bar-end shifters

Johnny Sunset wrote:
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

I've had people ask me about getting a new bikes, tell me they "are
not interested in racing" and ask about the combined break
lever/shifters they've seen.... ^^^^^

"Break lever/shifters" - what an apt description of brifters.



LOL!!

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 19:55:08 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:


I'm still curious what your story is. Seriously, what's the deal?




In this very thread, you asked me about my history w/r/t barends.

When the answer didn't suit your agenda, you *ducked out*.

Can you repost the answer?


Google. Know how to use it?

Dans le message de ,
The Wogster a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
bicycles, because a racer who pays $500

Not real, come on !

for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post

Same ...

isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
set of fenders.

Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a guess !) of
folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in inclement weather. The
bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but fenders don't make a difference
here.

Mountain bikes are also an issue, because mud and crap can get caught
between the tire and fender, but this can be resolved with higher
clearence, for example a frame designed so that there is say 10cm
clearance wouldn't have an issue, it works on dirt bikes....

--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

In article , John Forrest
Tomlinson wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:23:11 -0500, Luke
wrote:


Recently, after riding my road bike (57mm reach calipers, 28c tires)

The road bike I used today fits low-profile cross tires (like 28s) and
similar road tires -- it's a racing frame that's about six or seven
years old (a LeMond). Short-reach brakes.

JT


I should've been more clear: the bike I referred to was equipped with
28c tires at the time but can accept 32c size rubber with fenders and
larger sizes without - I suppose a contemporary equivalent would be a
Rivendell Rambouillet. And I also owned an Asian made Bianchi racer
from the late 80s that accommodated 32c tires (without fenders).
Calipers notwithstanding, essentially these 'road bikes' were what
today pass for CX bikes, that is, drop bar bikes that afford a wider
choice of rubber. (Put drop bars on an average modern hybrid and the
same could be said of it.)

Their versatility was an asset, particularly as it did not detract in
any way from performance.

Luke

Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
The Wogster a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :


There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
bicycles, because a racer who pays $500


Not real, come on !


for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post


Same ...


isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
set of fenders.


Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a guess !) of
folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in inclement weather. The
bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but fenders don't make a difference
here.

There are essentially two kinds of drop bar bikes:

Racing bikes (be just like Lance), where everything is based on weight
reduction, and yeah, racing teams would likely get a custom built
seatpost, and pay $500 for it, if it reduced the weight even 5g to give
their racer as much advantage as possible. They certainly would not
"waste" 200g per wheel for fenders.

Road bikes, ever head out, on a nice sunny day, not a cloud in the sky,
nothing forecast except sun, and then get a torrential 2 minute
downpour, and end up with the "skunk stripe" as the only proof, because
it got sunny again afterwards? The real issue here, is that frame
designers leave the 2.5mm wheel clearence dictated from racing bikes,
which means no chance of stuffing a fender in there. If they left say
5cm, and added the frame mountings, it wouldn't make any real differance
weight wise, and people could add their own fenders.

Then again, you might have so many people add after market fenders, that
a whole new style of road bike would be born, the fendered road bike,
and bike assemblers would start adding them as standard equipment.

A rear only option, would be to add a rack, the rack could have a solid
piece over the top, which would remove the skunk stripe and wet behind,
effectively making a rear fender, debating doing this with my MTB......

W

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On 21 Jan 2006 20:10:05 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:

Unless they are racing where a slight reduction in frontal area would
be significant, there is no benefit in riding extremely narrow tires.
Tires of 28-32 mm width provide better ride comfort, handling, and
traction, and offer greater versatility on what surfaces can be ridden
on. And unless the bike is for fair weather only, fenders are an
excellent addition. Again, the extra weight and drag of fender should
only be of concern to racers.

They should have 36 spokes too of course. Unless they are racers of
course. Right? This is RBT right? So you really shouldn't forget to
add that. And of course most people's top gear is too high. Don't
forget that.

Agreed. The weight savings and decreased aerodynamic drag from less
than 36 spokes is trivial, unless one is racing at a level where a
couple of seconds difference in elapsed time will affect placement.
Otherwise, lower spokes counts are a silly fashion statement, trading
looks for decreased reliability/longevity.

If professional riders that are putting out average power in the range
of 400 watts when riding hard use 53/39 chainrings and 11-23 clusters,
then this gearing is obviously way too high for an average road bike
rider with less than half the power.

From a cost/use/practicality standpoint, what most road bike riders
should be riding are steel frame bikes with adequate frame clearances
for wider tires and fenders, 36-spoke wheels with aluminium alloy rims
(with sockets, but no anodizing), smooth tread clincher tires, 8-speed
freehub/cassette and bar-end shifters.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (For a bit)

On 22 Jan 2006 06:02:47 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

They should have 36 spokes too of course. Unless they are racers of
course. Right? This is RBT right? So you really shouldn't forget to
add that. And of course most people's top gear is too high. Don't
forget that.

Agreed. The weight savings and decreased aerodynamic drag from less
than 36 spokes is trivial,

What if the increase in strength of 36 over 28 is trivial? My wife
has 28 spokes on the front wheel of her bike. I am certain she will
never break a spoke and almost never put that wheel out of true. Is
that OK or do you think she should switch to 36? She is not a racer.
Of course. Now you've got me worried, even though the wheel is fine.

Will she look like a "wannabe racer"? Her bike has flat bars so I'm
hopeful that won't happen. It does have index-only shifting. Is that
too risky?

From a cost/use/practicality standpoint, what most road bike riders
should be riding are steel frame bikes with adequate frame clearances
for wider tires and fenders, 36-spoke wheels with aluminium alloy rims
(with sockets, but no anodizing), smooth tread clincher tires, 8-speed
freehub/cassette and bar-end shifters.

Should they switch now? When racers are using 11 or 12 cogs in back
will it be OK for other riders to use 9speeds. Or is 8 the end?

And what if the aluminum frames are cheaper? Is it too risky to ride
them? We all know of course that any weight savings between frames is
trivial unless the rider is a racer. Of course. But steel can be more
readily repaired, or even cold set. So what should riders with
aluminum frames do?

I am also curious about 40 or 48 spoke wheels. The weight increase and
increased aerodynamic drag is of course trivial. Is there any
advantage to such wheels? If those wheels were more standard, then we
could point out that the lower weight of 36 spoke wheels was trivial
in comparison. Wouldn't that be great?

Please let me know about these questions, you seem to know what is
best for more riders.

Thanks in advance.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Luke wrote:
In article , Peter Cole
wrote:


I have a 700c fixed gear (80's Fuji tourer frame) with a "flip-flop"
hub.

Dumpster diving veterans can attest that a resurrected vintage road
bike (circa 80s) often equals in versatility a typical CX bike of today
- both can accommodate a variety of tire sizes and peripheral equipment
(racks and fenders).

Older "sports tourer" frames are versatile in that they can take some
pretty fat tires. I use 35mm studded knobby tires on one of my bikes in
the winter. When forks and chainstays were brought closer together, and
chainstays were shortened in the recent fashion, I think usefulness was
lost and nothing substantial was gained.

Dans le message de ,
The Wogster a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
The Wogster a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :


There are two kinds of bikes where fenders are an issue, race style
bicycles, because a racer who pays $500


Not real, come on !


for a seat post that is 5g lighter then a $5 seat post


Same ...


isn't going to "waste" a whole 200g on a
set of fenders.


Just relating to road riding, I think the vast majority (_yes_ a
guess !) of folks who ride road bikes won't take them out in
inclement weather. The bikes don't get much use, admittedly, but
fenders don't make a difference here.

There are essentially two kinds of drop bar bikes:

Well, there's the first wrong turn ...

Racing bikes (be just like Lance), where everything is based on weight
reduction, and yeah, racing teams would likely get a custom built
seatpost, and pay $500 for it, if it reduced the weight even 5g to
give their racer as much advantage as possible. They certainly would
not "waste" 200g per wheel for fenders.

You may not have been paying much attention to racing in the last 4-5 years.
There is a weight minimum, and pretty much anyone can be riding an illegal
(sub-weight) bike in the PRO peleton, not to mention the many elite and
not-so-elite racers. So there really is not any target of 5 grams, not 50
grams, and depending on who is riding what, 500 or more grams. The weight
battle is over, unless UCI changes the minima.

Road bikes, ever head out, on a nice sunny day, not a cloud in the
sky, nothing forecast except sun, and then get a torrential 2 minute
downpour, and end up with the "skunk stripe" as the only proof,
because it got sunny again afterwards? The real issue here, is that
frame designers leave the 2.5mm wheel clearence dictated from racing
bikes, which means no chance of stuffing a fender in there. If they
left say 5cm, and added the frame mountings, it wouldn't make any
real differance weight wise, and people could add their own fenders.

It's water and dirt, and it doesn't happen all that often. I must be among
the privileged, having a washing machine. The way you write, it rains on
your parade all the time. Aside from Seattle, I have not heard of too many
other reliably rainy cities. But I don't know, so you can tell me where
they are.

Then again, you might have so many people add after market fenders,
that a whole new style of road bike would be born, the fendered road
bike, and bike assemblers would start adding them as standard
equipment.

I have a Zefal fender on my winter bike. It jumps over the rear triangle
and clips onto the seat tube. My delightful frame has exactly enough seat
tube above the joint so that it goes there, and with the saddle, does a good
job keeping me reasonably dry. On my good season bike, no fenders, and back
to washing machine and showers for solutions.

A rear only option, would be to add a rack, the rack could have a
solid piece over the top, which would remove the skunk stripe and wet
behind, effectively making a rear fender, debating doing this with my
MTB......

Take a look at the Zefal - it may be the kind of answer you would accept.
It clips on or off in seconds.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm, denigration, snotty remarks,
indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that "you do the math", conceited
visions of a better world on wheels according to [insert NAME here].

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 09:29:00 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On 22 Jan 2006 06:02:47 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

They should have 36 spokes too of course. Unless they are racers of
course. Right? This is RBT right? So you really shouldn't forget to
add that. And of course most people's top gear is too high. Don't
forget that.

Agreed. The weight savings and decreased aerodynamic drag from less
than 36 spokes is trivial,

What if the increase in strength of 36 over 28 is trivial? My wife
has 28 spokes on the front wheel of her bike. I am certain she will
never break a spoke and almost never put that wheel out of true. Is
that OK or do you think she should switch to 36? She is not a racer.
Of course. Now you've got me worried, even though the wheel is fine.

Will she look like a "wannabe racer"? Her bike has flat bars so I'm
hopeful that won't happen. It does have index-only shifting. Is that
too risky?

From a cost/use/practicality standpoint, what most road bike riders
should be riding are steel frame bikes with adequate frame clearances
for wider tires and fenders, 36-spoke wheels with aluminium alloy rims
(with sockets, but no anodizing), smooth tread clincher tires, 8-speed
freehub/cassette and bar-end shifters.

Should they switch now? When racers are using 11 or 12 cogs in back
will it be OK for other riders to use 9speeds. Or is 8 the end?

And what if the aluminum frames are cheaper? Is it too risky to ride
them? We all know of course that any weight savings between frames is
trivial unless the rider is a racer. Of course. But steel can be more
readily repaired, or even cold set. So what should riders with
aluminum frames do?

I am also curious about 40 or 48 spoke wheels. The weight increase and
increased aerodynamic drag is of course trivial. Is there any
advantage to such wheels? If those wheels were more standard, then we
could point out that the lower weight of 36 spoke wheels was trivial
in comparison. Wouldn't that be great?

Please let me know about these questions, you seem to know what is
best for more riders.

Thanks in advance.

JT

Wow, I just found out that I have the wrong bike. It is steel,
apparently all else is wrong.
I don't race, but one goal when upgrading was to lower weight. I have
Easton CF bars and post, a Dura-Ace driveterain, although the 9-speed
cassette [14-28] is mostly Ultegra and the crankset a triple
30/39/53.
Of course the wheels are wrong, Peter built me a set of DA hubbed
Velocity Aeroheads 28f and 32r.

I don't purposely ride in bad weather, so no fenders, not that they
would most likely fit. Part of why I love my bike, is its appearance,
fenders are ugly. And when I have gotten wet, my concern was towards
the bike, not me. The worst rainstorm I was caught in, my shoes got so
wet they were squishy, fenders wouldn't have changed that.

And God forbid, I have those evil STI brifters. The pedals are those
impractical SPD-SL Look-alikes, with Sidi Genuis 4s, which make me
waddle like a duck.

Now, why do I have a bike like that, well because it inspires me. Just
sitting there, it screams "RIDE ME". And I do. The bike has its
Ritchey WCS stem in the upward position, bars are at most 2" lower
than the saddle. The saddle is a Selle Italia Prolink Basic, not the
lightest, but for me, quite comfy. Did I mention that I enjoy riding
this bike?

Now, maybe some of you, who are convinced that only racers can ride
bikes with less than 36 spokes, no fenders, and brifters, can explain
what compells me to be so wrong. Do I need to make ammends?



Life is Good!
Jeff