Predictions

On Saturday, 4 January 2020 09:05:48 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 11:40:12 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires.. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

Yeah, but all that means is that you've decided where you will make your
compromise, and experience has proved you right.


Exactly.

Here's a test: Let's say I have a really good bike for commuting on, with
every component the best available, and I offer you a straight swap.
Condition: you can still have only one bike. Would you give up the road
bike for the superior commuting bike?

Not a chance.


I've long since made my compromises and, faced with the same offer, would
have no problem deciding instantly, "Thanks for the offer, but no thanks."


Same here. My bike’s main purpose isn’t commuting. I use it for commuting
because I like riding it and driving in traffic sucks. Mind you, in the
winter I don’t ride in the snow,slush and general crud but I didn’t when I
had a second bike more suited to that.

I had a nice sport touring bike that I used for commuting but I gave it to
someone as I found that I didn’t ride it after getting the road bike.

For a couple of decades, every year in November I'd make a shortlist of
bikes I wanted. And every year it was the same bikes on my shortlist,
except it grew shorter as bikes were no longer made or no longer came up
to my standards and there was nothing new to replace them in my dreams.
And then one year the shortlist contained just one bike, one I already
had but in a different colour. Not only was that ridiculous, but I had
two other very similar bikes (type Dutch stadssportief, a sporting
commuter) already, in the loft. So I stopped making my shortlist. There
isn't a better bike out there for what I want than the one I already
have, and the current production of the same bike is welded (ugh!) not lugged like mine.


My sport tour was a cro-moly lugged Bianchi Volpe. Nice bike. I was glad
to give it to someone who uses it.



Andre Jute
Rock'n'roll, I gave you the best years of my life -- Kevin Johnson
You gotta grow up, some time -- Andre Jute


For the longest time I had two bicycles - my MIELE Equipe Pro racing bike and my Binachi MTB. I used the MTB for commuting in winter in the snow and other crap on the roads. Now if I had to get rid of all my bicycles save one I'd keep my MIELE MTB. It can be used off-road, on gravel/dirt roads, for touring with narrower smooth tires and even for road riding with really narrow smooth tires. It's a full rigid frame and fork and is very versatile. I'd miss my dedicated MIELE road bike though.

Cheers

On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/

Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that could not accept
28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider to ride at a moderate pace
on bumpy country roads? Is that really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was stocking what his
biggest supplier was promoting as a moderately upscale bike for _all_
women. Searching for a bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least
five bike shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike from
a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably 120 miles that
day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted components
above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that _required_ tires 25mm or
narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for wide ones.
I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a bike that has clearance
for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical reason for
pushing that style bike. They're the bike equivalent of a woman's
stiletto heeled shoes.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/4/2020 9:05 AM, Duane wrote:

My sport tour was a cro-moly lugged Bianchi Volpe. Nice bike. I was glad
to give it to someone who uses it.

Exactly the bike my friend bought, as recommended by Andrew. Light
enough, simple technology (if you don't mind STI's internal complexity),
accepts wide tires and fenders, also accepts 19mm to 25mm tires if you
insist.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/4/2020 9:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want
wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google
"touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that
could not accept 28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider
to ride at a moderate pace on bumpy country roads? Is that
really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was
stocking what his biggest supplier was promoting as a
moderately upscale bike for _all_ women. Searching for a
bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least five bike
shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike
from a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably
120 miles that day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted
components above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that
_required_ tires 25mm or narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for
wide ones. I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a
bike that has clearance for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical
reason for pushing that style bike. They're the bike
equivalent of a woman's stiletto heeled shoes.



"... why? ..."

Because people like what they like. When asked what, of all
the things on earth, would make an ideal bicycle, some
riders say fat tires with mudguards and some don't.

Full custom to rider specifications:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd650t2.jpg

Note that for muchkins, 650x23 _is_ a fat tire.


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

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 7:18:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/

Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that could not accept
28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider to ride at a moderate pace
on bumpy country roads? Is that really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

It's the bike they had to sell, and the shop sucked? Who knows -- and who knows why this is so perplexing to you. I go to merchants all over the place with limited stock who try to sell me whatever they have. I went to a Tesla dealer and was outraged that they didn't have a Ford F150. How did they think I was supposed to get hay to my horses? In one of those stupid little sedans?



And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was stocking what his
biggest supplier was promoting as a moderately upscale bike for _all_
women. Searching for a bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least
five bike shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike from
a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably 120 miles that
day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted components
above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that _required_ tires 25mm or
narrower.

Maybe on planet Frank -- but nowhere else in the known universe. My neighborhood bike shop is about 500 square feet of mostly olde tyme bikes, but even it has a Jamis with fat-ish tires. https://www.burlingamebikes.com/ The industry, even five years ago, was trending towards fat tires and disc brakes, although your friend managed to buy one of the last cantilever bikes -- and found a shop with skinny-tire bikes. If it was a Trek shop, they would have had a 520, Boone and Crockett as I mentioned. Now they have the Checkpoint, too.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for wide ones.
I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a bike that has clearance
for only 25mm.

And I can't put 19" wheels on my Subaru. The point is?

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical reason for
pushing that style bike. They're the bike equivalent of a woman's
stiletto heeled shoes.

And yet many women like stiletto heeled shoes -- or in bike terms, fast bikes with tight clearances, etc., etc. -- although that design model has moved on since we are no longer tied to caliper rim brakes.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 5:31:01 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2020 9:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want
wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google
"touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that
could not accept 28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider
to ride at a moderate pace on bumpy country roads? Is that
really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was
stocking what his biggest supplier was promoting as a
moderately upscale bike for _all_ women. Searching for a
bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least five bike
shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike
from a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably
120 miles that day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted
components above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that
_required_ tires 25mm or narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for
wide ones. I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a
bike that has clearance for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical
reason for pushing that style bike. They're the bike
equivalent of a woman's stiletto heeled shoes.



"... why? ..."

Because people like what they like. When asked what, of all
the things on earth, would make an ideal bicycle, some
riders say fat tires with mudguards and some don't.

Full custom to rider specifications:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd650t2.jpg

Note that for muchkins, 650x23 _is_ a fat tire.


--

It is like to have to explain why they make blue cars.


Lou

AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2020 9:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want
wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google
"touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that
could not accept 28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider
to ride at a moderate pace on bumpy country roads? Is that
really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was
stocking what his biggest supplier was promoting as a
moderately upscale bike for _all_ women. Searching for a
bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least five bike
shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike
from a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably
120 miles that day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted
components above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that
_required_ tires 25mm or narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for
wide ones. I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a
bike that has clearance for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical
reason for pushing that style bike. They're the bike
equivalent of a woman's stiletto heeled shoes.



"... why? ..."

Because people like what they like. When asked what, of all
the things on earth, would make an ideal bicycle, some
riders say fat tires with mudguards and some don't.

Full custom to rider specifications:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd650t2.jpg

Note that for muchkins, 650x23 _is_ a fat tire.



Well after those 19mm tires...

jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 7:18:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/

Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that could not accept
28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider to ride at a moderate pace
on bumpy country roads? Is that really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

It's the bike they had to sell, and the shop sucked? Who knows -- and
who knows why this is so perplexing to you. I go to merchants all over
the place with limited stock who try to sell me whatever they have. I
went to a Tesla dealer and was outraged that they didn't have a Ford
F150. How did they think I was supposed to get hay to my horses? In one
of those stupid little sedans?



And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was stocking what his
biggest supplier was promoting as a moderately upscale bike for _all_
women. Searching for a bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least
five bike shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike from
a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably 120 miles that
day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted components
above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that _required_ tires 25mm or
narrower.

Maybe on planet Frank -- but nowhere else in the known universe. My
neighborhood bike shop is about 500 square feet of mostly olde tyme
bikes, but even it has a Jamis with fat-ish tires.
https://www.burlingamebikes.com/ The industry, even five years ago, was
trending towards fat tires and disc brakes, although your friend managed
to buy one of the last cantilever bikes -- and found a shop with
skinny-tire bikes. If it was a Trek shop, they would have had a 520,
Boone and Crockett as I mentioned. Now they have the Checkpoint, too.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for wide ones.
I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a bike that has clearance
for only 25mm.

And I can't put 19" wheels on my Subaru. The point is?

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical reason for
pushing that style bike. They're the bike equivalent of a woman's
stiletto heeled shoes.

And yet many women like stiletto heeled shoes -- or in bike terms, fast
bikes with tight clearances, etc., etc. -- although that design model has
moved on since we are no longer tied to caliper rim brakes.

-- Jay Beattie.


Some shops suck. Like trying to sell everyone a compact crankset. The fad
around here now is fat tires and disk brakes. And compact cranks. Maybe
Ohio is behind the times.

Fortunately it’s not hard to find a shop that suits your needs.

wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 5:31:01 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2020 9:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want
wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google
"touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that
could not accept 28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider
to ride at a moderate pace on bumpy country roads? Is that
really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was
stocking what his biggest supplier was promoting as a
moderately upscale bike for _all_ women. Searching for a
bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least five bike
shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike
from a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably
120 miles that day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted
components above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that
_required_ tires 25mm or narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for
wide ones. I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a
bike that has clearance for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical
reason for pushing that style bike. They're the bike
equivalent of a woman's stiletto heeled shoes.



"... why? ..."

Because people like what they like. When asked what, of all
the things on earth, would make an ideal bicycle, some
riders say fat tires with mudguards and some don't.

Full custom to rider specifications:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/wfd650t2.jpg

Note that for muchkins, 650x23 _is_ a fat tire.


--

It is like to have to explain why they make blue cars.


Lou


I think that Frank’s post is more akin to asking why most cars nowadays
aren’t any discernible colour.

On Sat, 04 Jan 2020 08:58:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 9:40 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:39:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:14:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/3/2020 6:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:14:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 3 January 2020 18:40:12 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 2:02:33 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, January 2, 2020 at 6:23:05 PM UTC-5, wrote:

Use the tire width suited for your riding style and road
conditions you ride on. It has always been like that. Never used
tires less than 2 and 2.5 inch wide on my ATB's. Never used tires
less than 32 mm wide on my commuter. The difference might be that
at the moment you can good quality wider tires. Don't understand
the whole fuss about tire width.

For a while, the fuss was "No, of course you can't put 28s on that bike. It's
designed for 25s. It doesn't have clearance for 28s."

I remember asking what could possibly be the advantage in designing a bike to
prohibit reasonable tire choices. I don't remember any reasonable answers.

Because it is an irrelevant question. Tell me was there any given
time in the last 20 years you couldn't buy a bike of your choice
that could not handle a tire of your choice.

Well, since you ask: About three years ago, one of my best friends was
interested in upgrading her ancient and low-quality bike. My wife and I
were helping her choose. Our friend was originally interested in getting
a bike supposedly designed for women, possibly because our daughter is
very happy with her Terry road bike.

Eventually, we ended up at a bike shop in my area (not hers), one with a
pretty good reputation. We looked really hard at one by Trek (IIRC) but
it had 25mm tires. I know the country roads near my friend's house are
rough, so I asked the owner about 28 mm tires, since I could see the
clearance looked tight.

He said no, he wouldn't recommend 28s on that bike. He thought the
clearance was too tight, and anyway the brakes wouldn't open far enough
to clear an inflated 28mm tire.

End of the story? Andrew Muzi suggested a Bianchi Volpe with cantilever
brakes. She bought one of those and says she loves it.


So you found one store with one bike that wouldn't take 28mm tires. I'm outraged!

It is common knowledge that 28 mm tires are the limit of modern
calipers except maybe direct mounts.

You're both missing my point. This bike was not marketed at track
racers, or even road racers. It was marketed at people who just wanted
to ride, like my friend who likes to do solo rides on country roads just
for fun and exercise.

So what benefit does that sort of customer get from a bike that
restricts tires to 25mm? And, BTW, from a bike on which it's pretty
impractical to install fenders (not that she is using them yet).

What benefit does _anybody_ get? Would these guys really have been
faster if their bike physically prevented wider tires?
https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/insp...1477791562.jpg

In my view, there are no detectable advantages to fork blades or chain
stays that almost scrape 25mm tires. Selling them is a weird marketing
strategy, especially if you're selling them to ordinary enthusiasts.

If you want wider tires you should look at disks. A disk specific frame
takes likely wider than 28 mm tires. Problem solved. Now she is stuck
with cantilever brakes. Geezz.

Yeah, we may have discussed that before. My opinion hasn't changed.

Oh, and to Jay's remark "You need better stores" - well, that might be
nice. But this area is probably much closer to the national average than
Portland is, regarding bike shops per capita or per square mile.



--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to
divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many
ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each
category. If you interested in more than one category you have a choice.
If your are weak, like me, you buy more bikes and use each bike for a
specific ride. If you are strong and not falling for the marketing
scheme, like you, you just buy one bike 30 years ago and use that bike
with fenders, dyno powered lights, panniers, kickstand and what not you
bolted to your bike for going to the library, run errands and do fast
club rides. I can do what you do and you can do what I do, but we will
not. I would not have as much fun as I have now and will save an enormous
amount of money which I have to donate to charity which is the only
sensible thing I can think of. What do you do with all the money you
save? Never mind it isn't my business.

Lou


Then there are the ones like me that have one bike that’s a road bike
andcommute on it as well.

When I lived and worked in Toronto, Canada I commuted daily on my MIELE Equipe Pro with Dura Ace groupset on a Columbus SL frameset and with 19mm Michelin Pro Comp slick tires. The funny thing is that I had no problems doing that. A lot of times after work I'd take a much longer route home because the ride was so enjoyable.

Cheers

It's just because you live "up there" in the wilds. But don't worry,
pretty soon the fads will seep north and you too can own several
different bicycles; one for commuting in the dry, one for the wet, one
for the snow and perhaps even one for the "black ice" days. Then when
warm weather arrives you can buy the up hill and the down hill
mountain bikes....

Now as for shoes for the Missus... :-)


Up here beyond civilization, where we actually pay to have
salt spread all over hell, it's obscene to sacrifice a
perfectly good and beautiful machine to salt water. Hence
two machines at minimum.

I grew up in an area - up state New Hampshire - that used salt on the
roads and I can't remember anyone that had purchased a summer vehicle
and a winter vehicle :-)

But is one worried about salt damage to one's only bicycle than there
are coatings that really do prevent salt water corrosion. After all
sail boats, that live in salt water, don't have severe corrosion
problems... at least the well designed ones don't.


As with bicycles, summer car/ winter car is relatively
common here.

Is it now? The last time I was in snow must have been around 1967-8
and I can't say as I've miss it :-)


Summer car:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...t/REDTHX05.JPG
Winter car:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...ast/nov19h.jpg

No undercoating? Geeze, we were doing that way back when I was in high
school :-)

I got to the point where I spent as much time with my
bicycle in cleaning and lubrication as riding, which led me
to a sacrificial winter fixie. I expected a season or two
from it but, although ugly, it's been just fine for over 25
years.
--
cheers,

John B.