A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eddy Merckx Elite



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 8th 21, 09:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,264
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

I decided that riding a carbon fiber bike can only end badly one day. Of course that day might be past the end of my lifespan but if it isn't I would just as well not have a CF bike come apart underneath me. This has become enough of a worry that it slows me up on descents whereas I find that ascents are not remarkably faster on my steel bike. So rather than worry about the descents when the ascents show little to no gain seems a rather stupid means of sport riding.

Also, the sheer number of gears showing up on the scene is growing more and more preposterous every year. I was happy enough with 8 speeds and I could see Armstrong's point of a 9th gear to add a climbing bike so he didn't have to change bikes at the bottom of all of the hard climbs. So when it became difficult to get 8 speed parts, I didn't complain about changing over to 9 speeds. But that was followed all too rapidly with a change to 10 and then 11 and now 12 is the "standard" at least until 14 becomes the "latest standard". Why should I be shifting three gears at a time to arrive at the gear I want? Most especially at higher gears where you might have a 14-13-12-11 and the only places a 12 or 11 can be used is if you decide to pedal on downhills.

So I've put my carbon bikes on the chopping block and since they aren't selling on Craigslist I suppose that sooner or later they will go onto eBay.

Since I got the Felt new off of eBay I ran into the Eddy Elite while I was looking. Decent price if not a super deal. Rapid delivery which is becoming more and more unusual. The bike is not particularly light but neither was my Colnago C40s and I put in many miles on those. While I might have Preferred a Colnago Dream that particular aluminum frameset seems to have undergone a new appreciation and they are no longer available in my frame size. Once received though I have been rather impressed with the Eddy.

With frame, fork, headset, spacers, stem, seat clamp, bottle holder and Campy Skeleton brakes and shoes on it I would expect the finished bike to weigh around 20 lbs or so. Maybe a lb. more that would make it 3 lb.'s lighter than the Lemond. I guess the question is more about how it rides. It being a Merckx I an not worried about that.
Ads
  #2  
Old March 9th 21, 08:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,606
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 1:19:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
I decided that riding a carbon fiber bike can only end badly one day. Of course that day might be past the end of my lifespan but if it isn't I would just as well not have a CF bike come apart underneath me. This has become enough of a worry that it slows me up on descents whereas I find that ascents are not remarkably faster on my steel bike. So rather than worry about the descents when the ascents show little to no gain seems a rather stupid means of sport riding.

Also, the sheer number of gears showing up on the scene is growing more and more preposterous every year. I was happy enough with 8 speeds and I could see Armstrong's point of a 9th gear to add a climbing bike so he didn't have to change bikes at the bottom of all of the hard climbs. So when it became difficult to get 8 speed parts, I didn't complain about changing over to 9 speeds. But that was followed all too rapidly with a change to 10 and then 11 and now 12 is the "standard" at least until 14 becomes the "latest standard". Why should I be shifting three gears at a time to arrive at the gear I want? Most especially at higher gears where you might have a 14-13-12-11 and the only places a 12 or 11 can be used is if you decide to pedal on downhills.

So I've put my carbon bikes on the chopping block and since they aren't selling on Craigslist I suppose that sooner or later they will go onto eBay.

Since I got the Felt new off of eBay I ran into the Eddy Elite while I was looking. Decent price if not a super deal. Rapid delivery which is becoming more and more unusual. The bike is not particularly light but neither was my Colnago C40s and I put in many miles on those. While I might have Preferred a Colnago Dream that particular aluminum frameset seems to have undergone a new appreciation and they are no longer available in my frame size. Once received though I have been rather impressed with the Eddy.

With frame, fork, headset, spacers, stem, seat clamp, bottle holder and Campy Skeleton brakes and shoes on it I would expect the finished bike to weigh around 20 lbs or so. Maybe a lb. more that would make it 3 lb.'s lighter than the Lemond. I guess the question is more about how it rides. It being a Merckx I an not worried about that.


It's an 18 year old Easton 7005 frame -- with CF fork that looks like a Kinesis with bonded ends. I'd rather have a 6061 CAAD 7.
And an 18 year old CF fork is a poor choice for you with your history of broken CF forks. Buying a new fork would exceed the reasonable value of that frame. Have you made money selling any of these odd-ball bikes?

-- Jay Beattie.




















  #3  
Old March 11th 21, 07:36 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,819
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.


Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.
  #4  
Old March 11th 21, 04:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,134
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".


I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old March 11th 21, 04:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 11:09:32 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.


--
- Frank Krygowski


The pendulum has actually fully swung the other way, frank. It seems wider tires now have _lower_ rolling resistance than skinnier tires , except for - as you note - velodromes. Sarcasm aside, there is a lot of real data to support the concept. I think it's safest to say that the rougher the surface, the wider the tire should be (well, duh!).
  #7  
Old March 11th 21, 05:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,134
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On 3/11/2021 11:33 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 11:09:32 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.


--
- Frank Krygowski


The pendulum has actually fully swung the other way, frank. It seems wider tires now have _lower_ rolling resistance than skinnier tires , except for - as you note - velodromes. Sarcasm aside, there is a lot of real data to support the concept. I think it's safest to say that the rougher the surface, the wider the tire should be (well, duh!).

+1

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #8  
Old March 11th 21, 05:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Lou Holtman[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 726
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

Op donderdag 11 maart 2021 om 17:09:32 UTC+1 schreef Frank Krygowski:
On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".

I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.


That is a too simple conclusion. I mentioned this earlier:

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...000-comparison

Lou

  #9  
Old March 11th 21, 10:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:36:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:03:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
Claims a $40,000 income one month and buys second hand junk

John B.


Is that $40k per YEAR, or per MONTH? If its per month, then even in expensive California that should be enough to get you into the middle class and allow you to live somewhat comfortably if you watch some of your pennies. I'm sure $480,000 per year does not go too far in California, but it should be OK enough. Now, if its $40,000 per year, then one would have to watch what junk they buy second hand. But even with a mere $40,000 per year, even in expensive California you should be able to feed yourself and keep some kind of roof over your head and buy a used K-Mart bike every year or two.


He had stated that he had a million in investments and then stated
that he had made "4% last month", or words to that effect,
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #10  
Old March 11th 21, 10:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,198
Default Eddy Merckx Elite

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:09:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 9:43 PM, John B. wrote:

Well there is the debate about the gravel and CX bikes but here,
essentially, all the roads, or at least all the roads I see, are
paved. I've been riding 23mm tires since I switched from "sew-ups".


I think the narrowest tires ever used for more than a short time were
25mm. I've spent most of my road riding time on 28s, some on 32s, a bit
on 35s or 37s when doing loaded touring.

It seems the latest data indicates the super narrow tires have no lower
rolling resistance than similarly constructed wider tires, unless you're
on a surface as smooth as a velodrome track. And wider tires tend to be
less flat prone and more comfortable.


Well,I never thought that 23's were "super narrow" as I had ridden
19mm sew ups at one time :-) and as for rolling resistance I have the
suspicions that it is a highly over rated consideration. Does a 25mm
tire (pumped up to 100 psi) really decrease your speed on your 2 mile
Sunday ride to Church? And as for"more comfortable" I remember a bloke
named Frank, telling the world how tension your thigh muscles a bit
and sort of decompress your buttocks when riding over bumps. My own
humble opinion is if you want springs then buy a mountain bike. They
come with front and back suspension.
--
Cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eddy Merckx?? cciaffone[_3_] Marketplace 0 August 8th 12 05:34 PM
Eddy Merckx EX-1 62 cm Tom Kunich Marketplace 1 August 20th 08 06:38 PM
Eddy Merckx SC team frame, fork, Campagnolo hidden headset & Merckx seatpost clamp [email protected] Marketplace 0 September 13th 06 02:46 AM
Eddy Merckx Steve McGinty Racing 10 October 14th 04 03:40 AM
GP Eddy Merckx Colin Boyd Racing 3 August 23rd 04 07:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.