Touring bikes

Kenneth wrote:

If you don't understand the difference (and the reason for the price)
then you are clearly wise to stick with the Pletscher...

Well then, enlighten me. And what about that spring clamp?

Dave

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:44:22 -0700, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
the black rose wrote:

Bill Baka wrote:
I try to find
bikes with the removeable cranks (square taper press fit) because
those
are inherently better quality than the one piece Chinese crank.

*blink* One more time, in Middle-Aged Mom? Remember, all I know how to
do is oil the chain. That's ALL I know about bike maintenance, other
than "when the handling feels odd or it makes funny noises, take it to
the shop and let Jim work on it." ;-)

He's talking about cottered versus cotterless (square-taper) cranks,
which are the two common pedal attachment mechanisms on good road bikes
before the recent trend to various splined and other designs.

square-taper cranks, aka "cotterless" are what you probably have on your
bike right now, and were a great improvement on the previous method,
cottered cranks. Let's not get into how a cottered crank works: it's not
important. What is important is that if you have a choice, you want to
avoid cottered cranks.

Unless the bike supply where you live is much different from mine,
almost none of the touring bikes you might find that are good enough to
consider taking home will have cottered cranks. Of the dozen or so bikes
I have dragged home, exactly one had a cottered bottom bracket (an old
Chiorda; the spindle will be replaced).

I guess I have to add to this. I went into my 2 LBS stores and they had
a number of cruisers and tandems, all with those damn one piece cranks.
What if one rider likes a different size, too bad. Even many of the
regular bikes being offered had the Chinese cheap cranks,
very disappointing. Wal-mart has 3 out of maybe 30 bikes that have the
square taper removeable cranks, and the LBS shops weren't doing that
much better until the price tag got to about $400 or more.
I stay far away from one piece cranks and those stupid center pull
brakes. Horizontal will stop you even if you do go over the handlebar.
Front chainrings should also be able to be changed, which only happens
if you can take the crank off, and on some of those the 3 chainrings
are riveted together as one piece. A little knowledge will steer you
clear of a bum deal.
Bill Baka


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Dave Stallard wrote in message ...
Kenneth wrote:

If you don't understand the difference (and the reason for the price)
then you are clearly wise to stick with the Pletscher...

Well then, enlighten me. And what about that spring clamp?

I don't know if it's necessary to go as high as BG's racks, but I do
know how important is is that a rack not flex under load, especially
when descending on a curve on a fully loaded touring bike. Even if the
rack doesn't collapse, feeling all that weight shift -- and not shift
back -- is scary.

I also know that if the purpose of your rack is to support panniers
and rack trunks, the spring clamp just gets in the way.

If the purpose of your rack is to support panniers and rack trunks on
a tour, then you want something heavy-duty and bulletproof that will
last the lifetime of the bike.

If the purpose of your rack is to carry odds and ends of unpredictable
size and shape around town, then zip-tying a milk crate to a cheap
aluminum rack will probably do the job better than a steel rack with a
spring clamp.

RichC (who occasionally misses that big newspaper basket on the
handlebars of his 1959 Sears cruiser)

RichC wrote:

I also know that if the purpose of your rack is to support panniers
and rack trunks, the spring clamp just gets in the way.

Well, it's a long time ago now, but as I recall I would roll up my nylon
tarp, and then spring clamp that onto the Pletscher, which held it quit
well. Then I would bungie cord other stuff like sleeping bag etc. on
top of that. I had rear panniers and a front pannier as well. Seemed to
work pretty well.

Dave

I've got a Trek 520 and I couldn't be happier.

I had long been eyeballing a Co-Motion but was deterred by paying that much for
a bike that -- as is the case with bikes in general -- is so vulnerable to
theft.

The 520 was a good compromise. My local bike mechanic says he thinks it one of
the best bike bargains there is. The steel frame has a wonderful road feel.
Mine is loaded with fenders, racks, etc. Although when I was younger I did a
lot of touring and camping on a Raleigh Grand Prix, these days I mostly commute
and lug heavy groceries home. The 520 works admirably, and also would be
perfect for long-distance touring.

"the black rose" wrote in message
.. .

*blink* One more time, in Middle-Aged Mom? Remember, all I know how to
do is oil the chain. That's ALL I know about bike maintenance,

As one MAM to another, you should also learn how to strip and then re-lube
the drivetrain. Don't lube a dirty chain.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

"the black rose" wrote in message
.. .

*blink* One more time, in Middle-Aged Mom? Remember, all I know how to
do is oil the chain. That's ALL I know about bike maintenance,

As one MAM to another, you should also learn how to strip and then re-lube
the drivetrain. Don't lube a dirty chain.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky