Re extending life of chain etc

maxo wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:35:08 +0000, Hunrobe wrote:


From my personal aesthetic and "weight weenie"
POV- and this is just a personal preference, not a putdown- I'd rather
clean my chain every 500 miles than use fenders.


I'm fine without them at the moment, and I'm cleaning my chain every 250
miles, but come fall I must have them or I'll go nuts.

From the aesthetic POV, it sounds like you've never seen a road bike
equipped with a proper set of fenders, which isn't surprising if you're
living in the US. It can be very fetching...

I agree, and I've known other riders to agree as well.

At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's
invariably interesting and often beautiful.

But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
transforming a bike from a toy into a tool. They certainly allow me to
ride when I'd otherwise stay inside - the latest example being last
night. Yeah, it was raining. Yes, it was dark. No, I didn't ride far
- but it sure was pleasant!

And, BTW, if you do it right, you can have your fenders set up so they
can be installed or removed in about five minutes. What's not to love?



http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp

Very nice!




--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:52:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's invariably
interesting and often beautiful.

But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
transforming a bike from a toy into a tool.

I agree 100%! I can look at racers in a store for an hour or two and be
fascinated, what's not to like? Technology is engaging, but...

Like you said, it's great to see a bike that has a "purpose". Certainly if
you're a racer, then your bike should reflect that, and be spare and
lightly elegant.

I really like many of the bikes at momovelo.com, yes the text is sometimes
a little over the top--but it makes me grin. Something like: this bike
is for the fast rider who enjoys potholes and carries hot/sour soup on the
front rack, has a Leica in the waxed front case, has no time for gears,
and recites Kafka whilst repairing punctures...



The bike that always got me the most comments in Chicago was a lowly Marin
San Anselmo equipped with a 7spd hub, fenders, Brooks, aluminum fenders,
rack, bell, fast 700c wheels, and north-road nitto bars. All black of
course, the logos either removed or painted over. Basically a modern
version of a Raleigh Sports. Folks would ask me all kinds of questions and
request test rides LOL I think the reason for such a "regular" bike to get
such attention was that it looked like the type of bike that you could
jump on wearing anything and have a spectacular urban adventure--and have
the rack space for the Peking duck you bought in Chinatown. It had no
attitude, just said "get on me and explore"!

Some of my favourite bikes are cargo bikes with the flatbed up front. I'd
love to own one of those, go to an electronics retailer, purchase a
humongous TV and have the guys carry it out to my, um, vehicle.

maxo wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:52:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's invariably
interesting and often beautiful.

But more important to me, fenders (like lights) go a long way toward
transforming a bike from a toy into a tool.


I agree 100%! I can look at racers in a store for an hour or two and be
fascinated, what's not to like? Technology is engaging, but...

Like you said, it's great to see a bike that has a "purpose". Certainly if
you're a racer, then your bike should reflect that, and be spare and
lightly elegant.

I really like many of the bikes at momovelo.com...

Looks interesting! I don't remember seeing that site before.

Anyone who likes beautiful yet practical bikes - or historic bikes -
should try a subscription to Vintage Bicycle Quarterly. Its focus is
top quality touring bikes (mostly French) from, oh, the 1930s to the
1960s. Very elegant stuff from the times when touring bikes were the
pinnacle of bicycle technology.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:32:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Anyone who likes beautiful yet practical bikes - or historic bikes -
should try a subscription to Vintage Bicycle Quarterly. Its focus is top
quality touring bikes (mostly French) from, oh, the 1930s to the 1960s.
Very elegant stuff from the times when touring bikes were the pinnacle of
bicycle technology.

I'll check it out! The classic French touring bike, along with the English
three speed, are among the true fundamental design classics amongst bikes,
and strangely enough--the rarest, at least in the United States.

"maxo" wrote

The bike that always got me the most comments in Chicago was a lowly Marin
San Anselmo equipped with a 7spd hub, fenders, Brooks, aluminum fenders,
rack, bell, fast 700c wheels, and north-road nitto bars. All black of
course, the logos either removed or painted over. Basically a modern
version of a Raleigh Sports. Folks would ask me all kinds of questions and
request test rides LOL I think the reason for such a "regular" bike to get
such attention was that it looked like the type of bike that you could
jump on wearing anything and have a spectacular urban adventure--and have
the rack space for the Peking duck you bought in Chinatown. It had no
attitude, just said "get on me and explore"!

I built up a similar bike for my wife to commute with. When she takes it to
club rides she gets mostly negative comments. People are always suggesting how
much faster she could be with a "better" bike. Out of 30 or so riders on
Saturday's rainy club 30 miler, I think ours were the only 2 bikes with
fenders. I stayed with the fast group which averaged a bit over 20 mph, nobody
suggested that I get a "better" bike. Fenders don't slow you down, they just
keep you clean when the weather is sloppy. They add a tiny amount of weight,
but no drag to speak of. Unfortunately, most modern frames seem unable to
accommodate them. I haven't experienced longer chain life, though. If you use
fenders you need to be prepared for the additional hazard of possibly picking
up sticks, which can be serious.

Frank Krygowski

wrote in part:

At this point in my life, I've probably seen over 100,000 high quality
"road" (i.e. pretend racer) bikes. Ho hum. But when I see a bike
elegantly equipped for touring, or even for utility work, it's
invariably interesting and often beautiful.

---snip---

http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp

Very nice!

As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal preference. For
example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the Rivendell bike pictured
is strip off that rack and those fenders and give them to someone that would
appreciate them. I think they clutter the bike's lines. If someone else likes
them, cool. That's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors. (Or since you're lactose
intolerant, why they distill bourbon, scotch, AND vodka. g)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe wrote:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp

As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal preference. For
example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the Rivendell bike pictured
is strip off that rack and those fenders and give them to someone that would
appreciate them. I think they clutter the bike's lines.

why stop there? i'd swap the seat out for a selle italia ti flite, drop the
bars down about 2 inches, trade the bar-ends for brifters and put on some
black velocity deep-v rims.

then it'd be getting presentable.
--
david reuteler

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 03:46:46 +0000, David Reuteler wrote:

Hunrobe wrote:
http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/berthoudinst.asp

As I wrote in my reply to Max, to me it boils down to personal
preference. For example, the first thing I'd do if someone gave me the
Rivendell bike pictured is strip off that rack and those fenders and
give them to someone that would appreciate them. I think they clutter
the bike's lines.

why stop there? i'd swap the seat out for a selle italia ti flite, drop
the bars down about 2 inches, trade the bar-ends for brifters and put on
some black velocity deep-v rims.

then it'd be getting presentable.

LOL

Don't you dare do that to a Riv.

Why does everything "good looking" have to = racer boy look, eh?

I've said many times over that I appreciate a fine modern essential steed.

But fenders and rack interfering with the "lines" of the bike? Please. On
that type of bike they are integral! Perhaps you might go for just front
and rear bags and no rack, but still...

Do you cut off the fenders on your Subaru because it doesn't have the
spare and gorgeous looks of a VW dune buggy?

Selle Italia ti flite on a Rivendell? Why? Because it looks racy? Because
it's certainly not comfy for utility riding, only if you're leaning a good
amount of weight on your hands and lifting yourself up by spinning hard is
such a saddle appropriate. Otherwise gimme a Brooks or something else more
sensible.

Brifters? Uglee! Handy and good certainly, but horrendous looking and
awfully chunky. Barends or downtubes please.

Deep V rims? Perhaps you also have 17" spinners on your 92 civic? A nice
silver boxy classic 32 hole rim would be appropriate. Something like a
Mavic Ma3.

When looks and utility contradict each other, it's just ugly no matter how
you cut it.

None of the 'mods' you mentioned are inherently bad things--I'd use them
all in context depending on the type of ride I was building--racer
components aren't the end-all of sexy.

maxo wrote:
Don't you dare do that to a Riv.

hmm, maybe i'll pick me up a rivendell frame and throw on some campag shamals
or hed 3s and a full record group. nice threadless fork (maybe an internal
headset?). ;-)

Selle Italia ti flite on a Rivendell? Why? Because it looks racy? Because
it's certainly not comfy for utility riding, only if you're leaning a good
amount of weight on your hands and lifting yourself up by spinning hard is
such a saddle appropriate. Otherwise gimme a Brooks or something else more
sensible.

actually, i strongly disagree here. ti flites are damn good seats (like any
other; if they fit you) and i did a 5400 mile tour on one with never a
complaint. by comparison 500 miles with a brooks had me in A-G-O-N-Y. not
because it looks racy: because it's comfy.

Brifters? Uglee! Handy and good certainly, but horrendous looking and
awfully chunky. Barends or downtubes please.

campag ergo are not nearly as chunky as shimano. they're downright pretty
the only difference between the non-shifting version being the inner shift
lever.

Deep V rims? Perhaps you also have 17" spinners on your 92 civic? A nice
silver boxy classic 32 hole rim would be appropriate. Something like a
Mavic Ma3.

When looks and utility contradict each other, it's just ugly no matter how
you cut it.

deep v's are stronger than ma3s and mine have 36 holes. the only down side
is weight (they're heavier than your ma3) and the need for long presta valve
tubes.

None of the 'mods' you mentioned are inherently bad things--I'd use them
all in context depending on the type of ride I was building--racer
components aren't the end-all of sexy.

geez, i was just baiting ya. actually i have all of those mods 'cept for the
deep v's (too narrow) and 23mm tires on my touring bike. right alongside
the fender and a rack, of course.
--
david reuteler

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:55:38 +0000, David Reuteler wrote:

23mm tires on my touring bike.

That statement alone is enough to bait me. LOL It completely contradicts
itself.



Unless you weigh less than 130#, touring on anything skinnier than a
700x28 just doesn't make sense. The 23's won't make you go any faster and
you'll get more flats. I'll allow 25's for CC touring of course.