Habanero shows up curved stays

On 2017-04-14 08:25, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:15:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On

Well according to Joerg what happened to my bicycling buddy can be
construed as proving that ALL DISC BRAKES are on good. My buddy paid
$1,500.00 US for a Davinci MTB with disc brakes. We're riding along
a crushed limestone stone dust trail and he says to me, "watch
this". i asked him what I was watching. He said, "This. My brake
levers are all the way to the handlebar". Now that was on a bicycle
that had had the brakes adjusted by two different good bicycle
shops. My buddy had so much trouble with his disc brake that he
ended up swapping them for V-brakes. Since then he's had no trouble
with his brakes at all. This is proof positive that disc brakes are
inferior to rim brakes. ;) VB EG LOL

As I mentioned previously, we recently hosted a very experienced bike
tourist. His rig had disc brakes. His complaint was that on one
not-so-long tour, he was suddenly without brakes. Apparently the pads
had worn down, and unlike with caliper brakes, he couldn't pop into the
closest Wal-Mart and buy new brake shoes or pads.

Not that discs don't have their benefits. But one does have to separate
the hype from the practicality. In Joerg's writing, there's always a
lot of hype.

Was he on mechanical or hydraulic discs? If I were touring on discs,
I'd take some pads along, and with mechanical discs, you do get a
warning that your pads are nearly worn out.

He was on hydraulic discs. What struck me the most was that he claimed
the failure happened without much warning at all.


Did he crash and cause a leak? Or some part failed? That's almost the
only explanation for this.

Another is mishandling the bike in conjunction with poor maintenance. If
you store it upside down and have air in the reservoir some bubbles of
that air can travel towards the calipers and then ... no brakes.


As I said when I previously mentioned his complaint, I think the lesson
is: If you run disc brakes, always carry a spare set of brake pads.


It's a matter of preventative maintenance. I know people who run their
pads all the way down until you hear metal screeching on metal. That is
not smart. Whenever I lube my chain I give the MTB a once-over. Battery
charge level, shock pressures, tire pressures, play in steerer, Horst
link joints ... and ... brake pads and lever firmness.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 10:47:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:37 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 19:20, John B Slocomb wrote:


Building bicycle trails isn't going to create a great new cycling
world.


Where there is a will there is a way:

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/fil...g_strategy.pdf


Sure is a lot of "Photoshopping" there!


If we do nothing then nothing will happen regarding mode share. The
question we have to ask ourselves is whether we truly want to increase
cycling or just let it be. In most areas of the US it seems the latter
is the case.

The pie-in-the-sky advocates always seem to point to Netherlands and
Denmark - or more specifically, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Both are
places that were known for their intense bicycle popularity almost 100
years ago, long before any special facilities were built.

There are roughly 200 countries in the world. Where are the wonderful
examples of facility-driven 30% mode share in the other 198?


Burundi :-)

http://www.traveladventures.org/coun...cyclists05.jpg


When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share from
pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by massive
investment in bike paths and in contrast to when we moved here it is a
joy to ride there. Now do the math and figure out the health benefit to
their society. Actually, neighbor communities like ours benefit for free
as well because now people ride there.

Manhattan was another success story where it even increase business for
restaurants and other such places, big time.

In America you will never get above 10% except in very isolated cases
and then only for young people. It's still worth it, even if just for
the health benefit.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Well, the San Francisco bay area put in a large amount of bike lanes and also bike routes along less used streets. Now perhaps it's my sense of change but I find that a pretty large step forward.

On 2017-04-14 10:57, wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 10:47:35 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:37 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-13 19:20, John B Slocomb wrote:


Building bicycle trails isn't going to create a great new
cycling world.


Where there is a will there is a way:

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/fil...g_strategy.pdf




Sure is a lot of "Photoshopping" there!


If we do nothing then nothing will happen regarding mode share.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we truly want
to increase cycling or just let it be. In most areas of the US
it seems the latter is the case.

The pie-in-the-sky advocates always seem to point to Netherlands
and Denmark - or more specifically, Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
Both are places that were known for their intense bicycle
popularity almost 100 years ago, long before any special
facilities were built.

There are roughly 200 countries in the world. Where are the
wonderful examples of facility-driven 30% mode share in the other
198?


Burundi :-)

http://www.traveladventures.org/coun...cyclists05.jpg




When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share
from pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by
massive investment in bike paths and in contrast to when we moved
here it is a joy to ride there. Now do the math and figure out the
health benefit to their society. Actually, neighbor communities
like ours benefit for free as well because now people ride there.

Manhattan was another success story where it even increase business
for restaurants and other such places, big time.

In America you will never get above 10% except in very isolated
cases and then only for young people. It's still worth it, even if
just for the health benefit.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Well, the San Francisco bay area put in a large amount of bike lanes
and also bike routes along less used streets. Now perhaps it's my
sense of change but I find that a pretty large step forward.


It sure is. Very good. Did it increase the mode share or entice more
people for an eye on town at night?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 4/14/2017 1:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share from
pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by massive
investment in bike paths...

sigh Data I find puts Folsom at 1.2%. Practically speaking, that _is_
"pretty much zero."

I'm aware of the propaganda trick that says "bike mode share doubled!!!"
or "bike mode share increased 100%" when it actually increased from 0.1%
to 0.2%. But despite the hype, that's not a massive shift, nor is an
increase to 1.2%. That's a change from negligible to negligible.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-04-14 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 1:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share from
pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by massive
investment in bike paths...

sigh Data I find puts Folsom at 1.2%. Practically speaking, that _is_
"pretty much zero."


For America that is not zero.


I'm aware of the propaganda trick that says "bike mode share doubled!!!"
or "bike mode share increased 100%" when it actually increased from 0.1%
to 0.2%. But despite the hype, that's not a massive shift, nor is an
increase to 1.2%. That's a change from negligible to negligible.


So first you say bicycling has a huge health benefit and now you say it
doesn't?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 4/14/2017 1:57 PM, wrote:

Well, the San Francisco bay area put in a large amount of bike lanes and also bike routes along less used streets. Now perhaps it's my sense of change but I find that a pretty large step forward.


As has been mentioned before, the biggest surge in San Francisco bike
use occurred during the time when all construction of bike facilities
was stopped due to a lawsuit demanding assessment of environmental
effects. That indicates that, contrary to the hype, there's a lot more
that influences bike use besides facility construction. Simple fashion
has a lot to do with it.

However, I'm much in favor of bike routes along less used streets -
often called "bike boulevards." I've been in cities that combined those
with wayfinding signs, to good advantage. In some cases, bike
boulevards have also included design features to reduce or slow motor
vehicle traffic. I think that's a good thing for residential
neighborhoods, where kids really should be able to play in the streets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2017 1:55 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 08:25, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 10:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 10:15:43 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On

Well according to Joerg what happened to my bicycling buddy can be
construed as proving that ALL DISC BRAKES are on good. My buddy paid
$1,500.00 US for a Davinci MTB with disc brakes. We're riding along
a crushed limestone stone dust trail and he says to me, "watch
this". i asked him what I was watching. He said, "This. My brake
levers are all the way to the handlebar". Now that was on a bicycle
that had had the brakes adjusted by two different good bicycle
shops. My buddy had so much trouble with his disc brake that he
ended up swapping them for V-brakes. Since then he's had no trouble
with his brakes at all. This is proof positive that disc brakes are
inferior to rim brakes. ;) VB EG LOL

As I mentioned previously, we recently hosted a very experienced bike
tourist. His rig had disc brakes. His complaint was that on one
not-so-long tour, he was suddenly without brakes. Apparently the pads
had worn down, and unlike with caliper brakes, he couldn't pop into the
closest Wal-Mart and buy new brake shoes or pads.

Not that discs don't have their benefits. But one does have to
separate
the hype from the practicality. In Joerg's writing, there's always a
lot of hype.

Was he on mechanical or hydraulic discs? If I were touring on discs,
I'd take some pads along, and with mechanical discs, you do get a
warning that your pads are nearly worn out.

He was on hydraulic discs. What struck me the most was that he claimed
the failure happened without much warning at all.


Did he crash and cause a leak? Or some part failed? That's almost the
only explanation for this.

Nope. He claimed the brakes went away during one day's ride. IIRC, he
said it was in a very hilly area of Pennsylvania. It scared him badly.

Although the current issue (#59) of _Bicycle Quarterly_ has a road test
of a carbon "gravel bike" with hydraulic discs. Writer Jan Heine
described bursting a hydraulic brake hose while squeezing hard to center
the brake. He said he couldn't tell if the hose was damaged in a fall
he experienced, or if was kinked somehow while transporting the bike.


Another is mishandling the bike in conjunction with poor maintenance. If
you store it upside down and have air in the reservoir some bubbles of
that air can travel towards the calipers and then ... no brakes.


As I said when I previously mentioned his complaint, I think the lesson
is: If you run disc brakes, always carry a spare set of brake pads.


It's a matter of preventative maintenance. I know people who run their
pads all the way down until you hear metal screeching on metal. That is
not smart. Whenever I lube my chain I give the MTB a once-over. Battery
charge level, shock pressures, tire pressures, play in steerer, Horst
link joints ... and ... brake pads and lever firmness.

I think the surprise for the guy I met was how quickly the pads wore
away. He was sure they'd last through his tour, but he was wrong.

Again, since you know you'll need pads eventually, it makes sense to buy
an extra set and just keep them in the bike bag. They're not like
ordinary brake shoes that you can buy in department stores.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2017 4:27 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2017 1:47 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-04-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

When you can show truly massive shifts from motor vehicles to bicycles
in a country without a cycling history - e.g. the U.S., Canada,
Australia, Mexico - then maybe you'll prove your point.


You of all people don't see that? Folsom increased the mode share from
pretty much zero to somewhere between 1-2%. They did that by massive
investment in bike paths...

sigh Data I find puts Folsom at 1.2%. Practically speaking, that _is_
"pretty much zero."

For America that is not zero.

Sounds like the mentality that gives an achievement award to the kid who
finally got 10% of his math homework correct.

I'm aware of the propaganda trick that says "bike mode share doubled!!!"
or "bike mode share increased 100%" when it actually increased from 0.1%
to 0.2%. But despite the hype, that's not a massive shift, nor is an
increase to 1.2%. That's a change from negligible to negligible.


So first you say bicycling has a huge health benefit and now you say it
doesn't?

Bicycling has a strong health benefit for those who actually do it. But
if you increase the bike mode share all the way (!) to 1%, you'll not be
able to detect any benefit in national level health data.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 4:52:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
Bicycling has a strong health benefit for those who actually do it. But
if you increase the bike mode share all the way (!) to 1%, you'll not be
able to detect any benefit in national level health data.


--
- Frank Krygowski

A couple of other things I've wondered about bike lanes and forced use of them.

#1. If the bicycle lane is a dangerous design and it's on the ONLY route to where the bicyclist wants to go, do many bicyclists stop bicycling and instead use their car if they have one?

#2. Do non-bicycling people get really ****ed off at their tax money paying for those bicycle lanes and thus become even more anti-bicycles on the roads?

Around here we have a fair number of bicyle lanes on the roads. the problem is that the very vast majority of them put the bicyclist in the door zone or the right hook zone. I tell my buddies to NOT ride in those bicycle lanes as they're too dangerous compared to riding in the lane. Oh that's another thing; those bike lanes are often just a painted strip on an already existing paved road and thus in reality the traffic lane become about two feet narrower. these bicycle lanes are NOT even three feet wide. In many case what the bicycle lanes do is take the bicyclist OUT OFthe driver's line of vision.

Cheers

On 4/14/2017 5:55 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 4:52:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
Bicycling has a strong health benefit for those who actually do it. But
if you increase the bike mode share all the way (!) to 1%, you'll not be
able to detect any benefit in national level health data.


--
- Frank Krygowski

A couple of other things I've wondered about bike lanes and forced use of them.

#1. If the bicycle lane is a dangerous design and it's on the ONLY route to where the bicyclist wants to go, do many bicyclists stop bicycling and instead use their car if they have one?

#2. Do non-bicycling people get really ****ed off at their tax money paying for those bicycle lanes and thus become even more anti-bicycles on the roads?

Around here we have a fair number of bicyle lanes on the roads. the problem is that the very vast majority of them put the bicyclist in the door zone or the right hook zone. I tell my buddies to NOT ride in those bicycle lanes as they're too dangerous compared to riding in the lane. Oh that's another thing; those bike lanes are often just a painted strip on an already existing paved road and thus in reality the traffic lane become about two feet narrower. these bicycle lanes are NOT even three feet wide. In many case what the bicycle lanes do is take the bicyclist OUT OFthe driver's line of vision.

In response to similar bad designs, I've had a few cyclists tell me "But
at least they did _something_ for us bicyclists!"

Yeah. If trying to kill us counts as "something." :-/


--
- Frank Krygowski