A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

randonneur



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old May 29th 18, 03:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default randonneur

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/28/2018 4:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
One nice feature of newer panniers is positive lock:
https://lonepeakpacks.com/index.php/...ier-hooks.html

so they won't bounce off at a pothole. Many similar designs.


I had occasional trouble with panniers coming unhooked. While I don't
yet own any with positive locks, the concept is appealing.


Lone peak retailers will sell you the hooks alone. I have a set laying
around somewhere that I bought to fit a second bicycle & rack (they have
two sizes). Most of my experience has been schlepping one back and
forth to work, in which service they have worked very well.
Ads
  #93  
Old May 30th 18, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,041
Default randonneur

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 5:37:18 PM UTC-5, James wrote:
On 29/05/18 06:30, wrote:
On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:45:04 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

And the trailer weighs about 15 pounds all by itself empty. Far
more than the weight of racks on a touring bike. And the plastic
bag on the Bob weighs more than the four panniers too.

Wow. You must have very light pannier bags. The ones I used when I
was a lad were fairly heavy, made from canvas with hard boards and
metal hooks, etc. Far heavier than the bag I have for my trailer.


Its been 50 years since panniers were made from canvas. And 40 years
since hardboard was used as a stiffener. My panniers from 1992, 26
years ago, are made out of polyester/polypropylene material with
plastic stiffeners. Still use metal hooks and elastic cords to hold
the panniers to the racks. New panniers use plastic cloth for the
bag and plastic sheets inside for stiffeners. And new fancy
complicated attachment methods.


Yet 4 bags with hooks and plastic stiffeners and such, weigh less than a
single bag with a strap that's probably made from similar stuff? I
still find that hard to believe.

My trailer with bag is not a genuine Bob Yak. Perhaps genuine Bob bags
are extra heavy duty?

--
JS


The Bob bag is all plastic. Heavy duty thick plastic. Its heavy. It weighs more than four lightweight polyester panniers with their included internal plastic stiffener and hooks.

https://www.amazon.com/BOB-Dry-Sak-W.../dp/B000RHBNIO
Amazon says it weighs 2.9 pounds.
  #94  
Old May 30th 18, 06:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default randonneur

On Sun, 27 May 2018 09:48:48 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:
Tim McNamara writes:

Great only too expensive, especially compared to the Fuji and in
particular the amount of money in my wallet. Why do they do
randonneurs with 32 tires anyway?!


Comfort, for one thing. The standard brevet lengths are 200, 300,
400, 600, 1000 and 1200 km. All with time limits, checkpoints, etc.
The extra comfort afforded by the larger tires becomes very helpful
after 8, 10, 50 hours in the saddle.


Ha ha Definitely. But why not 40 or 47 tires then? They are not
that much slower/heavier or less aero than 32 and even more
comfortable. Especially with a loaded bike I think 32 is too thin. But
if that's the way it is I'm not letting it stop me from going, of
course.


Many people have toured all over the world on 700 x 23 or close tires.
Suboptimal to my thinking, but then it depends on the load you are
carrying. Igor Kovse, probably the chief evangalist of ultralight
touring, rides a bike that fully loaded weighs less than many people's
unloaded bikes. He's taken that setup through the Himalayas, etc. But
if you have 50 lbs of gear, using 23 mm tires is just making like hard
for yourself.

Tire width is a center of discussion in the randonneuring world. 700 x
~30 versus 650B x ~40-45 versus 559 x 50+. Of course, that world is a
tiny handful of riders, relatively speaking. The current trend is
towards thinking wider cushier tires are a net performance benefit. Of
course, in that crowd "wider" is often considered to be 40+ mm, not 25
mm as in the bike racing crowd.

There is a tradeoff with weight. A 44 mm wide tire in 700C weighs more
than in 650B or in 559 BSDs. So the bigger hoops tend to be shod with a
bit narrower tire and teh smaller hoops tend to have wider tires. It's
fairly easy to end up with very similar overall diameter wheels with the
smaller tires on the bigger rims and the bigger tires on the smaller
rims. The wheels' relative interia ends up being pretty similar.

650B x 40+ was the standard for brevet riders until the early to mid 50s
when the fastest riders were riding PBP on what were basically racing
wheels. Improved pavement and improved tires were a big part of that-
until the post-war reconstruction of Europe, it would not have been a
surprise to find 1/2 or more of a brevet on dirt roads or gravel.
Post-war Europe upgraded a lot of rural infrastructure much like the
Eisenhower interstate system, to make sure that troops and materiel were
readily transported in defense of the nation.

Narrower tires were believed to be faster, a common notion today, and
smoother pavement allowed the use of those tires and a perceived
benefit. A few decades ago, Jobst Brandt and the Avocet folks published
data suggesting that narrower = faster wasn't necessarily so. More
recently, Jan Heine has gone after that notion with a vengeance in his
publication and his product line (Compass Cycles) which makes high
quality high performance wide bike tires aimed primarily at the brevet
type or adventursome rider.
  #95  
Old May 30th 18, 07:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default randonneur

On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:06:49 -0700, Mark J.
wrote:

* Notes: I use "touring bike" to mean a bike intended for multi-day
trips carrying camping gear. I use "randonneur" or "rando bike" to
mean a bike intended for brevets - 200 to 1200 km mostly
self-supported rides carrying the bare minimum for survival and ride
completion.


Even there the standards are widely variable. My buddy Doug did a 600
km brevet on a racing bike with 23 mm tires, a patch kit and tire lever
and about $20 in cash. He was perfectly happy with that. I am not such
a minimalist. I'd have had a handlebar bag with two spare tubes, patch
kit, a compact tool kit (fits in an Altoids can but is surprisingly
complete), maybe a rain jacket, some food, money and ID, cell phone...
and my bike has fenders, generator lighting, wideish tires, etc.
  #96  
Old May 30th 18, 07:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default randonneur

On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:49:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Back when the Earth was young, The Ancients discovered that 32h
front/40h rear is as close to perfect as one might imagine. Adds some
niggling cost and therefore abandoned.


As a tall, heavy guy I thnk that'd be about right. I have problems with
any rear wheel with less than 36 spokes if it has 7 or more cogs (7 x
135 mm wide is not a problem, very low dish wheel, but 7 or more with a
130 mm OLN is just bad design IMHO even though it is the standard. With
11 speeds, the OLN should be 140 or 145 mm unless the rider is under 120
lbs).
  #97  
Old May 30th 18, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default randonneur

On 5/30/2018 1:02 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:06:49 -0700, Mark J.
wrote:

* Notes: I use "touring bike" to mean a bike intended for multi-day
trips carrying camping gear. I use "randonneur" or "rando bike" to
mean a bike intended for brevets - 200 to 1200 km mostly
self-supported rides carrying the bare minimum for survival and ride
completion.


Even there the standards are widely variable. My buddy Doug did a 600
km brevet on a racing bike with 23 mm tires, a patch kit and tire lever
and about $20 in cash. He was perfectly happy with that. I am not such
a minimalist. I'd have had a handlebar bag with two spare tubes, patch
kit, a compact tool kit (fits in an Altoids can but is surprisingly
complete), maybe a rain jacket, some food, money and ID, cell phone...
and my bike has fenders, generator lighting, wideish tires, etc.


No provision for mountain lions? A rusty nail with matching
rock for chain repairs? Gallon of fresh brewed beer? You're
quite Spartan!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #98  
Old May 30th 18, 10:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default randonneur

On 5/25/2018 1:24 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
jbeattie writes:

Touring bikes are common as fleas. Even the Trek 520
fits the bill.
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...olorCode=black
Up to 44C without mudguards. You would have to add
CX levers and a dyno light.


Great only too expensive, especially compared to the
Fuji and in particular the amount of money in
my wallet.

Why do they do randonneurs with 32 tires anyway?!


Doesn't make sense. Of course if using the randonneur as a daily commute
bicycle it might make sense to put on tires that narrow. Otherwise, 700
x 35 would be the minimum.
  #99  
Old May 31st 18, 01:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default randonneur

sms wrote:

Why do they do randonneurs with 32 tires
anyway?!


Doesn't make sense. Of course if using the
randonneur as a daily commute bicycle it
might make sense to put on tires that narrow.
Otherwise, 700 x 35 would be the minimum.


32 is too small IMO. If they put them on as the
default choice on a bike marketed as
a randonneur one would expect them not to
do that.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #100  
Old May 31st 18, 01:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default randonneur

Tim McNamara wrote:

Very interesting post!

Tire width is a center of discussion in the
randonneuring world. 700 x ~30 versus 650B
x ~40-45 versus 559 x 50+.


Let's see,
700 (here) is 700C or 622;
650B is 584;
and, 559 is 559, right?

If so, I think I'm in the 650Bx40 camp tho
I don't mind 28" wheels (if 650B is 27.5").

Why not 622-40?

650B x 40+ was the standard for brevet riders
until the early to mid 50s when the fastest
riders were riding PBP on what were basically
racing wheels.


OK, so PBP is Paris-Brest-Paris but what is
a "brevet rider"?

A randonneur/randonneur rider?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New randonneur handlebar bcdrums Techniques 7 June 17th 10 11:02 AM
Vivente World randonneur burnt Australia 6 April 17th 07 08:39 AM
mongoose randonneur [email protected] Australia 1 March 8th 07 12:07 PM
Mongoose Randonneur LE Pro noom Australia 1 March 7th 07 11:43 AM
Raleigh Randonneur headset Paul Boyd UK 9 February 10th 06 07:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.