#701
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
In article . com,
"Johnny Sunset" writes: (The really good riders have nothing to prove, and therefore are much more pleasant and friendly.) A warmed-hearted "thank you" to ya. cheers, Tom -- -- Nothing is safe from me. Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca |
Ads |
#702
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:07 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote: John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: Should've been clearer. I meant, why do they relish pointing out the insignificance of small savings in weight or aerodynamics, while not also recognizing that some durability improvements are insignificant too? I suppose having a history of running into too many smug, snobby, self-satisfied roadies who like to criticize and look down on anyone who dares to be practical as a "Fred" leads to enjoying pointing out how foolish they are, since none of them are ever going to win any races of significance. (The really good riders have nothing to prove, and therefore are much more pleasant and friendly.) So you're saying that a reaction to a certain type of cyclist leads you to make proclamations about what is sensible for other cyclists, *in general* to use. Proclamations that are in contrast to what other cyclists often choose themselves. OK. But it seems to me that it would easy for a cyclist who likes intergrated shifters and has never had problems with his/her wheels, even though they have less than 36 spokes, to think of you as pretty smug and snobby yourself. Not snobby about having pricey equipment, but snobby in saying your approach to equipment is more sensible than theirs. When it might not be. And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#703
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: ... And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway? I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is minimal). However, the 16-front/24-rear wheels that many new bikes have are silly for anyone but racers in competitive classes that get sponsored equipment (negating the detriments of higher cost and reduced longevity compared to well built conventional wheels). [1] I use 36-spokes on all the ISO 305-mm and ISO 406-mm wheels on my bicycles, which is equivalent to about 73 and 55 spokes, respectively, on an ISO 622-mm wheel (spokes per unit of rim length). -- Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit) |
#704
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
On 22 Jan 2006 20:39:09 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote: John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: ... And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway? I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is minimal). You just can't help it, huh? Can you say that for some people you see no benefit for 36 spokes compared to 32? Can you at least *try* to say it? Can you at least say that for some non-racers integrated shifters are sensible? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#705
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:22:33 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: Why do guys like Johnny Sunset talk about insignificant savings in weight or aerodynamics but not insignificant increases in durability? The odds of my wife's 28 spoke front wheel having problems are remote. So Sunset has to mention that it will be less useful if some heavy person needs it. Talk about grasping at straws. Should've been clearer. I meant, why do they relish pointing out the insignificance of small savings in weight or aerodynamics, while not also recognizing that some durability improvements are insignificant too? Speaking for myself: One difference in these "small savings" is the magnitude of the consequences. That is, if a person is deciding between 36-spoke wheel vs. a 28 (or fewer) spoke wheel, the negative consequence of the 36 is they may require 0.002% more time to get to their desination. The negative consequence of the lower spoke count wheel is they may not get there at all without being chauffered in a car! IIRC, I detailed one such case upthread, where I came upon a guy with fancy wheels stranded on a deserted highway because of one broken spoke. The advantage is similar with STI vs. competitors. Sure, it doesn't happen frequently, but I've had two friends whose STI just absolutely refused to shift, where the "time penalty" was hours (in one case) or over a day (in the other) to get them working. To me, that's absolutely unacceptable. And it happens frequently enough to deserve "FAQ" status on r.b.tech. I've got two titanium seat rails that I pass around in my classes as perfect examples of fatigue failures. They were donated by a weight-weeny friend. My steel rails have never failed - and I'm heavier than he is. However much time he's saved by the lighter rails has been more than obliterated by the necessity for replacing them. None of this is dealing in absolutes. It's always a probability thing, partly because the loads on most bike components are difficult to quantify, partly because the duty to which parts are subjected varies greatly from rider to rider. Since you can't calculate this stuff precisely, much of the development of bike parts has been trial and error. There's always some little shop saying "Hey, we can shave 30 grams off that component and sell a bunch to the racers." And the weight weenies buy it and try it, and after three years of volunteer testing by the weight-weenie public, you get to hear that it's not working out well. Except when some design innovation _does_ work, of course, then it becomes mainstream. The questions for me are a) Do I care to be an early adopter, part of the "volunteers" who pay money to be the test team so as to get the advantages first? and b) Are the advantages likely to be worthwhile to me if and when it does work? I've cycled long enough and happily enough that I'm not in desparate need of any new develoment to keep me content. And my riding style, my favorite rides, pay dividends for reliability, not speed. So even in the case of 32 spoke wheels (instead of 36) I see no reason to change. The trade in speed vs. reliability is probably small either way, but the speed matters less to me than the reliabilty, so I'm just not interested. YMMV, obviously. - Frank Krygowski |
#706
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
On 23 Jan 2006 07:52:19 -0800, wrote:
I'm not in desparate need of any new develoment to keep me content. Desparate? Interesting choice of words. Anyway, good to hear that. I'm glad I'm not so paranoid that I'm afraid to let my wife ride around with only 28 spokes on her front wheel. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
#707
|
|||
|
|||
bar-end shifters
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 22 Jan 2006 20:39:09 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" wrote: John Forrest Tomlinson wrote: ... And also -- you write "dares to be practical." You still haven't explained how using something that is theoretically less durable than what you use but wont' break anyway is less practical. Like a 32-hole front wheel for a woman or lighter male cyclist. How is such wheel impractical if it isn't going to fail anyway? I am not dogmatic about 36-spoke wheels being a requirement for lighter riders [1], though I see no real benefit to 32-spoke wheels (the weight, drag and wholesale cost savings from eliminating 8 spokes is minimal). You just can't help it, huh? Can you say that for some people you see no benefit for 36 spokes compared to 32? Can you at least *try* to say it? I can see a benefit for everyone, even if the chances of it occurring are tiny -- if you *do* break a spoke with a 36 wheel, you'll probably be able to ride home with only minor adjustments if any. I think this advantage, for most people at least, is exceedingly small -- but I still think it overshadows any disadvantages. Can you at least say that for some non-racers integrated shifters are sensible? I think they're sensible for most people who can afford them. (I think bar end shifters are even *more* sensible... ). -- Benjamin Lewis Now is the time for all good men to come to. -- Walt Kelly |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rapidfire shifters seized/stuck? | Darryn | Australia | 3 | November 12th 05 04:16 PM |
quality 8 speed MTB shifters? (or 9 spd shifter with 8 spd cassette)? | Pizza Man | Techniques | 40 | October 18th 04 06:29 AM |
upgrading grip shifters to triggers | david kenning | UK | 3 | March 14th 04 08:26 PM |
Technical query, triple STI shifters | MartinM | UK | 6 | February 22nd 04 10:39 AM |
old Suntour 6sp stem shifters... | Garry Broad | Techniques | 6 | September 22nd 03 09:49 PM |