|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
[non team player comments removed]
https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/ [sarcasm removed] -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On 22/12/17 12:12, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed] https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/ [sarcasm removed] Nice! I have an idea for compressed air (or any gas) bearings for bicycle hubs and BB. They'll require a compressed air cylinder that has pipes to each hub and the BB. The run times will be similar to battery powered lights, so everyone will be fine with that, and the friction reduction will be in the order of at least 15W!!! Well, didn't ceramic bearings promise 10W? This has to be better... -- JS |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 2:47:43 AM UTC, James wrote:
On 22/12/17 12:12, AMuzi wrote: [non team player comments removed] https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/ [sarcasm removed] Nice! I have an idea for compressed air (or any gas) bearings for bicycle hubs and BB. They'll require a compressed air cylinder that has pipes to each hub and the BB. The run times will be similar to battery powered lights, so everyone will be fine with that, and the friction reduction will be in the order of at least 15W!!! Don't forget your friends when you're rich after crowd-funding it. It has all the earmarks of a viral groupthink project. Andre Jute Mass psychology isn't difficult at all. You went to school with the people you're manipulating. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
snip Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate 200 character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards? Anyways... Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no knowledge of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C mountain bikes sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were hip. And of course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years or so. Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass. Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On 12/21/2017 10:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass. Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost! Now now, you're ignoring the advantage of "momentum"! How old-fashioned to disparage it and talk about mere "mass." Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, and I'm sure they haven't figured out the optimum wheel+tire size yet. It's actually 28.15" also known as 715. I'm not buying another mountain bike until they start selling "seven-fifteens." (Notice the last two digits are the same in inches or metric. That proves it's cosmic, man.) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:40:21 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 12/21/2017 10:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass. Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost! Now now, you're ignoring the advantage of "momentum"! How old-fashioned to disparage it and talk about mere "mass." Ah, silly me. Anyway, I've thought about this a lot, and I'm sure they haven't figured out the optimum wheel+tire size yet. It's actually 28.15" also known as 715. I'm not buying another mountain bike until they start selling "seven-fifteens." If only ShelBroCo was still a going concern (for a variety of reasons). They'd get it covered. (Notice the last two digits are the same in inches or metric. That proves it's cosmic, man.) Deep. Very deep. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On 12/21/2017 9:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote: snip Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate 200 character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards? Anyways... Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no knowledge of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C mountain bikes sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were hip. And of course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years or so. Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass. Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost! Well, whether you or I have need or desire is one thing. A new 26x3.8 584 to replace a recently established 26x4 559 (a format just barely viable for widespread stock of rims/ tires/ tubes) is quite another. Seems utterly pointless to me. I view this inherently as a retailer because I am one. Splitting a marginal product line into two incompatible but functionally fungible formats might pump dealer inventories for a while but the turn doesn't make economic sense from my point of view. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 08:15:44 -0600, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/21/2017 9:05 PM, Tim McNamara wrote: On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:12:21 -0600, AMuzi wrote: snip Good grief, can't any website manager figure out how not to generate 200 character URLs? WTF ever happened to web design standards? Anyways... Zach Overholt must be a newbie or assumes his readers have no knowledge of bike history (and maybe he's right). There were 700C mountain bikes sold by Bianch 20+ years ago, long before "29ers" were hip. And of course 27.5 = 650B which has been around for 100 years or so. Nearly 1.5 kg of tire per wheel (and tubeless at that). Sacre avoirdupois, Batman! That mass is partially offset by wallet lightening at $120-225 per tire. Shoot, my Compass tires suddenly seem like a bargain. Maybe one can forego the formerly de rigeur boinger fork with big marshmallows like these; that would be a decent tradeoff and would further offset the increased mass. Now, just because I have zero use for tires like this doesn't mean no one does, I suppose. But yeek! The mass and the cost! Well, whether you or I have need or desire is one thing. A new 26x3.8 584 to replace a recently established 26x4 559 (a format just barely viable for widespread stock of rims/ tires/ tubes) is quite another. Seems utterly pointless to me. I view this inherently as a retailer because I am one. Splitting a marginal product line into two incompatible but functionally fungible formats might pump dealer inventories for a while but the turn doesn't make economic sense from my point of view. Hey, man, supply side is what counts. Demand side is unimportant. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:12:27 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
[non team player comments removed] https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/ [sarcasm removed] -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Aw, ****. The balloon tyre is resurrected again. Let's see now, it was resurrected as a pavement cruiser in the 'fifties, again at the invention of the mountain bikes in the 'sixties/'seventies when some in Jobst's crowd who weren't as hardarsed as he got tired of riding road bikes off the tarmac, again in the '90s when the leading German Baukast asked Schwalbe to design a tyre that would obviate the unreliable front strut suspension and Schwalbe came up with the Big Apple, and now these incompetent* ******s want to pretend it is all new again? Come on, pull the other one. I ride a Utopia Kranich, which was designed around the then non-existent tyre that would become the Big Apple. I've been doing it for ten years. *This, from the article Muzi referenced, proves that either the product manager is incompetent as an engineer as well as a marketer, or that the reporter misquoted him, proving his own incompetence: "Earlier this year at Saddle Drive, Salsa’s Senior Product Manager Joe Meiser said he had been able to run lower pressures on the 27.5″ fat bike tires due to their stiffer side wall and felt that it improved traction on groomed snow trails. It should also stand to reason that lower, stiffer sidewalls will result in better cornering performance on hard pack trails throughout the year." Nope. Other way round. A soft sidewall keeps more of the stiffer rolling surface in contact with the road, with advantages that surely a bicycle product manager and a bicycle "journalist" shouldn't need spelling out. Here I describe the nett gain in glee http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.0 and you'll find lots more relevant information in the rest of the thread. Andre Jute Bring back the Doo Dah Dog Band |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Standards; always room for one more!
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 9:28:55 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 1:12:27 AM UTC, AMuzi wrote: [non team player comments removed] https://www.bikerumor.com/2017/12/20...up-against-26/ [sarcasm removed] -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Aw, ****. The balloon tyre is resurrected again. Let's see now, it was resurrected as a pavement cruiser in the 'fifties, again at the invention of the mountain bikes in the 'sixties/'seventies when some in Jobst's crowd who weren't as hardarsed as he got tired of riding road bikes off the tarmac, again in the '90s when the leading German Baukast asked Schwalbe to design a tyre that would obviate the unreliable front strut suspension and Schwalbe came up with the Big Apple, and now these incompetent* ******s want to pretend it is all new again? Come on, pull the other one. I ride a Utopia Kranich, which was designed around the then non-existent tyre that would become the Big Apple. I've been doing it for ten years. *This, from the article Muzi referenced, proves that either the product manager is incompetent as an engineer as well as a marketer, or that the reporter misquoted him, proving his own incompetence: "Earlier this year at Saddle Drive, Salsa’s Senior Product Manager Joe Meiser said he had been able to run lower pressures on the 27.5″ fat bike tires due to their stiffer side wall and felt that it improved traction on groomed snow trails. It should also stand to reason that lower, stiffer sidewalls will result in better cornering performance on hard pack trails throughout the year." Nope. Other way round. A soft sidewall keeps more of the stiffer rolling surface in contact with the road, with advantages that surely a bicycle product manager and a bicycle "journalist" shouldn't need spelling out. Here I describe the nett gain in glee http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.0 and you'll find lots more relevant information in the rest of the thread. BTW, GTF off the groomed snow trails with a bike. They are groomed for a reason, and its not for un-grooming them with a bike. I'm very conflicted when it comes to bikes on walking or skiing trails. I understand that resorts or parks need to jack up revenue and that bikes are less harmful than, say, horses -- but there is still value to a quiet trail where all you hear is footfalls or pole plants, singing birds, etc. No rattling fat bikes whipping by. -- Jay Beattie. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Japanese standards | AMuzi | Techniques | 1 | November 25th 14 08:56 PM |
Double standards at work. | Simon Mason | UK | 19 | March 6th 07 09:14 PM |
Cantilever stud standards? | Kendall | Techniques | 3 | August 6th 06 08:15 PM |
h*lm*t standards where's the web site? | Bryan | UK | 5 | August 18th 05 09:52 AM |
Driving standards | Tom | UK | 20 | February 11th 04 12:36 AM |