Tips on carbon fiber WSD bikes?

On Jan 4, 2:21*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:09 PM, Chalo wrote:









Jay Beattie wrote:

I've owned a half dozen beautiful, custom made steel frames. I
understand the art part, but I guess I've turned cheap, and the art
does not matter to me anymore. Sniff, sniff. *I've lost the art!

And yes, I would rather have a Turbo than a hand stretched Brooks. *I
would rather have my cookie-cutter Cannondale than any of my steel
frames -- which were olde-tyme SP and 531 boat anchors. In a 63cm
frame, that fattie aluminum makes a real difference. (caveat: I have
never owned a "modern steel" bike -- they may be better than
anything!)

Maybe if I drew some lugs on my Cannondale with a Sharpie, I could
revive the old excitement of owning a custom steel bike. *I still
oggle the Vanillas and other custom bikes I see here in PDX (there is
a custom frame builder under every-other rock in this town), but I no
longer get those pangs of "must . . . own . . . bike." It's more like
"must . . . put kid . . . through college."

I've only ever had one nice custom steel bike frame, with fat tubing
and unorthodox features. *I went a lot of years without being able to
trust a skinny-tubed steel frame, and even a few more where they just
looked funny to me. *Now I have four 68cm lugged steel frames with
traditional diameters, and I like them. *I'm not sure I would like
riding them if they were made from lightweight tubing, but they
aren't. *Neither are they delicately finished. *They're just bikes,
from a time period when that was how a bike was made. *Even a crude
version of a lugged steel frame has its charms.

Those frames seem a lot less flimsy and flexible when they are
equipped with stiff wheels, stems, and cranks.

I like the steel frames precisely because of the thin tubes.

Cannondale is probably one of the reasons that I don't like aluminum.
I had one around 20 years ago with the fat tubes. *I was coming down a
mountain side in New Hampshire and I hit a pebble or something. *The
frame started doing this harmonic hum that went through the fillings in
my teeth. *Pretty scary at 60k/h.

I don't really care what sound pebbles make when they hit my down
tube. Thak, pinnnnng, or ponk. Whatever.

On Jan 4, 12:09*pm, Chalo wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:

I've owned a half dozen beautiful, custom made steel frames. I
understand the art part, but I guess I've turned cheap, and the art
does not matter to me anymore. Sniff, sniff. *I've lost the art!

And yes, I would rather have a Turbo than a hand stretched Brooks. *I
would rather have my cookie-cutter Cannondale than any of my steel
frames -- which were olde-tyme SP and 531 boat anchors. In a 63cm
frame, that fattie aluminum makes a real difference. (caveat: I have
never owned a "modern steel" bike -- they may be better than
anything!)

Maybe if I drew some lugs on my Cannondale with a Sharpie, I could
revive the old excitement of owning a custom steel bike. *I still
oggle the Vanillas and other custom bikes I see here in PDX (there is
a custom frame builder under every-other rock in this town), but I no
longer get those pangs of "must . . . own . . . bike." It's more like
"must . . . put kid . . . through college."

I've only ever had one nice custom steel bike frame, with fat tubing
and unorthodox features. *I went a lot of years without being able to
trust a skinny-tubed steel frame, and even a few more where they just
looked funny to me. *Now I have four 68cm lugged steel frames with
traditional diameters, and I like them. *I'm not sure I would like
riding them if they were made from lightweight tubing, but they
aren't. *Neither are they delicately finished. *They're just bikes,
from a time period when that was how a bike was made. *Even a crude
version of a lugged steel frame has its charms.

Those frames seem a lot less flimsy and flexible when they are
equipped with stiff wheels, stems, and cranks.

We need to have a discussion some time about stiff wheels. I'm having
trouble conceptualizing how an adequately tensioned wheel would not be
radially stiff (not talking laterally). I hear talk from various racer
buddies about how one wheel or another is super stiff and a "secret
weapon" (another over-used advertising term) in sprints, etc., which
suggests to me that a wheel can be radially limp some how, at least
relatively speaking.-- Jay Beattie.

On Jan 4, 9:39*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:33 AM, landotter wrote:

I wouldn't demand that a road bike fit 32s, like mine does, but if it
fits 28s or 25s with fenders, it gives you options for free. Why not?

There are times of the year when 32s are really nice to be able to
install, and times when the lower rolling resistance of the narrower 23s
is desirable. 23-32 is not an unreasonable range to insist upon for a
road bike.

True. It all depends on what you want from your bike and how many
bikes you want to own. I am blessed with multiple bikes, one of which
will take 35s (cyclocross) with fenders. If I were a one bike guy, I
would buy a '70s Raleigh International and call it a day.
http://home.comcast.net/~cheg01/international.html -- Jay Beattie.

On 1/4/2011 3:30 PM, landotter wrote:
On Jan 4, 2:21 pm, Duane wrote:
On 1/4/2011 3:09 PM, Chalo wrote:









Jay Beattie wrote:

I've owned a half dozen beautiful, custom made steel frames. I
understand the art part, but I guess I've turned cheap, and the art
does not matter to me anymore. Sniff, sniff. I've lost the art!

And yes, I would rather have a Turbo than a hand stretched Brooks. I
would rather have my cookie-cutter Cannondale than any of my steel
frames -- which were olde-tyme SP and 531 boat anchors. In a 63cm
frame, that fattie aluminum makes a real difference. (caveat: I have
never owned a "modern steel" bike -- they may be better than
anything!)

Maybe if I drew some lugs on my Cannondale with a Sharpie, I could
revive the old excitement of owning a custom steel bike. I still
oggle the Vanillas and other custom bikes I see here in PDX (there is
a custom frame builder under every-other rock in this town), but I no
longer get those pangs of "must . . . own . . . bike." It's more like
"must . . . put kid . . . through college."

I've only ever had one nice custom steel bike frame, with fat tubing
and unorthodox features. I went a lot of years without being able to
trust a skinny-tubed steel frame, and even a few more where they just
looked funny to me. Now I have four 68cm lugged steel frames with
traditional diameters, and I like them. I'm not sure I would like
riding them if they were made from lightweight tubing, but they
aren't. Neither are they delicately finished. They're just bikes,
from a time period when that was how a bike was made. Even a crude
version of a lugged steel frame has its charms.

Those frames seem a lot less flimsy and flexible when they are
equipped with stiff wheels, stems, and cranks.

I like the steel frames precisely because of the thin tubes.

Cannondale is probably one of the reasons that I don't like aluminum.
I had one around 20 years ago with the fat tubes. I was coming down a
mountain side in New Hampshire and I hit a pebble or something. The
frame started doing this harmonic hum that went through the fillings in
my teeth. Pretty scary at 60k/h.

I don't really care what sound pebbles make when they hit my down
tube. Thak, pinnnnng, or ponk. Whatever.

No, it wasn't the pebble hitting the frame that bothered me. It's the
frame that started "humming" - high frequency vibration.

Jay Beattie wrote:

We need to have a discussion some time about stiff wheels. I'm having
trouble conceptualizing how an adequately tensioned wheel would not be
radially stiff (not talking laterally). I hear talk from various racer
buddies about how one wheel or another is super stiff and a "secret
weapon" (another over-used advertising term) in sprints, etc., which
suggests to me that a wheel can be radially limp some how, at least
relatively speaking.-- Jay Beattie.

Jay's bedtime reading ;-)

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-23159755.html

JS.

wrote:
On Jan 3, 9:51 pm, James wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 1/3/2011 10:13 PM, James StewarD wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:
Where have bicycle saddles been used except for bicycles?
http://www.thefind.com/office/info-bike-seat-stool
JS.
None of those are narrow enough to function the same way as a typical
road bike saddle.
That is because a typical road bike saddle is designed to support only a
fraction of the total body weight, the rest being supported by the hands
and feet.

However it is more typical of the saddles you might find on what some
describe as "comfort" bikes and gymnasium equipment (ugh).

JS.

What you need is a fast forward desk position. At the edge of your
desk, you'll need some triathlon arm rests. Say, something like this:
http://www.ritcheylogic.com/dyn_prod...9-603&k=394967
This would free your arms to type on your puter while practicing your
riding position.

Now add some pedals and I'm set! I can train and type all at once!

Sadly, I don't think the puter or the boss would appreciate the idea.

JS.

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
In contrast, I can buy a box of 525 tubing and braze it up in adult ed
metal shop -- and since I am not like you and do not work in a shop,
that is where I go to fix my steel frames.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

JS.

On 1/4/2011 4:07 PM, James wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
In contrast, I can buy a box of 525 tubing and braze it up in
adult ed
metal shop -- and since I am not like you and do not work in a shop,
that is where I go to fix my steel frames.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

Where you put the { is an issue of style but I believe that
C used to consider the missing void in the arg list an error.
The argc/argv were always optional AFAICR if you didn't want
to specify command line args.


But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

All three of those beat java though.

In article ,
James wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
In contrast, I can buy a box of 525 tubing and braze it up in adult ed
metal shop -- and since I am not like you and do not work in a shop,
that is where I go to fix my steel frames.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

Yes, in fact, I put the opening brace on the next line;
but that is another kettle of worms.

--
Michael Press

On 1/4/2011 4:25 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:

On 1/3/2011 3:45 PM, Chalo wrote:
Duane Hébert wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
In contrast, I can buy a box of 525 tubing and braze it up in adult ed
metal shop -- and since I am not like you and do not work in a shop,
that is where I go to fix my steel frames.
Jay, are you replying to me or to Chalo? I suspect that he works in a
shop but I'm certain that I don'tg
Hey, maybe you should consider it! "Vélocipèdes Artisanales par
Maître Douain Hébert." Sounds expensive.
LOL. But I'm afraid that if it doesn't start with

int main() {

I'm going to be lost.

I am positive you meant to write int main(void) {


If std C, more likely

int main(int argc, char **argv)

Note that the opening '{' is on the next line.

But if C++? Well, why bother. C is the one true programming language.
Use assembly only in extreme cases.

Yes, in fact, I put the opening brace on the next line;
but that is another kettle of worms.

Yep. We have 5 SEs in my group and we had problems
arriving at a consensus. It's not just whether it's on the next line
but how many spaces to indent. Seems like we should have better things
to waste our time on.