What is the point of tubeless tires?

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 02:29:58 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:33:24 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades.
(My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff.* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.* But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too.* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.* I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.* I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.* Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years),
and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene
with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that
most
of us are glad about.* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went
back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a* cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.


Re Bicycle Magazines. It seems to me that "way back when" bike
magazines used to have articles that actually told one something. The
first time I was actually told the best way to set up a road bike,
i.e. how far back and how high to set the seat for best results, was
in a magazine.

I remember one of their recommendations was to always to wear a tee
shirt under your jersey. This allowed the jersey to slide on your tee
shirt rather than on your skin and would help to prevent road rash :-)
Now, they seem to be a series of product evaluations thinly masked as
"tests" that always seem to glorify the product being tested.


Cheers,
John B.

I would be much more likely to buy something advertised in those magazines
if at least one review per issue said "This product is crap. We can't in
good conscience advise that you buy it."

Alternatively, if "Every product is great!", then why do I need to read the
reviews in the magazine?

There used to be a magazine that tested everything under the sun. I
can't for the life of me remember the name of it but someone will.
Anyway, I used to read and believe everything that they printed until
one issue tested a .22 cal. target rifle and condemned it as it was
only a single shot. Not knowing, I guess that most .22 (rifle) target
shooters at that time only loaded one round at a time :-)


Cheers,
John B.

On 1/15/2019 8:33 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last
decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.Â* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.Â* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures",
ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.Â* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour,
and
SR stuff.Â* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.Â* But there
was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.Â* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).Â* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then
Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced
"LeTour"
tires were good too.Â* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.Â* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.Â* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.Â* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.Â* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.Â* I know we don't all agree,
but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.Â* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.Â* I've forgotten the names of
most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.Â* Despite
some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.Â* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon
frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many
years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the
scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.Â* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations
that most
of us are glad about.Â* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I
went back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay onÂ* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from
quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold aÂ* cup of
coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly
impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted
front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can
set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is
a victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big
part of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question.Â* Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Well, magazines and websites are the main places that seem to comment at
all. The other places that give an indication are the buying practices
of friends, and remarks made on groups like this one.

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales).

Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

I mentioned the racer who bought an aluminum freewheel, back in the days
of freewheels. He was convinced he could feel the difference each time
he accelerated. That difference was probably six ounces of the total of
170 pounds he was accelerating, so about 2/10 of a percent.

Daytime blinkies began being advertised a few years ago. I know a fair
handful of riders who, after riding for decades with no blinkies and no
problems, now twinkle dimly but happily as they ride down the road. They
_feel_ ever so much safer.

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/15/2019 4:57 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 6:18:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/13/2019 6:36 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

What else are you carrying to make your "flat kit" weigh 2 pounds.

That's what I'm wondering.


--
- Frank Krygowski

OK, I just went down again. I measured the weight of the kit I'm carrying on my Basso. If has one spare tube a very small quick patch kit, the levers and a tool in the bag and a CO2 and filler. None of the fillers I've used are reliable but for the Reliaflate but I have one of the small CO2 heads anyway.

This kit was 1.1 lbs.

I went over and took the kit off of the Colnago. It weighed 1.2 lbs. I scratched my head and opened it up. There was only a single tube in it. With another tube it weighed 1.47 lbs. Again I scratched my head and looked again - it didn't have the ReliaFlate. Just the cartridges. I added that and it was 1.84 lbs. I looked again and the tool in it didn't have the 10 mm pedal wrench that I always carry. I exchanged the simple tool for the one that also had the 10 mm and it came in slightly over 2 lbs.

My short rides are 30 miles and 70 miles isn't unusual. I sure as hell don't know why you would leave home on a ride without the ability to fix something like a loose cable or derailleur. Or to inflate a tube with a CO2 without frost biting your palm but I am concerned about those sorts of things when I'm 40 or more miles either away from home or from a means of transportation to get home.

I've ridden flat tires for 5 miles to a Performance shop and I've walked 3 miles with my cleats on. If that is to you guy's tastes then you can have it. I intend to have 2 CO2's, the inflator, two tubes because I've had a total of five flats on one ride. A tool that will fit every allen on the bike and a quick detach bag to carry it. I even carry a small pump on the Basso for extra long rides: 100+ miles each way.

I can only imagine that you're doing what my brother does and carrying everything in your jersey pockets.

Nope, every bike except my about-town three speed has a handlebar bag
plus at least a small bag on the back. The three speed has a saddlebag.

As I said, the heaviest tool kit is on the Bike Friday. With that kit, I
can split the handlebars, remove the gooseneck stem, fenders, pedals,
front wheel, rack (if attached) etc. and fit the entire bike in a suitcase.

One solo tour on my Cannondale went from Northeast Ohio to Bloomington
IN, camping on the way. On the way, one cantilever brake arm began
seizing up slightly. I had no trouble pulling the arm, re-lubricating,
readjusting, etc. That same trip suffered a mysterious blowout on the
next-to-last day. I was climbing a very short, steep residential street
paved with bricks and my rear tire blew. Of course I had a tube and tire
levers, etc. and fixed it.

If a bike is maintained well enough, there are a limited number of
things that are likely to go wrong. I'm not equipped for serious bottom
bracket work, but it's not likely to be necessary. I can handle almost
anything else with less than 1 1/4 pounds of tools including the inner tube.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:29:59 -0800, Mark J. wrote:

On 1/14/2019 4:52 PM, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:51:00 -0800, Mark J. wrote:


Also, I've found that velcro straps work better for all but heavy-duty
stowage:
https://kgear.eogear.com/collections...oducts/eogear-
medium-
d-ring-strap

What life do you get out of them?
I find velcro is a good fluff, hair, seeds, etc collector and eventuall
fails.

Truth be told, I don't use 'em that often, so the velcro stays "closed"
and has little opportunity to collect crap (dog hair in my house). But
my sense is that these (and similar straps w/o D-ring from the same
sourse) haven't picked up too much lint in the 3-5 years I've had them.

Thing is, they're so light and roll up so small, you forget they're
there until you need 'em. Contrast (IMHO) toestraps that take up a fair
amount of room in a seat bag

I've scored a few freebies over the years, but they don't stick around.
I've found them okay for light loads, but for heavy loads I roll my own
straps from pannier webbig and "Karrimor buckles.

The worst use was as sandal strap where after a while they'd just release
and you have a floppy sandal.


Mark J.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:33:24 -0800, Mark J. wrote:

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

It depends on who is paying for it. If it depends on memeberas/subscribers
(rarely) then you'd expect some truth, but if it largely depends on
revenue from advertisers, then no matter what the field, they'll always
say a product is great.

These days, the artiles are often pre-written to say the publisher time
and money.

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Suckers no. I'm always happy to give my 2c on something and explain why I
think so, but adding YMMMV gets them to think about stuff a bit better.

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.

On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:02:29 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I found a picture of a Cannondale, what looked like a road bike frame,
with the same kind of rear drop outs. With picture it is kind of hard to
see details but it looks almost like they made the drop outs by mashing
the tube flat and then cutting the axle slot. Not an inspiring way to
make a quality bike :-)

No, but for a free around town bike i'll take it. BTDT, but it was some
yumcha twainese I think.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 8:33 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last
decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:50:16 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:07:28 PM UTC-5, David Scheidt wrote:
Joy Beeson wrote:

ne plates with an alloy -- brass melts too high to "hot dip" as one
:does with zinc -- and it just now occurs to me to wonder how one goes
:about brass plating something as cheap as a safety pin.

Electroplating. You put the parts into a bath containing stuff
(cyanaide compounds historically, often less toxic stuff these days),
use a brass anode, and apply a current. Details vary, but that's used
for all sorts of thin coatings.

I'd think electroplating would have problems at the sharp end of the
pin. No? Just guessing. I never had much to do with electoplating except
for working where they nickel plated some flat stuff.

I suspect it is done to the wire by running it through a plating bath
before individual segments of wire are parted off and bent to shape.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 11:09:22 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 7:30:14 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2019 8:33 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last
decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.Â* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.Â* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures",
ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.Â* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour,
and
SR stuff.Â* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.Â* But there
was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.Â* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).Â* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then
Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced
"LeTour"
tires were good too.Â* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.Â* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.Â* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.Â* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.Â* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.Â* I know we don't all agree,
but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.Â* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.Â* I've forgotten the names of
most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.Â* Despite
some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.Â* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon
frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many
years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the
scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.Â* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations
that most
of us are glad about.Â* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I
went back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay onÂ* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from
quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold aÂ* cup of
coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly
impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted
front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can
set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is
a victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big
part of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question.Â* Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Well, magazines and websites are the main places that seem to comment at
all. The other places that give an indication are the buying practices
of friends, and remarks made on groups like this one.

I have friends who bought Specialized bikes with Zertz inserts. They
were convinced by the ads but disappointed by the results. But
Specialized and the dealer were happy with the results (that is, sales)..

Really? I got a Roubaix and never saw ads about Zerts. The salespeople were dismissive. I bought the bike because it: (1) had tire clearance and mounts for fenders, (2) it had discs,(3) it was reasonably light and stiff, and (4) it was on sale. I was looking for a winter fast bike to replace the CAAD 9 I had given to my son. And speaking of my son, he now owns the Roubaix -- after it was stolen and returned. I sold it to him for the amount of my insurance deductible. I couldn't imagine buying the bike because it had Zerts.

BTW, certain choices by Specialized were total turn-offs, like the Praxis Works crank with the BB30/M30 conversion BB. I pressed in BB30 bearings, Wheels Mfg adapters and put in a Shimano Ultegra. The bike was otherwise all Ultegra. I wouldn't buy either the current Roubaix or the current Domane because I don't want active suspension.


Another friend has said she intends to buy just one more bike some day,
a bike with disc brakes. She rarely rides in the rain and never off
road. She's never had a problem with caliper brakes. She just thinks she
ought to have discs on one bike. What do you suppose convinced her?

Probably a salesman? What does she say?



I mentioned the racer who bought an aluminum freewheel, back in the days
of freewheels. He was convinced he could feel the difference each time
he accelerated. That difference was probably six ounces of the total of
170 pounds he was accelerating, so about 2/10 of a percent.

Daytime blinkies began being advertised a few years ago. I know a fair
handful of riders who, after riding for decades with no blinkies and no
problems, now twinkle dimly but happily as they ride down the road. They
_feel_ ever so much safer.

Of course, I can't count the number of folks I know who would never ride
without their day-glo clothing (the data on that stuff's benefit is
pretty close to zero), their magic plastic hat (very questionable
benefit and almost no demonstrated need), their aerodynamic sunglasses
and more. I don't really discuss these things with them. If they bring
them up, I generally try to be diplomatic.

Well, we can agree to disagree. My magic plastic hat has given me good value. In fact, it prevent a nice scalp injury when I ran into a low hanging tree branch last week. Wow, this is so SMS! I was riding up one my steep goat roads at night when a car came down the road, and to avoid disaster, I squeezed to the right and whacked a branch I did not see because of no upward spew -- and actually, because I was blinded by the car headlights. I almost got knocked off my bike. It was so dopey. I think it was this tree on the right: https://tinyurl.com/ybbc56yj

OTOH, I have a friend who alternately shows up for rides on either a
1980s steel frame, or a modern touring bike with 35mm tires, hammered
aluminum fenders, a canvas handlebar bag the size and shape of a
breadbox, and an artisanal brass bell that probably cost $20. I think
that bike's pretty cool. Even though it's got disc brakes.

Disc brakes are great, particularly with fat tire bikes because you can use really fat tires and fenders with no brake interference. You can also use STI and get much better braking than with cantilevers. You certainly don't need them on your uber-light race bike (and I don't), but they're great for loaded touring, fat tires, wet weather, etc., etc. With that said, there are plenty of non-disc options in fat tire bikes out there.


I don't mind any of these people buying what they want. I do mind the
industry that tells them what they _have_ to have.

It doesn't. You can buy whatever you want. There is more stuff on the market now than (almost) ever. I'm hedging because products do come and go, and after the recent post about the White Industries redux of the Lyotard pedals, I noted that Universal quit selling them. Oh well -- one less pedal at Universal. They probably added ten others that don't interest me.

-- Jay Beattie.

Gee wiz Jay, that road looks more like a sidewalk than a road for motor vehicles.

Bicycling magazine got so pushy with saying you MUST have this and/or that that I stopped buying that magazine and others like it many years ago. I do have some issues dating from the 1980's when they had nice articles on touring. I do remember the article but not the date though when Bicycling magazine emphatically stated that no one needed 15 gears on a bicycle.

I've also been in bicycle shops where the sales people tried to sell me what they wanted rather than what I needed/wanted for my style of riding.

I vividly remember one shop I rode to on my single speed (Columbus SL frameset) I'd built, in order to buy a seat binder bolt for another frame. The two mechanics there said that seat binder bolts were no longer made! They also stated they didn't like single speeds because single speed riders didn't buy other parts or accessories. Imagine what could have happened had I not been knowledgeable about bikes or knew that indeed seat binder bolts are available still. Oh, that shop now stocks single speed chains and freewheels.. Maybe the sales person at the shop Frank mentioned his lady friend went to saw an easy sale to someone who also didn't know much about bicycles?

Cheers

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 7:48:44 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades. (My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up. There are also some great improvements, and some wonders. While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work. I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes. Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff. The latter was vastly easier to set up well. But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category. I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!). In the earlier 70s, I doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are. Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too. Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight. Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC, pretty
crappy. One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me. When I had toestraps tightened enough to work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter. With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages. I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on. Sampson comes to mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal. I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea. Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on. Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years), and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything. But if we could tell which inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that most
of us are glad about. A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

Why is marketing a bad thing? Every company in the West has a marketing department. That is how it works. Every product you have in your house has been marketed and advertised at some moment. The people I refer to as dinosaurs question always the choice of people for bicycle parts in this case they consider as
'not detectable improvements', 'insignificant', 'less reliable' 'too expensive', 'not needed' and they are victim of marketing and that is what bothers me from time to time. Most of the times the net outcome of all the efforts of the marketing departments is that people have more choice and that is a good thing in my opinion. If the marketing department make a bad decision the product will disappear in the end. In this discussion there are people that really benefit from tubeless tires.


I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

I like people with no tattoos and piercings and I also respect people with tattoos and/or people.

Lou