HOW DO YOU AFFORD THIS SPORT???

Beverly wrote:
I know no one here would laugh at beginners learning to climb hills.
I do have to admit that some of my successful climbs have not been a
pretty sightg I was huffing, puffing and pulling on the handle
bars trying to make those last few feet.

Beverly

I figure as long as I'm on the bike, it's a success! There have been some
hills I've had to get off and walk.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 05:45:19 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:


Mike,

We will have to agree to disagree on a lot of the preference issues
;-)


Ride quality is a subjective thing, but my 17 year old Trek can take
700x28c tires which I cannot get on my 6 year old Trek or 3 year old
LeMond, and the fatter tires really do make the ride much better.
Shifting is a preference thing.

That, however, is not an "older bikes do this, newer ones don't" sort of
thing. The Klein Reve was built with fender clearance and can take at least
a 28c tire, possibly even wider.

Well, the Reve is new ... brand new. Name one other road bike in the
Trek family that can take a tire over 25c? The 520 does not count.

I have a couple of problems with the Reve. For those of us a few
inches shorter than you the bike has serious toe overlap issues, worse
with bigger tires, and it would be toe overlap hell with fenders.
Need to add some rake to the fork or get a slacker HT angle. My other
issue is the HT is too low; someone on ba.bicycles is asking about
this; if I bought one you guys would have to leave me 6-8 cm of
steerer above the headset to get the bars up to where I want them.
And finally, I despise the integrate types of headsets; they are
unproven and some good engineering analyses find some potential
problems. Do not want to sink a lot of $$$ into a bike that might get
completely toasted if there is a HS issue. My opinion is that
manufacturers using these designs hate their customers.

I just converted the DT shifters on
my old Trek to bar-ends and flipped them into index mode. DT shifters
can be a pain at times, but nothing wrong with bar ends in my book.

Definitely a preference issue. I don't enjoy spending much time on the
drops, but find I can spend hour upon hour upon hour on the hoods with no
issue at all. Bar-ends & I just don't get along. Judging from my customers,
my experiences are not rare (we convert quite a few Trek 520s over to STI
shifters).

And I know a couple of folks who bought Y-Foils from you and replace
STI with bar-ends ... on the bars, not on aerobars.

There are some really bad old brakes, and some really
bad new brakes. And I am talking calipers and levers. If you have
bad calipers and levers then it is a question of how much to spend to
make them good. The old brakes I have are nowhere near as bad as
poorly adjusted Campy Deltas! Actually, the brakes on my old bike
are pretty good single-pivot brakes, made better with some good, new
pads. And being single pivots there is more room for a fender!

I have yet to find a single-pivot brake that offers anywhere near the ease
of stopping that I find with dual-pivots, and long-reach dual-pivot brakes
*do* work with fenders. But Campy Deltas...YUCK! Those had to be the worst,
and if those are used as a basis for comparison, even an old Weinmann 500
(which is what I used to race with) is a great brake.

My old singles are every bit as good as my late 90's and early 2000's
double pivots. The issue of standard reach (Shimano's term, you call
them long reach) is that they only help if the frame is made with
sufficient clearance at the brake bridge and fork crown so you can get
the pads down low in the slots. Otherwise, clearance with them is
just as bad as for normal double pivots.

The problems come up when people expect that a 20+ year-old bike will be
easily (and inexpensively) repaired forever, when legacy issues are quite
common. And even when it's not a problem getting parts, there's the issue
of
how much money it makes sense to throw at an older bike.

Unless it is something strange like an old French bike there are a
multitude of replacement options around. May not be terribly
inexpensive, but it might be. I cringe at the thought of someone
tossing a good, solid frame into the trash just because it needs new
brakes or a new crank.

Or a bike with French parts, such as Helicomatic hubs (good idea that may
have been ahead of its time). Or an early indexed drivetrain; the old
6-speed indexed systems aren't upward-compatible without changing rear
wheel, cassette/freewheel and shift levers.

But of course those dwarf the issues found on a "true" French frame, with
its smaller-diameter head tube & steer column. The 28.0mm (instead of
28.6mm) seat tube is a pain, but can be shimmed pretty easily (non-critical
item so a beer-can shim is acceptable).

But mostly it's a combination of things. By the time I see most older bikes,
it's amazing that they were able to be ridden at all given how many things
were failing, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes consecutively. Where do
you start?

If you love the frame, you strip it down and build it back up. That
is what I do :-)

- rick

Mike,

We will have to agree to disagree on a lot of the preference issues
;-)

No problem here! :)


Ride quality is a subjective thing, but my 17 year old Trek can take
700x28c tires which I cannot get on my 6 year old Trek or 3 year old
LeMond, and the fatter tires really do make the ride much better.
Shifting is a preference thing.

That, however, is not an "older bikes do this, newer ones don't" sort of
thing. The Klein Reve was built with fender clearance and can take at
least
a 28c tire, possibly even wider.

Well, the Reve is new ... brand new. Name one other road bike in the
Trek family that can take a tire over 25c? The 520 does not count.

OK, how about the X01? They call it a "cross" bike but we consider it more
of a "utility" bike, basically a moderate-wheelbase touring rig that will
handle up to a 32c tire at least, with lots of fender clearance etc.

I have a couple of problems with the Reve. For those of us a few
inches shorter than you the bike has serious toe overlap issues, worse
with bigger tires, and it would be toe overlap hell with fenders.
Need to add some rake to the fork or get a slacker HT angle.

Hopefully I didn't mislead anyone into thinking the Reve is a touring bike;
it's not. It's a very comfortable high-performance machine with a bit
longer wheelbase for extra stability. If you're running full fenders up
front, front wheel/foot overlap could be an issue for smaller size frames
with large feet. Slacking the head tube would create a different ride than
they're looking for.

My other issue is the HT is too low; someone on ba.bicycles is asking
about
this; if I bought one you guys would have to leave me 6-8 cm of
steerer above the headset to get the bars up to where I want them.

I found that comment interesting, since the Reve has a higher headtube than
most (not just a sloping top tube for more clearance). I just took some
measurements on the floor; a 55cm Klein, after correcting for different
bottom bracket heights (the Klein at 10 3/4 is 1/4" higher than a Trek
OCLV), is still 1/2" higher than a 56cm OCLV. And the OCLV isn't known for
being particularly low.

And finally, I despise the integrate types of headsets; they are
unproven and some good engineering analyses find some potential
problems. Do not want to sink a lot of $$$ into a bike that might get
completely toasted if there is a HS issue. My opinion is that
manufacturers using these designs hate their customers.

Not proven to be the case in that dreadful place called the "real world."
You know our shop, you know we sell a whole lot of road bikes. Quite a few
of them have integrated headsets, and, to date, we have replaced zero. Yes,
that's right, zero. Don't ask me why; I don't know. You'd think we would
have seen some issues by now, but we haven't. Could be that the integrated
headsets used by Klein and Trek are of considerably higher quality than what
would normally be spec'd as a standard version. As far as a frameset
becoming "toast" due to a headset issue, that's simply not something I worry
about on one of the Trek, Kleins or LeMonds I sell. If something came up,
past history has shown they'd take care of it as a warranty issue.

Having said that, I would *not* ever want to see an integrated headset on a
steel frame. It's my opinion that they work best on something where the
metal is fairly thick; with steel, there's just not enough there to make me
feel comfortable.

I just converted the DT shifters on
my old Trek to bar-ends and flipped them into index mode. DT shifters
can be a pain at times, but nothing wrong with bar ends in my book.

Definitely a preference issue. I don't enjoy spending much time on the
drops, but find I can spend hour upon hour upon hour on the hoods with no
issue at all. Bar-ends & I just don't get along. Judging from my
customers,
my experiences are not rare (we convert quite a few Trek 520s over to STI
shifters).

And I know a couple of folks who bought Y-Foils from you and replace
STI with bar-ends ... on the bars, not on aerobars.

What???!!! I can't allow that! Just kidding... again, personal preference.
As I mentioned, I rarely ride in the drops, while my sales manager rarely
rides on the hoods.

There are some really bad old brakes, and some really
bad new brakes. And I am talking calipers and levers. If you have
bad calipers and levers then it is a question of how much to spend to
make them good. The old brakes I have are nowhere near as bad as
poorly adjusted Campy Deltas! Actually, the brakes on my old bike
are pretty good single-pivot brakes, made better with some good, new
pads. And being single pivots there is more room for a fender!

I have yet to find a single-pivot brake that offers anywhere near the ease
of stopping that I find with dual-pivots, and long-reach dual-pivot brakes
*do* work with fenders. But Campy Deltas...YUCK! Those had to be the
worst,
and if those are used as a basis for comparison, even an old Weinmann 500
(which is what I used to race with) is a great brake.

My old singles are every bit as good as my late 90's and early 2000's
double pivots. The issue of standard reach (Shimano's term, you call
them long reach) is that they only help if the frame is made with
sufficient clearance at the brake bridge and fork crown so you can get
the pads down low in the slots. Otherwise, clearance with them is
just as bad as for normal double pivots.

Your experience with single-pivot vs dual-pivot most definitely doesn't
mirror my own. I have no problem with a single-pivot brake in the rear, but
for the front, well, this is one area we'll just have to disagree on. On
fender issues with long-reach (standard if you will) brakes, the Klein frame
is built with the pads set almost to the bottom. The Reve was really a
pretty well-thought-out machine (and I can say this from a fair amount of
direct involvement with the process, so, if there are things you really
don't like, well, you know one person who can put some of the blame on!).

The problems come up when people expect that a 20+ year-old bike will
be
easily (and inexpensively) repaired forever, when legacy issues are
quite
common. And even when it's not a problem getting parts, there's the
issue
of
how much money it makes sense to throw at an older bike.

Unless it is something strange like an old French bike there are a
multitude of replacement options around. May not be terribly
inexpensive, but it might be. I cringe at the thought of someone
tossing a good, solid frame into the trash just because it needs new
brakes or a new crank.

Or a bike with French parts, such as Helicomatic hubs (good idea that may
have been ahead of its time). Or an early indexed drivetrain; the old
6-speed indexed systems aren't upward-compatible without changing rear
wheel, cassette/freewheel and shift levers.

But of course those dwarf the issues found on a "true" French frame, with
its smaller-diameter head tube & steer column. The 28.0mm (instead of
28.6mm) seat tube is a pain, but can be shimmed pretty easily
(non-critical
item so a beer-can shim is acceptable).

But mostly it's a combination of things. By the time I see most older
bikes,
it's amazing that they were able to be ridden at all given how many things
were failing, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes consecutively. Where do
you start?

If you love the frame, you strip it down and build it back up. That
is what I do :-)

And that's why I rebuilt my old Cinelli. The places that bike took me and
the memories of my racing days are such that I couldn't ever part with it.
It's not that I love the ride (I don't), but there's more to the value of an
item than just the way it functions.

- rick

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:14:23 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" wrote:



OK, how about the X01? They call it a "cross" bike but we consider it more
of a "utility" bike, basically a moderate-wheelbase touring rig that will
handle up to a 32c tire at least, with lots of fender clearance etc.

Pushing the envelope of road bike definitition, but OK.

I have a couple of problems with the Reve. For those of us a few
inches shorter than you the bike has serious toe overlap issues, worse
with bigger tires, and it would be toe overlap hell with fenders.
Need to add some rake to the fork or get a slacker HT angle.

Hopefully I didn't mislead anyone into thinking the Reve is a touring bike;
it's not.

You did not. Regardless, toe lap is an issue for those of us who are
shorter, and the Reve has a toe lap problem in the less than giant
sizes.

It's a very comfortable high-performance machine with a bit
longer wheelbase for extra stability. If you're running full fenders up
front, front wheel/foot overlap could be an issue for smaller size frames
with large feet. Slacking the head tube would create a different ride than
they're looking for.

It is a toe lap issue for me, without fenders, and I have medium sized
feet (42 European). Slacking the head tube will create a different
ride, for sure, but so does banging your toes against the front wheel.
The real fix is smaller wheels, but .....

My other issue is the HT is too low; someone on ba.bicycles is asking
about
this; if I bought one you guys would have to leave me 6-8 cm of
steerer above the headset to get the bars up to where I want them.

I found that comment interesting, since the Reve has a higher headtube than
most (not just a sloping top tube for more clearance). I just took some
measurements on the floor; a 55cm Klein, after correcting for different
bottom bracket heights (the Klein at 10 3/4 is 1/4" higher than a Trek
OCLV), is still 1/2" higher than a 56cm OCLV. And the OCLV isn't known for
being particularly low.

Low is relative. Being few years your senior with a former back
problem that has apparently fused and led to less flexibility, I want
the bars up there, near even with the saddle. I would still need 6-8
cm of steerer above the H/S to get that high.

And finally, I despise the integrate types of headsets; they are
unproven and some good engineering analyses find some potential
problems. Do not want to sink a lot of $$$ into a bike that might get
completely toasted if there is a HS issue. My opinion is that
manufacturers using these designs hate their customers.

Not proven to be the case in that dreadful place called the "real world."
You know our shop, you know we sell a whole lot of road bikes. Quite a few
of them have integrated headsets, and, to date, we have replaced zero. Yes,
that's right, zero. Don't ask me why; I don't know.

Early in the product cycle. The analyses is that they will be more
prone to ovalization; bet you do not see many new, pressed in H/S
returned in the first 2-3 years after sell due to being ovalized
either. The real problem is that ovalization can destroy the HT,
which is rather a fatal flaw.

You'd think we would
have seen some issues by now, but we haven't. Could be that the integrated
headsets used by Klein and Trek are of considerably higher quality than what
would normally be spec'd as a standard version. As far as a frameset
becoming "toast" due to a headset issue, that's simply not something I worry
about on one of the Trek, Kleins or LeMonds I sell. If something came up,
past history has shown they'd take care of it as a warranty issue.

I have to laud Trek on their warranty, but it does have issues. One
major one is that they are slow, sometimes horribly slow. I have had
several warranty issues on Trek/Trek labelled bikes, and warranty
repair/replacement has taken from 4+ to just over 12 weeks.
Unacceptable if you depend on your bike. Nice to have the coverage,
but better if they were more responsive. You personally handled the
issue that took the shortest time period, just over 4 weeks, and it
was your pressing that got them to air express back the bike; should
have let them wait for a couple more weeks since they apparently
hurried the paint job which is the singularly worst paint job I have
seen on a bike, but that is an aside, sort of.

The other problem with the warranty is that it is an equivalent
replacement, and they determine equivalence. Y Foils are being
replaced with 5X00 frames now. Not sure how to handle the Y Foil, but
a 5X00 is not a direct equivalent.


Your experience with single-pivot vs dual-pivot most definitely doesn't
mirror my own. I have no problem with a single-pivot brake in the rear, but
for the front, well, this is one area we'll just have to disagree on.

Just as a data point, I had to do a quick stop on Page Mill the other
day due to the plates across the road. Front single pivot brake, no
problem.

- rick

Rick: Rather than continue this in a manner that takes up page after page
after page, I'll reply to some excerpts. If I've removed anything relevant,
no problem taking me to task on it. --Mike--

OK, how about the X01? They call it a "cross" bike but we consider it more
of a "utility" bike, basically a moderate-wheelbase touring rig that will
handle up to a 32c tire at least, with lots of fender clearance etc.

Pushing the envelope of road bike definitition, but OK.

#1: What constitutes a "road" bike? If a "touring" bike is a subset of the
road bike category, why isn't a CycloCross bike that has standard tires? In
most cases, a CycloCross bike features geometry that's pretty much dead
between a sport/racing and touring bike.

Low is relative. Being few years your senior with a former back
problem that has apparently fused and led to less flexibility, I want
the bars up there, near even with the saddle. I would still need 6-8
cm of steerer above the H/S to get that high.

#2: To figure out if a bike is going to have a tall enough handlebar height
for a given person, we need to know the following-

Height (helpful to *approximate* frame size, especially when you also have
saddle height)
Saddle height (bottom bracket to top of saddle)
Distance from ground to top of saddle
Distance from ground to top of handlebar

Given that info, I can mock something up on a bike and see if a given design
is going to work for somebody. That's a lot better than saying something is
(or isn't) going to be tall enough based on appearances.

For toe clip overlap, the obvious comparison is between the bottom-bracket
to front quick release measurement.

Early in the product cycle. The analyses is that they will be more
prone to ovalization; bet you do not see many new, pressed in H/S
returned in the first 2-3 years after sell due to being ovalized
either. The real problem is that ovalization can destroy the HT,
which is rather a fatal flaw.

Regarding my lack of seeing ovalized head tubes, I don't think the fact that
they've "only" been out for 3 years is a problem, given the huge sample
size. I'm also curious why someone would think headtube ovalization is a
function of the integrated design; we've seen many ovalized headtubes with
standard headsets. Does that mean a standard headset has a fatal flaw?

I have to laud Trek on their warranty, but it does have issues. One
major one is that they are slow, sometimes horribly slow. I have had
several warranty issues on Trek/Trek labelled bikes, and warranty
repair/replacement has taken from 4+ to just over 12 weeks.
Unacceptable if you depend on your bike. Nice to have the coverage,
but better if they were more responsive. You personally handled the
issue that took the shortest time period, just over 4 weeks, and it
was your pressing that got them to air express back the bike; should
have let them wait for a couple more weeks since they apparently
hurried the paint job which is the singularly worst paint job I have
seen on a bike, but that is an aside, sort of.

Warranty repair times... that's a tough one. I wish I could claim that all
excessive warranty times are the fault of the manufacturer, but that
sometimes comes back to the shop. For example, a couple weeks ago we were in
the warehouse and noticed hey, great, Mr. Xs frame is back, sooner than
expected! Ah, no. Mr. Xs frame had never gone out. At pretty substantial
expense we had to send it to Trek 2nd-day-air, and let the customer know
we'd screwed up. We're normally on top of such things, but this one somehow
got away from us (somebody had put some other stuff on top of the box, so
nobody ever saw the UPS ship info on it). Bad paint job? A problem
sometimes. I've seen great and I've seen poor. No excuse for something less
than darned good, in my book (and we've told them so).

The other problem with the warranty is that it is an equivalent
replacement, and they determine equivalence. Y Foils are being
replaced with 5X00 frames now. Not sure how to handle the Y Foil, but
a 5X00 is not a direct equivalent.

I feel your pain, but there isn't much that can be done about replacing
something that's well beyond it's production cycle. We've replaced two Y
Foils that I know of, and the owners were pretty happy with 5500s. But
you're right, it's not the same style of bike. No easy solution aside from
shorter product warranties, and that's a place we don't want to see them go.

Just as a data point, I had to do a quick stop on Page Mill the other
day due to the plates across the road. Front single pivot brake, no
problem.

And I'm sure I made plenty of quick stops when I was racing on my Weinmann
500s. Perhaps I should add the additional data point of my right hand being
arthritic in cold weather? :)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

I got a part time job at a local bike shop, building wheels. With
that, I also earned the privilege of the "Employee Price" on everything
in the store. Even though I was considered a "contractor."

The other thing I practice is getting the most "bang for the buck", that
is, I purchase what I need, not what I want or think I want. No "stupid
light" parts, or 50 dollar tires on my bike. Cycling cloths are the
same, a close out price on a jersey or shorts works for me. As the
function does not change as the price comes down, patience...

Maggie wrote:

I just arrived home from a Bike store. How in the world do people
afford to ride bikes. The rubber suits cost a fortune. The prices on
some of the bicycles were ridiculous and I walked out of there in a
daze. I never in my life saw so much "STUFF" to ride a bike. I did
buy a new seat for my bike. It was reasonable I guess. I guess you
have to be quite well off to take up the sport of cycling. My sons
skydive and snowboard and also ride motorcycles....I don't think they
spend half as much money as it would cost to become an avid cyclist.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

Why were you pricing a "rubber suit"? Was this a SM cycling shop :-) ?

No doubt cycling can be expensive. Like most sports, you can spend a lot,
or a little. However, you don't have to buy the top-of-the-line products.
Perfectly
functional bikes and components can be had for a reasonable price. Without
settling for department store junk bikes. When I was poorer, I rode a good
bike that was a little heavier and a little less flashy than the one I have
now. Now that I can afford it, I "like" to buy the better, more expensive,
stuff just because I can afford it and I can appreciate the incremental
improvements in performance.

Sid

"TomP" wrote in message
...
I got a part time job at a local bike shop, building wheels. With
that, I also earned the privilege of the "Employee Price" on everything
in the store. Even though I was considered a "contractor."

The other thing I practice is getting the most "bang for the buck", that
is, I purchase what I need, not what I want or think I want. No "stupid
light" parts, or 50 dollar tires on my bike. Cycling cloths are the
same, a close out price on a jersey or shorts works for me. As the
function does not change as the price comes down, patience...

Maggie wrote:

I just arrived home from a Bike store. How in the world do people
afford to ride bikes. The rubber suits cost a fortune. The prices on
some of the bicycles were ridiculous and I walked out of there in a
daze. I never in my life saw so much "STUFF" to ride a bike. I did
buy a new seat for my bike. It was reasonable I guess. I guess you
have to be quite well off to take up the sport of cycling. My sons
skydive and snowboard and also ride motorcycles....I don't think they
spend half as much money as it would cost to become an avid cyclist.

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:05:27 GMT, "Bob Burns"
wrote:

Beverly wrote:
I know no one here would laugh at beginners learning to climb hills.
I do have to admit that some of my successful climbs have not been a
pretty sightg I was huffing, puffing and pulling on the handle
bars trying to make those last few feet.

Beverly

I figure as long as I'm on the bike, it's a success! There have been some
hills I've had to get off and walk.

I'm with you on that Bob. Often I will have people pass me and give
me the thumbs up. I figure I'm giving them a good show.


Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------