559 is dead?

On 05-04-16 17:20, sms wrote:
On 4/2/2016 2:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/


There are still some cruiser bikes using 559, but even stores like
Walmart are selling mostly 27.5" and 29" mountain bikes.

When Huffy and Roadmaster moved to 27.5 and 29 it was pretty clear that
559 was over.

It was surprising to me when looking for a mountain bike for the spousal
unit how few 559 models were still available. The ones that I saw were
the very very low end department store models, or entry level bike shop
bikes.


Larger diameter wheels mean effectively higher gearing, at least in
terms of gear-inches. This would be a potential problem for elderly
people like me, who need a very low lowest gear--my 2003 model mountain
bike has 24 front/34 rear with 26" wheels. Fortunately, with 27.5" and 2
x 11 XT setup you can have 24/34 front and 11-40 back (or even 11-42).
This gives a similar effective lowest gear. No plans for a new bike, but
good to know if it should become necessary.

Ned

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 23:16:14 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:10:13 +0700, Good Soldier Schweik
wrote:

Since I don't watch television is "conehead" a reference to folks
wearing "dunce" hats?

Go do what people do when presented with a cultural reference they don't
understand: look it up! Meps!

Why, in God's world would I bother, although I am a bit surprised to
discover that "conehead" is a cultural reference in the U.S.

For Sure! The barbarians are at the gate.
--

Cheers,

John B.

https://goo.gl/QnGsCC

https://goo.gl/5zSOkl

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:12:22 +0200, Ned Mantei
wrote:

On 05-04-16 17:20, sms wrote:
On 4/2/2016 2:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/


There are still some cruiser bikes using 559, but even stores like
Walmart are selling mostly 27.5" and 29" mountain bikes.

When Huffy and Roadmaster moved to 27.5 and 29 it was pretty clear that
559 was over.

It was surprising to me when looking for a mountain bike for the spousal
unit how few 559 models were still available. The ones that I saw were
the very very low end department store models, or entry level bike shop
bikes.


Larger diameter wheels mean effectively higher gearing, at least in
terms of gear-inches. This would be a potential problem for elderly
people like me, who need a very low lowest gear--my 2003 model mountain
bike has 24 front/34 rear with 26" wheels. Fortunately, with 27.5" and 2
x 11 XT setup you can have 24/34 front and 11-40 back (or even 11-42).
This gives a similar effective lowest gear. No plans for a new bike, but
good to know if it should become necessary.

Ned

Gear inches or Sheldon't Effort Measurements, big wheels are a higher
gear ratio :-) But I've been using a triple 44-32-24 with a 12-32
cassette and 300 C tires for several years now with no problems, in
some pretty hilly country.

I'm a bit ambiguous about these new "compact" gear systems with a 11 -
40 cassette as I think (I've not ridden one yet) that the spacing
between gears is going to be a bit more than I might be comfortable
with.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On 4/6/2016 7:14 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:12:22 +0200, Ned Mantei
wrote:

On 05-04-16 17:20, sms wrote:
On 4/2/2016 2:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/


There are still some cruiser bikes using 559, but even stores like
Walmart are selling mostly 27.5" and 29" mountain bikes.

When Huffy and Roadmaster moved to 27.5 and 29 it was pretty clear that
559 was over.

It was surprising to me when looking for a mountain bike for the spousal
unit how few 559 models were still available. The ones that I saw were
the very very low end department store models, or entry level bike shop
bikes.


Larger diameter wheels mean effectively higher gearing, at least in
terms of gear-inches. This would be a potential problem for elderly
people like me, who need a very low lowest gear--my 2003 model mountain
bike has 24 front/34 rear with 26" wheels. Fortunately, with 27.5" and 2
x 11 XT setup you can have 24/34 front and 11-40 back (or even 11-42).
This gives a similar effective lowest gear. No plans for a new bike, but
good to know if it should become necessary.

Ned

Gear inches or Sheldon't Effort Measurements, big wheels are a higher
gear ratio :-) But I've been using a triple 44-32-24 with a 12-32
cassette and 300 C tires for several years now with no problems, in
some pretty hilly country.

I'm a bit ambiguous about these new "compact" gear systems with a 11 -
40 cassette as I think (I've not ridden one yet) that the spacing
between gears is going to be a bit more than I might be comfortable
with.


I don't believe there are significant advantages or
disadvantages in gearing a 559 versus a 584mm wheel (+4%).
The span of available tire widths for both rims overlap
effective circumference ('development' in the metric world).

The practical disadvantages out here in the real world are
situations like a Famous Brand $300 bike which now takes
$30up tires, but the same model purchased a couple of years
earlier for the other child uses $15 tires. The $15 tire
being better quality is just a twist of the knife.

Then at a somewhat higher level a 26" decimal tube is $3.95.
It doesn't say '650B' on the box. Those start at $9.95 and
are not any better quality. They do fit interchangeably but
that is a long testy conversation we would rather not engage.

Other examples abound. It's not that any similar size is
'better' than another, but the installed base of wheels and
rubber was/is very well developed for decimal series 26".
The sudden 650B trend at the lower end of bicycles is driven
by the rim and rubber makers as a churn in a slow market.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/6/2016 5:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

The practical disadvantages out here in the real world are situations
like a Famous Brand $300 bike which now takes $30up tires, but the same
model purchased a couple of years earlier for the other child uses $15
tires. The $15 tire being better quality is just a twist of the knife.

Then at a somewhat higher level a 26" decimal tube is $3.95. It doesn't
say '650B' on the box. Those start at $9.95 and are not any better
quality. They do fit interchangeably but that is a long testy
conversation we would rather not engage.

That is true. You can use a 26" tube in a 27.5" tire just fine, though I
would not want to do the reverse.

Other examples abound. It's not that any similar size is 'better' than
another, but the installed base of wheels and rubber was/is very well
developed for decimal series 26". The sudden 650B trend at the lower end
of bicycles is driven by the rim and rubber makers as a churn in a slow
market.

The price premium for 27.5/650B" versus 26" is eroding pretty fast. At
many sources the tubes are the same price, or there is a $1 difference
in the price of a good quality "standard" tube. $2 for 26", $3 for 27.5"
or 29" (online) versus about $4 for either one in a store. Tubes are an
item with a huge mark-up so they are often on sale for half the regular
price at stores that gouge with their regular price, and that's when
people stock up. I guess you could say that 27.5" tubes are 50% more
than 26" tubes, but in absolute $ difference, it's pretty small.

Gouging on tubes is like gouging on milk, smart stores don't do it
because they want to get people into the store to spend money on other
items. You say a 26" tube is $3.95, which is presumably your price, and
a fair price, but I've seen stores charging $8 for a "standard" tube.
That information is filed away, sub-consciously, with a "don't go to
that store, they are a rip-off." When I got my wife's 27.5" mountain
bike I bought some tubes and they were $3 each if I bought four, the
combination of a sale price with buy 3 get one free. They are a store
brand, made in Taiwan, and are reportedly Kenda tubes.

Tires will follow the same price curve. Already I see no difference, on
higher end tires, between 26" and 27.5", while 29" are a bit more. The
lower cost tires, often store brands like Performance's Forté, are not
yet available in 27.5", but they've already come out with 29" so 27.5"
is probably not far behind. The replacement market for 27.5" tires is
not that huge yet since 27.5 has only been out a couple of years.
Factories will try to recover their tooling costs before prices plunge.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:45:48 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:50:51 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Can't easily add more than 11 cogs so they make and sell wheels costing about 1,000 Euros and they tell you that 26" wheels are passe. Seems to me that a lot of this new fangled stuff, like 1 x 11 or 1x 12 is sheer marketing.

Anything more than 8 speeds is marketing for everyone but professional racers. As soon as they went to 9 and more speeds the time between replacing cogs, sprockets and chains dropped drastically. And now instead of dropping a gear you find yourself dropping two or three gears.

You can now get 8 speed equipment again and it's probably a really good idea. Next time I rebuild I will switch over to Microshift 8 speeds and Wheels freewheels. I'm getting really tired of the aluminum freehubs getting all broken up because the contact patches aren't wide enough with 10 speed stuff.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:20:11 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/2/2016 2:50 PM, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/

There are still some cruiser bikes using 559, but even stores like
Walmart are selling mostly 27.5" and 29" mountain bikes.

When Huffy and Roadmaster moved to 27.5 and 29 it was pretty clear that
559 was over.

It was surprising to me when looking for a mountain bike for the spousal
unit how few 559 models were still available. The ones that I saw were
the very very low end department store models, or entry level bike shop
bikes.

After you've ridden a 29" offroad there isn't any question about how superior it is to a 26". And the 27,5" is good for shorter riders.

On 4/6/2016 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:45:48 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:50:51 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Can't easily add more than 11 cogs so they make and sell wheels costing about 1,000 Euros and they tell you that 26" wheels are passe. Seems to me that a lot of this new fangled stuff, like 1 x 11 or 1x 12 is sheer marketing.

Anything more than 8 speeds is marketing for everyone but professional racers. As soon as they went to 9 and more speeds the time between replacing cogs, sprockets and chains dropped drastically. And now instead of dropping a gear you find yourself dropping two or three gears.

You can now get 8 speed equipment again and it's probably a really good idea. Next time I rebuild I will switch over to Microshift 8 speeds and Wheels freewheels. I'm getting really tired of the aluminum freehubs getting all broken up because the contact patches aren't wide enough with 10 speed stuff.


You're not wrong but riders do vary in their taste.

Ten speed cassettes are already 'retro' in some crowds.

We rebuilt a four speed freewheel with expanded gearing for
a customer with a very nice 1949 race bike who decided a
year later to 'upgrade' to five speed freewheels. Big format
change for him. YMMV.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/6/2016 11:03 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:45:48 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 5:50:51 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
who knew?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...pricing-46735/
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Can't easily add more than 11 cogs so they make and sell wheels costing about 1,000 Euros and they tell you that 26" wheels are passe. Seems to me that a lot of this new fangled stuff, like 1 x 11 or 1x 12 is sheer marketing.

Anything more than 8 speeds is marketing for everyone but professional racers. As soon as they went to 9 and more speeds the time between replacing cogs, sprockets and chains dropped drastically. And now instead of dropping a gear you find yourself dropping two or three gears.

If the goal is to dump the triple crank then a 10 makes some sense. For
example you can buy an 11-40 ten speed cassette and probably get by with
a double crank, but why? You then need a longer cage derailleur, and
that cassette is pretty pricey as well.

A 3x8 seems ideal in terms of longevity, price, and performance.

For a road bike, as I get older, and I still want to climb the same
mountains I did when I was younger, albeit slower, I want the triple.