tooth rear cog. It should clear a 28 tooth rear cog.

wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote:


Your short cage Dura Ace 1980s rear derailleur will not clear a 32
tooth rear cog. It should clear a 28 tooth rear cog.


Thanks, Russell. I think even a 28 will make a bit of a difference and
for $25 or so, I can't lose. I figure since I'll be buying it at an LBS,
they should be willing to fit it for a resonable price. The LBS's around
here which I've talked to lately have been very courteous and helpful.
Like yesterday when I had a question, this one wrench who seems to have
taken me under his wing said, "Advice is free".

I've probably learned as much on this thread as I have for months of
reading bike mags too.

wrote in
ups.com:


Tom Reingold wrote:
That's not so important. If you don't have low gears, you have a
better chance of learning to climb hills well. The super low gears
that bikes come with these days helps to ensure that riders never
learn.

And if you don't use the opportunity to learn, that's OK, too. You
can walk up hills. Is that so bad?

My approach to difficult hills is to stop and rest when it gets
really hard. Then I resume on the bicycle. I don't like to walk. But
it's fine for some people.




From your comments it is apparent you do not ride bikes.



No, I think he does, but then he stops and rests. Because he doesn't
like walking.

I prefer riding to either of those, so I got a triple crank.

-HW

Paul Cassel wrote:
41 wrote:

#I may buy some super lightweight ones (I almost did yesterday but
#was unsure if a wheel for an 8-10 speed Shimano would work with my 7
#speed setup) just for the heck of it.

If you are interested in wheels read this book:
http://tinyurl.com/3tars

Before you spend *any* money on new wheels, or for that matter before
you seek to maintain the ones you already have, I highly recommend you
read this book. $25 will save you $$$$$$. Or, if you still wish to
spend $$$, you will know what to spend it on.

Incidentally, a much better purchase would be, in addition to the 14-28
rear cluster, new chainwheels up front to get you a 50-39. Going to the
39 from the 45 is much more important than going from the 52 to the 50,
but if you want to spend [a little!] money, this combination will get
you a really nice, useful progression of gears.

Sorry about your earlier $2.5K bike shop experience. It was grounds for
legal action or else jihad. On the plus side, the girl doesn't seem to
have been someone you could count on when the going gets rough. Perhaps
money well spent after all...

To clarify an earlier comment of mine: most modern bikes are set up for
poseur posture. It is possible to get one that isn't, if the bike shop
doesn't cut the steerer down so far and knows what they are doing.
Those two conditions are hardly ever met in practice.


riding down a hill at a good clip, I heard a pop. The front tire blew
out. The tube was split like a knife cut more than half way through.

http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.4.html

Paul Cassel wrote:

I'm in no danger of having too low gears. My lowest ratio is 2:1
(45:22). How does that help me learn to ride hills? I was hoping for an
easier low gear if I can find (and my machine handle) as much as a 32
for my largest cogset sprocket. I have plenty of high left as my large
chainring is a 52. I seem to be the only two speed bike out there. All
others have a very small 3rd chainring which looks like a 35 or less.

I was riding my motorcycle today on a dirt road up a steep hill when I
stopped to chat with a bicycle guy who decided to rest and then resume.
Did we meet?

-paul


If your lowest gear is relatively high, and if you insist on pedalling
up a hill, you will pedal against some hard resistance, which will
stress your muscles, which will make you stronger. Also, you are more
likely to pedal out of the saddle, which is a skill many low-gear riders
don't pick up.

I was never good at hills until I built myself a fixed gear bike. The
setup was something like 44/18, making it an effective 66 inch wheel.
That's not high, but it's not low, either. I attacked on hills and
started standing up. That was over 20 years ago, and the bike is long
gone, but I'm still good at hills now.

Another thing that seems to have helped is that I always climb stairs
two at a time.


--
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
This email address works, but only for a short time.

Paul Cassel wrote:
wrote:

Paul Cassel wrote:



Your short cage Dura Ace 1980s rear derailleur will not clear a 32
tooth rear cog. It should clear a 28 tooth rear cog.


Thanks, Russell. I think even a 28 will make a bit of a difference and
for $25 or so, I can't lose. I figure since I'll be buying it at an LBS,
they should be willing to fit it for a resonable price. The LBS's around
here which I've talked to lately have been very courteous and helpful.
Like yesterday when I had a question, this one wrench who seems to have
taken me under his wing said, "Advice is free".

I've probably learned as much on this thread as I have for months of
reading bike mags too.

28 sounds good. It will help on the hills, and it's not an extremely low
gear.


--
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
This email address works, but only for a short time.

wrote:

And having low enough gears to comfortably get up any hills you happen
to be climbing. Very important.

That's not so important. If you don't have low gears, you have a better
chance of learning to climb hills well. The super low gears that bikes
come with these days helps to ensure that riders never learn.

And if you don't use the opportunity to learn, that's OK, too. You can
walk up hills. Is that so bad?

My approach to difficult hills is to stop and rest when it gets really
hard. Then I resume on the bicycle. I don't like to walk. But it's fine
for some people.


--
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
This email address works, but only for a short time.


From your comments it is apparent you do not ride bikes.


I can understand how you would get that impression, but you're incorrect.

I think ultra low gears are fine for those who want them. It depends on
what kind of experience you want on your bike. In fact, I think ultra
low gears have made cycling more attractive to many people, and that's a
very good thing.

I might get a triple crank one day. See, I'm not religious about it. In
the meantime, I'll continue to grind up hills, resting on the way if I
need to. I rarely need to.

--
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
This email address works, but only for a short time.

In article ,
Tom Reingold wrote:

wrote:

The most important interfaces on a bicycle are where the rider and the
bike meet. Saddle. Handlebars/brake levers/shifters. And pedals.

I'm a computer person, but I don't see the relevance of looking at
"interfaces" on a bicycle.

Your butt is different from my butt. People tend to have very different,
and not easily predictable, preferences in seat design. Considering that
one of the signs a saddle doesn't fit a man can be . . . numbness . . .
you really want to get that right.

Similarly with minor fit issues in other parts of the bike: I had a
saddle-tilt issue that caused my shoulders to cramp after a few hours.
Another very exprienced rider I know finally noticed that a subtle cleat
adjustment solved a series of minor leg issues he had.

Compared to getting these fit bits right, what material the bike weighs
and its weight plus or minus five pounds matter not a whit.

Sure, the human/bike interfaces are important, since you have to (or
hope to) be on the bike for a while.

And having low enough gears to comfortably get up any hills you happen
to be climbing. Very important.

That's not so important. If you don't have low gears, you have a better
chance of learning to climb hills well. The super low gears that bikes
come with these days helps to ensure that riders never learn.

Hills are the easiest part of a ride at which to exert to your maximum,
no matter what your gearing. It doesn't matter if I'm on my mountain
bike or my race bike (53/39 and 12-23), the extra gears just make sure I
can climb steeper hills at an optimum cadence.

I suppose it depends on your definition of low gears, but I would
recommend a triple or wide-ranging double (say, a 28 or 30) as a minimum
to any new rider who expects to ride over hills.

And if you don't use the opportunity to learn, that's OK, too. You can
walk up hills. Is that so bad?

My approach to difficult hills is to stop and rest when it gets really
hard. Then I resume on the bicycle. I don't like to walk. But it's fine
for some people.

When I first started riding seriously four years ago, my first ride up
(an admittedly very steep) hill had me stopping and resting, even though
I was riding a mountain bike. There's no need to impose agony on a
novice unless they desire it. No road rider with more than a month or
two of experience should have any need to walk up any paved road this
side of Lombard Street or some of the taller mountains.

That's what gears are for,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Tom Reingold wrote:


If your lowest gear is relatively high, and if you insist on pedalling
up a hill, you will pedal against some hard resistance, which will
stress your muscles, which will make you stronger. Also, you are more
likely to pedal out of the saddle, which is a skill many low-gear riders
don't pick up.

I was never good at hills until I built myself a fixed gear bike. The
setup was something like 44/18, making it an effective 66 inch wheel.
That's not high, but it's not low, either. I attacked on hills and
started standing up. That was over 20 years ago, and the bike is long
gone, but I'm still good at hills now.

Another thing that seems to have helped is that I always climb stairs
two at a time.

You hit this nail on the head. The only way I can get up hills is to
stand so I've been doing this since I got the bike. I thought that a
desperation move - not a desireable one as I (and my daughter who
considers it weakness to shift into her 3rd chainring) do. As far as I
can tell, it doesn't do much except hit the muscles from a different angle.

I'm much better at hills than on the flat and have been since day 0.
That's due to me being a weightlifter moving to bikes, I suppose. I know
that I catch or pass those guys who look like TdF riders on the hills
only to have them walk away from me when we hit the flats.

I still suffer on the hills, but suffer to a greater purpose than on the
flats.

I'll still try for that 28 because there are even steeper / longer hill
courses I wish to ride. Within 15 miles of where I'm sitting, there is
an ascent of roughly 4,000 feet along approx 9 miles all up. Someday I'd
like to try that one.

-paul