|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early 1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube. Cheers |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early 1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube. Cheers You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? Basic marketing strategy, like basic stats seems to evade people. -- duane |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.* You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon *seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent *than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But *even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part *interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less *than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations.* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.* If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On 27/8/19 9:55 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:
A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) But where to put the label? If applied to the bicycle, you've made the bicycle heavier than it was... -- JS |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:46:10 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early 1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube. Cheers You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? Basic marketing strategy, like basic stats seems to evade people. Yes, you do create markets by convincing consumers. Even to the extent that the level of the shelves in the supermarket where your stuff is displayed is important as it has been known for years that people most often tended to buy stuff displayed at eye level, Or that people predominantly buy autos of certain colors, or all the other things that the "marketers" have discovered about the buying habits of the vast unwashed. Political Pundits do extensive survey's to see that will best convince the proletariat that "my guy is best" and cry "vote for my guy. He'll give you everything you'll ever want"! (Knowing of course, from the surveys exactly what the voter "wants") -- Cheers, John B. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On 8/26/2019 6:10 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early 1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube. Cheers uh, usenet is text... -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:52:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/26/2019 1:24 AM, James wrote: On 26/8/19 1:48 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/24/2019 9:58 PM, James wrote: On 25/8/19 7:36 am, Tom Kunich wrote: On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-7, James wrote: On 25/8/19 5:18 am, Tom Kunich wrote: I have never used "carbon paste" for anything and can't imagine why. Imagine harder. -- JS Why? I have had CF frames for a long time. I've never even SEEN "carbon paste" let alone used it for anything. Because you complained about a CF seat post slipping.Â* You wrote: "In one point it again made that noise and it appears that it was the seat post moving. Think that I'll throw away that Campy Carbon Â*seatpost and install an aluminum one." So Tom is a case in point. He's got to be more mechanically competent Â*than most recreational cyclists. He's got decades of experience. But Â*even he doesn't know that carbon paste is recommended for many part Â*interfaces. I think there must be tens of thousands of newbies who will know less Â*than that, and will over-torque or otherwise damage lightweight CF parts, especially as CF gets less expensive and more common. To be fair, it is easy to over torque many fasteners on a modern bicycle that have no CF involved. Most A head stems, for example, are aluminium and spec'ed for ~7 Nm. Easy when you own a reasonable torque wrench designed for that low torque range, and easy to strip for those with fists of ham. And it's been easy to over torque stuff and damage parts for generations.Â* All cranks for square taper BBs for example.Â* If you properly grease the axle and nut or bolt, it is easy to pull a crank on too far by over torquing the fastener. Heck, if you over tighten spoke nipples you'll pull a nipple through an aluminium rim sooner or later, or damage a hub or break spokes! That's true, but the examples you gave pertain mostly to either lightweight equipment or equipment (cranks, spokes) that the casual cyclist doesn't typically deal with. Casual cyclists are the ones who are least likely to have torque wrenches, or to bother reading manuals for torque specs. Those people are most likely to adjust just a few things: Saddle height and tilt, stem height, handlebar tilt, and left-to-right handlebar straightness. Those can and should be designed to withstand ham-fisted newbie mechanics, and to not require exotic elixers that ordinary homeowners have never heard of. Maybe this could be a compromise: Make every bike in two models. One model would withstand the hacking of a typical garage mechanic. The other model would require a torque table and torque wrench. But the delicate model would come with bright red or bright yellow "DELICATE!" labels permanently fastened at every vulnerable joint. And somewhere on the frame, another bright yellow label saying "This DELICATE model is 124 grams [or whatever] lighter than its stronger mate." A great idea. Then of course, I can print up some labels saying "125 grams lighter" for those that want to be just that little bit better :-) -- But you guys don’t mock anyone do ya? -- duane |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:46:10 -0000 (UTC), Duane wrote: Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:46:12 UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:25:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues. It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body. So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check. He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm. Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops. My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes. He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. But! It sells bicycles! (and without sales there would be no bicycle shops :-) -- Cheers, John B. Ah, but a lot of bicyclists want a bicycle that resembles a racing bicycle. Even in MTBs the tendency is towards racing bikes. Look at how the chainstays have become shorter on MTBs over the years since the early 1980s. Here's a small image of my 1980's Bianchi MTB. Look carefully and you can see the water bottle and cage mounted BEHIND the seattube. Cheers You don’t create markets by convincing consumers to need what you want to sell. Don’t you think it’s possible the suppliers are responding to the market demand? Basic marketing strategy, like basic stats seems to evade people. Yes, you do create markets by convincing consumers. Bull****. Even to the extent that the level of the shelves in the supermarket where your stuff is displayed is important as it has been known for years that people most often tended to buy stuff displayed at eye level, You’re confusing competition with market creation. Or that people predominantly buy autos of certain colors, or all the other things that the "marketers" have discovered about the buying habits of the vast unwashed. You’re confusing consumer preference with market creation. Red car or blue car,the market is for the car. Political Pundits do extensive survey's to see that will best convince the proletariat that "my guy is best" and cry "vote for my guy. He'll give you everything you'll ever want"! (Knowing of course, from the surveys exactly what the voter "wants") -- Totally irrelevant. Cheers, John B. -- duane |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Chinese Carbon Wheelset
On 8/26/2019 4:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/26/2019 11:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 8/25/2019 7:54 PM, jbeattie wrote: I went to meet my neighbor for a ride, and he says, hey, could you try riding my bike, it just isn't shifting well. So I got on his bike (which is way too small), and it had an odd shifting issue that didn't quite feel like new chain/cassette issues.Â* It was subtle and more like a loose freehub body.Â* So I tell him that, and he goes, O.K., let me check.Â* He pops off the cassettes, checks the body, which isn't loose, but the cones on his Campy hub/wheel are a little loose, so he pulls out his cone wrenches, adjusts the hub, throws the cassettes back on and pops the wheel back in his Pinarello. Shifts like a charm.Â* Took 8 minutes. Yes, some people are good bike mechanics. Most people are not. This will always be the case. Different people know different things, which is OK. But I think it's a bad idea to push actually fragile equipment to people who need rugged reliability a lot more than tiny improvements in speed. Grrrrrr. Rugged reliability! You know, I've never seen anyone force a super-light bike on someone, and I've been to a lot of bike shops.Â* My son sold bikes and let people make stupid purchases, but they were usually double suspended fat bikes and other odd-ball bikes.Â* He worked in Specialized and Trek shops, and I don't recall one instance of him forcing an S-Works Tarmac on some unsuspecting old lady or a Madone. I'm not accusing (most) bike shop people of pushing Madones on old ladies... even though I had a friend who decided to get into biking at about age 65, and was sold a similar bike. I suspect the guy's (much younger) cyclist girl friend was responsible for the bad choice, but the shop certainly abetted the decision. (The guy gave up riding after a few months.) But I think the industry does tend to promote unneeded sophistication and, in some cases, fragility. It's parallel to the auto industry pushing SUVs - each unit is much more profitable. It's not just carbon fiber. How about gearing? Only a microscopic percentage of cyclists get any benefit out of more than 8 rear cogs. Everyone with 9, and especially 10 or 11, pay for more expensive parts that are less failure tolerant and wear quicker. How about all the bottom bracket standards we've (or rather, you've) gone through? Each one intended to be lighter and stiffer - and weirder. Some consumers are now left up the creek without a crank. We've been around and around about road discs. Yes, they make sense for your rainy commutes, but they really don't make sense for most riders. But hey, they are "in"! Why buy a bike with rim brakes? Just because they work as well for almost everyone, are easier to adjust, easier to repair, cost less and are less fashionable? Wheels: Ever fewer spokes, of ever weirder designs, in ever lighter wheels. Do you remember days when spoke nipples didn't crack rims? I do remember, partly because I'm still using wheels like that. I remember when all my friends rode aluminum or steel frames, 5 or 6 or 7 rear cogs, square taper bottom brackets, etc. We're older now, but we and even the younger riders are no faster and ride no further now than in those days. I think the major problem is that "what's best" is still being defined as "what racers use." I think most bike makers still promote that mindset. I think it's a disservice to most bicyclists. Here in rural Wisconsin, a good chunk of our local customers would sneer at your prissy delicate futzy high-maintenance machines, Frank. Anything that's not a 2.125 tire width on coaster brake with 32" wide steel bars is greeted with loud derision and that includes current Bianchi carbon bikes on my floor. You often deride 'fashion', not recognizing that your own fashion is a decided subset of cycling overall. Well, in a sense, you're right: I certainly don't recognize my bike equipment choices as "fashion." A '72 steel frame bike with racks and bags and dyno lighting? An old touring bike with big bags front and back? A folding bike? An ancient tandem? My club members joke about how unfashionable I am! My choices are based on what I find works best for me. Pragmatism and utility are pretty much the opposite of fashion. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shimano Carbon Wheelset | Brian Meahan | Marketplace | 0 | May 12th 06 04:55 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset + More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 16th 05 09:30 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 15th 05 10:24 PM |
FA: Zipp 303 Carbon Wheelset & More | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | September 14th 05 10:39 PM |
WTT: Zip 303 All Carbon Tubular Wheelset & Lots more | Rod | Marketplace | 0 | August 23rd 05 11:09 AM |