 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General bicyclingRacingOff-road CyclingRidesTechnicalUnicyclesRecumbent CyclesCountry Specific Australian CyclingUK CyclingCyclingCrowd.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cycling Forum / General / Technical / February 2010Improve Bicycles through Racing
This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars come to mind. Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not aware of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are often not skilled at the art of failure analysis. Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket bearings that require cleaning for their exposed bearings. Sloping top tubes to give more step-over clearance. The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years ago about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when braking. It is only an excuse because making a "diamond" frame with a horizontal top tube was once the goal of every frame builder. When the big push in factory built bicycles started, most of them had either an upward or downward sloping top tube and were criticized for it. The response was to severely slope them and say it is a feature... a feature to protect sex organs. Can you think of a more gripping ploy? Just think how many years bicycles were raced and ridden on tours with no such fear. Then came the people who could not stop the bicycle for lack of grip strength on brake levers. The solution was to increase the mechanical advantage, a feature that caused brakes to run out of hand lever travel. The solution was the low clearance, forced centering, dual pivot caliper that is unable to follow a bent rim... its large cosine error sweeps one brake pad off the rim. STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. Bicycling is an endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical advantage (under full power) as riders are lead to believe. MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of air-time. Jobst Brandt <snip> > MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints > a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. > > Jobst Brandt Hey you forgot to mention: "AND SHITLOADS OF FUN!!!" Me, I'll happily stick to my MTB's with sloping top tubes, hydro disc brakes, sealed bearings everywhere, suspension and dirt :) Cheers Dre > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Jobst, I can not argue you credentials but in my small bike work STI shifting has made things much better. Now I don't ride without some pace in mind and I almost never get out of the saddle to pedal. I am constantly change gears to maintain even pace and work load. Many years a distance runner, which I know much more about, and even pacing is the key. I find on the bike this is also the key. If I plan to ride 60 miles the best thing for me is to maintain even cadence and effort. This requires I changes gears all the time even in the rolling flatlands. I would hate to go back to down tube shifters. I realize these are great for tuning gears ( musicians like myself love this idea) in the end it is extra hassle and work. I don't know about the rest of the post I sure like indexed shifting. Now I need a faster bike can you send me one asap.  SignatureDeacon Mark Cleary Epiphany Roman Catholic Church >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of >> air-time. > I can not argue you credentials but in my small bike work STI shifting > has made things much better. Now I don't ride without some pace in mind [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't know about the rest of the post I sure like indexed shifting. > Now I need a faster bike can you send me one asap. Neither position is 'wrong'. Hey it's a wide world of choices. As the current discussion on rec.autos.tech shows, complexity can be seductive, making machinery more 'approachable' to some users. We curmudgeons are yet happy with classic four speed (no electronics) cars and friction shifters, single pivots and tubs. Complexity itself of course can bring new paths to new failures and problems where there were none before. For a professional rider, there's no question that modern Ergo shifters or copies give a real edge in real racing. We ship replacement STi shifters in overnight letter packets to some fairly remote places and often enough that I don't suggest them for expedition touring. YMMV. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andrew Muzi wrote: >>> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >>> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This >>> is often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate >>> sums are spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota >>> cars come to mind. >>> Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most >>> of the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not >>> aware of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are >>> often not skilled at the art of failure analysis. >>> Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at >>> the bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom >>> bracket bearings that require cleaning for their exposed bearings. >>> Sloping top tubes to give more step-over clearance. >>> The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years >>> ago about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> and say it is a feature... a feature to protect sex organs. Can >>> you think of a more gripping ploy? >>> Just think how many years bicycles were raced and ridden on tours >>> with no such fear. Then came the people who could not stop the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> follow a bent rim... its large cosine error sweeps one brake pad >>> off the rim. >>> STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and >>> function as well as interfering with hand position as though one >>> were shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. >>> Bicycling is an endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical >>> advantage (under full power) as riders are lead to believe. >>> MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport >>> paints a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor >>> people... basically a form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly >>> descents and lots of air-time. >> I can not argue you credentials but in my small bike work STI >> shifting has made things much better. Now I don't ride without >> some pace in mind and I almost never get out of the saddle to >> pedal. I am constantly change gears to maintain even pace and work >> load. >> Many years a distance runner, which I know much more about, and >> even pacing is the key. I find on the bike this is also the key. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> (musicians like myself love this idea) in the end it is extra >> hassle and work. >> I don't know about the rest of the post I sure like indexed >> shifting. Now I need a faster bike can you send me one asap. I use indexed downtube shifters and find them highly useful and reliable. > Neither position is 'wrong'. Hey it's a wide world of choices. > As the current discussion on rec.autos.tech shows, complexity can be > seductive, making machinery more 'approachable' to some users. We > curmudgeons are yet happy with classic four speed (no electronics) > cars and friction shifters, single pivots and tubs. > Complexity itself of course can bring new paths to new failures and > problems where there were none before. For a professional rider, > there's no question that modern Ergo shifters or copies give a real > edge in real racing. We ship replacement STI shifters in overnight > letter packets to some fairly remote places and often enough that I > don't suggest them for expedition touring. YMMV. So long as it doesn't cost performance and money, I'll agree. Jobst Brandt > Andrew Muzi wrote: > >>> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > So long as it doesn't cost performance and money, I'll agree. A 16-lb. bike that has 11 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings costs more than a 22-lb bike with 7 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings, and performs better in every way-- speed, ride comfort, ease of shifting without having to take the hands off the bars (or move them to the bar ends), and improved (vastly) braking power with DP calipers. IOW, "performance costs money". I broke a front wheel spoke last year just as my group entered a fairly long section of dirt road, which was maybe a 3 or 4 out of 10 on the gnarly scale. I was slightly apprehensive but the Campy dual pivot front brake worked just fine on at least this moderately wavy front wheel (well built light wheel, with even spoke tension, 32h Velocity Aero, 425g). IOW, trying to go fast in conditions where it was prudent to slow down occasionally, no problems with grabbing, modulation, or release. I've been able to wear at least a couple of sets of brake pads down to and past the "wear limit", no problems with pad incursion into the tire sidewall, or "other" with Record and Chorus DP front brake calipers. The arc the calipers swing in might be slightly different but the ball-and-socket pad holders make it easy to get good contact with the rim. --D-y ========== A 16-lb. bike that has 11 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings costs more than a 22-lb bike with 7 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings, and performs better in every way-- speed, ride comfort, ease of shifting without having to take the hands off the bars (or move them to the bar ends), and improved (vastly) braking power with DP calipers. IOW, "performance costs money". I broke a front wheel spoke last year just as my group entered a fairly long section of dirt road, which was maybe a 3 or 4 out of 10 on the gnarly scale. I was slightly apprehensive but the Campy dual pivot front brake worked just fine on at least this moderately wavy front wheel (well built light wheel, with even spoke tension, 32h Velocity Aero, 425g). IOW, trying to go fast in conditions where it was prudent to slow down occasionally, no problems with grabbing, modulation, or release. I've been able to wear at least a couple of sets of brake pads down to and past the "wear limit", no problems with pad incursion into the tire sidewall, or "other" with Record and Chorus DP front brake calipers. The arc the calipers swing in might be slightly different but the ball-and-socket pad holders make it easy to get good contact with the rim. --D-y ========= Real-world observations are to be considered nonsensical and belong elsewhere. Please. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA On Feb 18, 11:26 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote: > Andrew Muzi wrote: > >>> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > So long as it doesn't cost performance and money, I'll agree. A 16-lb. bike that has 11 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings costs more than a 22-lb bike with 7 cogs and 2 or 3 chainrings, and performs better in every way-- speed, ride comfort, ease of shifting without having to take the hands off the bars (or move them to the bar ends), and improved (vastly) braking power with DP calipers. IOW, "performance costs money". I broke a front wheel spoke last year just as my group entered a fairly long section of dirt road, which was maybe a 3 or 4 out of 10 on the gnarly scale. I was slightly apprehensive but the Campy dual pivot front brake worked just fine on at least this moderately wavy front wheel (well built light wheel, with even spoke tension, 32h Velocity Aero, 425g). IOW, trying to go fast in conditions where it was prudent to slow down occasionally, no problems with grabbing, modulation, or release. I've been able to wear at least a couple of sets of brake pads down to and past the "wear limit", no problems with pad incursion into the tire sidewall, or "other" with Record and Chorus DP front brake calipers. The arc the calipers swing in might be slightly different but the ball-and-socket pad holders make it easy to get good contact with the rim. --D-y >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This >> is often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums >> are spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars >> come to mind. >> Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of >> the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not >> aware of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are >> often not skilled at the art of failure analysis. >> Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the >> bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket >> bearings that require cleaning for their exposed bearings. Sloping >> top tubes to give more step-over clearance. >> The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years >> ago about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> it is a feature... a feature to protect sex organs. Can you think >> of a more gripping ploy? >> Just think how many years bicycles were raced and ridden on tours >> with no such fear. Then came the people who could not stop the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> follow a bent rim... its large cosine error sweeps one brake pad >> off the rim. >> STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and >> function as well as interfering with hand position as though one >> were shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. >> Bicycling is an endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical >> advantage (under full power) as riders are lead to believe. >> MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport >> paints a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor >> people... basically a form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly >> descents and lots of air-time. > I can not argue you credentials but in my small bike work STI > shifting has made things much better. Now I don't ride without some > pace in mind and I almost never get out of the saddle to pedal. I > am constantly change gears to maintain even pace and work load. > Many years a distance runner, which I know much more about, and even > pacing is the key. I find on the bike this is also the key. If I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shifters. I realize these are great for tuning gears ( musicians > like myself love this idea) in the end it is extra hassle and work. > I don't know about the rest of the post I sure like indexed > shifting. Now I need a faster bike can you send me one asap. I didn't mention indexed shifting but rather integrating brake levers and shifting. I find indexed shifting great because on a long climb, friction shifting often did an inopportune automatic up-shift. With indexing I no longer need to worry about a random gear change. Jobst Brandt > >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > and shifting. I find indexed shifting great because on a long climb, > friction shifting often did an inopportune automatic up-shift. Poor cabling which is sorted with long lay casing. > With > indexing I no longer need to worry about a random gear change. > > Jobst Brandt >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > I don't know about the rest of the post I sure like indexed shifting. > Now I need a faster bike can you send me one asap. Oh good, the annual STI thread, I've been waiting for it (it seemed about time). I used to think lots of gears and frequent shifting was the thing until I started riding a fixed gear (on the same route and with the same riders). It was great to get all the flattering comments from just being able to keep up with the pack -- "Oh, you monster! On a fixed gear, no less!". Unfortunately, as fixed gears became the fad and many other riders in the club started showing up with them, it became obvious that any handicap was pretty small and greater on downhills than anywhere else. All the compliments stopped as this became common knowledge. I like indexed shifting, too. I like not having to be precise and worrying about jumping a gear under hard pedaling, particularly out of the saddle. With modern derailers and cable/housing, all you have to do is add simple detents to get indexed shifting. I prefer shift levers to be separate from brake levers (as on mountain bikes, where simultaneous shifting and braking is both more common and requires greater coordination). My favored location for shift levers is on the ends of the bars for drop bar bikes, for flat bar bikes I have no strong preference for twist or trigger or thumb. In a typical setup, I do virtually all my braking with my left hand and all my shifting with my right. I don't find any need to keep my right hand in a position ready to brake or my left hand ready to shift. For fast pace line riding, braking is minimal, as are double shifts. For all other kinds of riding, especially long distance riding, I find varying the cadence, particularly the natural variation that comes from shifting positions on the bike (tops, drops, standing, etc.) is a welcome change and good practice. The only time I focus on a fixed cadence is when I'm (competitively) time trialing, and then I'm invariably down on the aerobars for the duration, and shifting from the brakes isn't an option, anyway. If you like brifters, fine, there's no accounting for like. As for them giving any kind of real performance edge, not so much. > I used to think lots of gears and frequent shifting was the thing until > I started riding a fixed gear (on the same route and with the same [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > If you like brifters, fine, there's no accounting for like. As for them > giving any kind of real performance edge, not so much. When I was younger and fitter, I did long rides with "the chain gang" of racers on 42x17 fixed gear, and larger fixed/SS setups. As long as they kept the pace moderate, I could hang, and as a matter of fact, won a long downhill city limits sign sprint on returning to town (went early and blazed it) (maybe I shouldn't have raised arms in celebration). Just sayin', BTDT fixed gear thing. For my group riding, especially, brifters are a big improvement over DT friction, and yes, I raced back in the day when friction was all there was, so you had to get good at slapping gear changes, or be at a big disadvantage. Bar ends, I've tried briefly and let go. Not for me. I do a fair amount of double shifting as groups travel up and down rolling terrain. But mostly RH shifting, LH braking. And I shift pretty frequently. Again, when younger/fitter, the need to adjust gear ratio was less. But this is now <g>. Yes, braking is minimal, but every once in a while, something happens and it's good not to be reaching down for a shift if a wheel comes flying back at you. Even in a generally very good group of experienced riders, there's a safety advantage for brifters. Yup, "brifter thread". Point is, there is all kinds of gear out there for all kinds of riding, so why grouse about what other people are happy doing-- either how they do it or what they ride? --D-y >> I used to think lots of gears and frequent shifting was the thing until >> I started riding a fixed gear (on the same route and with the same [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > happy doing-- either how they do it or what they ride? > --D-y I'm not, and I said so above. I am taking issue with the idea that frequent gear changes are necessary or desirable. I also don't see that it's advantageous to ride with your right hand (assuming that's your rear brake lever) on the brake. Aside: you imply that youth and fitness are a prerequisite for "hanging" with a fixer. I don't see why. My whole point was that fixers are not the demonstration of fitness that some (usually the ignorant) make them out to be. Gears just aren't that big a deal unless you ride in steep terrain. The final argument (isn't it always?) is the "safety" one. I don't "reach down" for a shift. Wheels don't come "flying back at me", but if they did, I'd be much better off steering than braking. Parenthetically, I'd add that I'd be all over anyone for braking in a pace line in the first place. I don't know what kind of yahoos you ride/rode with... I wouldn't. The big reason for fast gear changes is sprinting. Acceleration is harder outside an optimal cadence, particularly a low one. Unless you're in a pack race, the small improvement in shift speed is meaningless. I am not trashing brifters, just the BS arguments people typically make to justify them. I'm not your wife, I don't care how you spend your money. > dustoyev...@mac.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > harder outside an optimal cadence, particularly a low one. Unless you're > in a pack race, the small improvement in shift speed is meaningless. The failure to choose the correct sprinting gear is common. Having brifters doesn't let a rider get away with that mistake. Gear ratio should be chosen on gradient and wind. A sprinter should be at the correct speed to utilize them. A rider given a long leadout will benefit from bar shifting, but this is not exactly commonplace in amateur ranks. Making a break is a different matter for the absence of the visible cue of reaching down to make the downshift, gives the prospective jump more likely to be successful, at least in the short term. > I am not trashing brifters, just the BS arguments people typically make > to justify them. I'm not your wife, I don't care how you spend your money. I find a justification against them is that I would not have to change position with them. The very fact of needing to change gear with DT levers makes me think of changing hand position, which eases stiffness on long rides. > I'm not [complaining, griping, etc.] and I said so above. I didn't say you were. The OP was, in his rant. > I am taking issue with the idea that > frequent gear changes are necessary or desirable. Finding the right gear is desirable. I've "gone through the bag" at the track, also, and well understand that it comes down to power. But, finding the right cadence for conditions makes a big difference to me. Again, if you're in strong riding shape, you can be comfortable over wider ranges, IME. I guess Jobst might think of this as giving an unfair advantage to the weak <g>. > I also don't see that > it's advantageous to ride with your right hand (assuming that's your > rear brake lever) on the brake. On the hood. Not grasping the lever. > Aside: you imply that youth and fitness are a prerequisite for "hanging" > with a fixer. I don't see why. Having to spin at high cadence for long periods, for one thing. Much easier when younger/fitter, speaking personally. > My whole point was that fixers are not > the demonstration of fitness that some (usually the ignorant) make them > out to be. Gears just aren't that big a deal unless you ride in steep > terrain. Well, the hipster fixer takeover should have put the kibosh on "demonstration of fitness". Differ on gears being "a big deal". > The final argument (isn't it always?) is the "safety" one. I don't > "reach down" for a shift. Wheels don't come "flying back at me", but if > they did, I'd be much better off steering than braking. Parenthetically, > I'd add that I'd be all over anyone for braking in a pace line in the > first place. I don't know what kind of yahoos you ride/rode with... I > wouldn't. Have I stepped on a nerve here? > The big reason for fast gear changes is sprinting. That's one. Quick changes for changes in slope, wind direction would be a couple more. > Acceleration is > harder outside an optimal cadence, particularly a low one. Unless you're > in a pack race, the small improvement in shift speed is meaningless. I love snapping shifts, especially doubles, with Ergo. It's a lot faster than DT shifters. > I am not trashing brifters, just the BS arguments people typically make > to justify them. I'm not your wife, I don't care how you spend your money. In your opinion, "BS". No you're not my wife, but again, I feel like I've stepped on a nerve here. Brifter thread! --D-y >> I'm not [complaining, griping, etc.] and I said so above. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Again, if you're in strong riding shape, you can be comfortable over > wider ranges, IME. I'm not sure what "comfortable" means. I find it comfortable to change cadence and to switch positions. I couldn't imagine a long ride without standing frequently. I don't think the science backs the "perfect cadence" claim. > I guess Jobst might think of this as giving an unfair advantage to the > weak <g>. AFAIK, Jobst uses multiple gears and indexed shifting. >> I also don't see that >> it's advantageous to ride with your right hand (assuming that's your >> rear brake lever) on the brake. > > On the hood. Not grasping the lever. I know, the brake hoods I use are shaped the same as brifters. I just don't typically ever use the rear brake, so the "shift while braking" advantage is null. >> Aside: you imply that youth and fitness are a prerequisite for "hanging" >> with a fixer. I don't see why. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "demonstration of fitness". > Differ on gears being "a big deal". Seems to be a contradiction. If fixers are so demanding, how is it that emo kids in their sister's jeans don't have a problem? >> The final argument (isn't it always?) is the "safety" one. I don't >> "reach down" for a shift. Wheels don't come "flying back at me", but if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Have I stepped on a nerve here? No. Anybody who's dumb enough to hit the brakes in a pace line will cause a stack. I've ridden in fast pace lines a couple of times a week for a decade or so. I've never crashed. A big part of that is being very picky about who you ride with. I don't do real races (e.g. crits) simply because crashes are inevitable and the risk of injury isn't worth it to me. >> The big reason for fast gear changes is sprinting. > > That's one. Quick changes for changes in slope, wind direction would > be a couple more. Well, if you want to be picky, bar-ends are faster to shift multiple gears when cresting rollers, ditto for twist shifters in MTB riding. >> Acceleration is >> harder outside an optimal cadence, particularly a low one. Unless you're >> in a pack race, the small improvement in shift speed is meaningless. > > I love snapping shifts, especially doubles, with Ergo. It's a lot > faster than DT shifters. If a DT front shifter is fast enough for Lance, I guess I could live with it. Personally, I don't double shift often enough to care except while MTB'ing, where I very much appreciate the ability to shift the front while braking (often hard). >> I am not trashing brifters, just the BS arguments people typically make >> to justify them. I'm not your wife, I don't care how you spend your money. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No you're not my wife, but again, I feel like I've stepped on a nerve > here. If someone says "I just tried brifters & I love them -- they're worth the extra $$ and fragility." I have absolutely no problem. Ride whatever you want, it's all good. But when someone claims brifters make them ride faster or are somehow safer, I gotta call bullshit. Sorry. That has nothing to do with my personal taste. > I'm not sure what "comfortable" means. I find it comfortable to change > cadence and to switch positions. I couldn't imagine a long ride without > standing frequently. I don't think the science backs the "perfect > cadence" claim. I don't by any means stay in one position, including hands. But I'm usually on the hoods in one way or another. I don't use one cadence, by any means, either. I find a cadence that works for the situation of the moment. > AFAIK, Jobst uses multiple gears and indexed shifting. 6 or 7 gears, as opposed to 10 or 11, and he has to reach to the DT-- or bar end. > >> I also don't see that > >> it's advantageous to ride with your right hand (assuming that's your > >> rear brake lever) on the brake. In a group ride, if you need to slow just a tad, using the rear brake lets the guy behind you see you are *touching* the brakes. Yup, steering can be a better option. Just depends on what is happening at the moment. I didn't say I was jamming the brakes on in a paceline, btw, or that my cohort was a dangerous group to ride with. Quite the contrary, (if I may say we) we are known as the place to go to get started learning to be a good rider, and a few people have started with us. (Name dropping): Including Kristian House, who is current British Road Race Champ. Standin' up for my homies here, Peter. Not "yahoos"; when you have newbies on the ride, you will see a wheel fly back at you occasionally, okay? > I know, the brake hoods I use are shaped the same as brifters. I just > don't typically ever use the rear brake, so the "shift while braking" > advantage is null. Shifting and braking on the same lever makes either convenient. I hardly ever shift while braking, come to think of it. > Seems to be a contradiction. If fixers are so demanding, how is it that > emo kids in their sister's jeans don't have a problem? I saw a couple of hipsters on their conformo-bikes with the little bars and too-large gears negotiate a stop light leading to an easy uphill this afternoon. It was pretty funny. Track sprinters, they were not <g>. I've ridden fixed since 1980 or 81, off and on. They can be used as a good tool to work on fitness and "bike riding stuff"; but they also can be used to dog it. So, I'm not one who believes in any automatic conferring of mightiness. > No. Anybody who's dumb enough to hit the brakes in a pace line will > cause a stack. I've ridden in fast pace lines a couple of times a week > for a decade or so. I've never crashed. A big part of that is being very > picky about who you ride with. I don't do real races (e.g. crits) simply > because crashes are inevitable and the risk of injury isn't worth it to me. I'm picky. My cohort finally, after 25 years approx., finally had The Big One a few months ago, where most everyone (by post mortem) had a choice to make and most all chose the door with the crash behind it. Otherwise, hell no, some of the same people used to slam the dirt roads at full speed, with hardly ever any "incidents", especially compared to the regularity of beefing in races. > Well, if you want to be picky, bar-ends are faster to shift multiple > gears when cresting rollers, ditto for twist shifters in MTB riding. I haven't used bar ends, have used twisters. If you have to move your hand from the tops to grab a bar end lever, I'll already have shifted up or down multiple gears with my Ergo. If I'm on the drops, pretty close to even, I would guess. > If someone says "I just tried brifters & I love them -- they're worth > the extra $$ and fragility." I have absolutely no problem. Ride whatever > you want, it's all good. But when someone claims brifters make them ride > faster or are somehow safer, I gotta call bullshit. Sorry. That has > nothing to do with my personal taste. Extra money, no question. Fragility? They can be more fragile; OTOH, I've ridden brifters with no work at all done on them (occasional cable adjustment, maybe). I have used three sets of g springs and two carriers since '01, on three different Ergo bikes, two 9sp and one 8sp. I'm not a high-mileage rider, hastening to add, but "fragile" doesn't apply in my direct experience. I do know one or two people who have gone through multiple Campy carriers; frankly, I don't know how they do that <g>. The new Campy stuff has eliminated the old designs and is said to be much better (maybe actually kind of bulletproof), while Shimano, according to my mechanic, fixed what was wrong with "9" when they went to 10-- which is good because they aren't rebuildable, as we all know <g>. Yes, some people have had brifters go home early but many have had long trouble-free use and if I'm not a mileage guy anymore, I know people who are (relatively speaking, compared to the job-free Cat II of yore), and who enjoy good reliability with brifters. --D-y >> I'm not sure what "comfortable" means. I find it comfortable to change >> cadence and to switch positions. I couldn't imagine a long ride without [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > of yore), and who enjoy good reliability with brifters. > --D-y Once again, I'm not criticizing STI/Ergo brifters, only calling bullshit on the arguments that claim that they make for faster or safer riding. Ride them if you like them, but don't tell me I need them, I don't. > Once again, I'm not criticizing STI/Ergo brifters, only calling bullshit > on the arguments that claim that they make for faster or safer riding. > Ride them if you like them, but don't tell me I need them, I don't. I never said you need them. Some people like bar ends, for instance, and tout their virtues. I tried them a time or two and they are not for me. End of story. Especially for new riders, brifters are safer-- IMHO, if that makes a difference to you! The hands remain in "control position" while shifting, as opposed to reaching to the downtube, or to the end of the handlebar. Not "faster riding" (except in sprints, incl. the run-up) but faster shifting. Especially if one is riding on the hoods. --D-y >> Once again, I'm not criticizing STI/Ergo brifters, only calling bullshit >> on the arguments that claim that they make for faster or safer riding. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > shifting. Especially if one is riding on the hoods. > --D-y Sorry, I can't agree with either claim. > dustoyev...@mac.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sorry, I can't agree with either claim. Nothing wrong with disagreeing <g>. --D-y <big snip> > > Yes, some people have had brifters go home early but many have had > > long trouble-free use and if I'm not a mileage guy anymore, I know [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on the arguments that claim that they make for faster or safer riding. > Ride them if you like them, but don't tell me I need them, I don't.- Hide quoted text - They certainly made racing faster. I held out for a long time before buying SIS or STI and was at a clear disadvantage in races -- slower, cumbersome shifting in to or out of corners, and because I climb out of the saddle, I had to sit down to shift. More work. I love STI. I wouldn't tell anyone they need STI unless they were racing. > Oh good, the annual STI thread, I've been waiting for it (it seemed > about time). You could have started it. SignatureMichael Press > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Jobst Brandt The technology - I've been looking for a new tire or 2 new tires for my ride. But because tires are a big deal now, in that everyone is looking for an advantage, thinking a high end tire is gona make their weekend ride with the friends, they'll look like a riding god, if they can just get 2 mph more on a great tire. Tires are going for astronomical prices. Hard to believe a bike tire is more than a truck tire, considering what you get. We're not racing here, just riding Canada road. So does $50 for a set of tires seem fair, cause tires can go upwards of $100 for 2 tires. I'm the kind of guy that is fine with $10 per tire. I got a set of performance tires for my Peugeot, uses 27x1.25(wire bead) and was impressed with the road feel, compared to Specialized tri sport which always seemed to install with a bump along the bead. On the Lemond, Continental ultra sports, 700x25's. I don't know what tires to go with, cause the price is important. It came stock with IRC RedStorm's, they seemed to be pretty good tires. I couldn't find any of those so I went with Hutchinson's Carbon Comp's. They flatted so many times I was berzerk. For now ultra sports work. There is so much technology in these tires these days, and the price is lethal. But I was riding last summer and these guys were averaging around 18-19 and i'm gasping for air, it's like 98 degrees in the hot sun, they came up behind me on a incline, and I thought how can they pass me- could it have been the tires. Who knows, if I spent more money on tires could I hold them off. They road on ahead and the lead guy put both arms up in victory -so. overnight letter packets, swell. As NA oldest Volvo owner, and current pilote of a 2008 FORD E250GT where the manual boasts 114 computer pages on CHIMES ! unnnnngh divinity deleted and goes down the road lika 737 from the pilote's seat... The 544's wiring diagram is on ONE page. I am deeply suspicious of the index shifters onmuh new Monodog 29er. But theDog's tech tires are truly outstanding over the Kendas I began with 15 years ago. Tire tech up from MTB activity or grafted together up at the castle ? I wood like to point out interest in RBT was MAX during whathisname ? uh Armstrong's run on the Great French Bicycle Race. And when Lance stopped pedaling, interest vanished. There's an obvious coupling here tween market interest (excuse) driven by racing and tech advances produced from racing. From cycle racing I dunno. Auto racing seams to exhibit 'test bed' characteristics for materials. I assume these 'test bed' characteristics can be lab tested but ? Shimano's excellence and drive to dominate the global market with quality equipment aside, racing and interest in racing pedals the expertise forward if not the commonsense necessary for the global street market. I gotta get a code reader. When your Fuji needs a .... > overnight letter packets, swell. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I gotta get a code reader. When your Fuji needs a .... I am mired in afterhought. The semi conclusion or question was: in cycling's growth due to environmental/educational/ and demographic factors or due to Lance Armstrong ? In knowing or in vague contact with a number of well known people and usually surrounded by monkeys, baboons, retards and their ilk, I find celebrity resonance from th e man on the street by far most intense from my casual contact with Mario Andretti, remeber ? the old racing car driver ? a remakable phenomena Adretti's agent should note for Wheaties et al. yeah. My ground effects conclusion is the man on the street would be oblivious to Conti or schwalbe if not for Armstrong. > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. Sloping frames: they offer many advantages, especially the ability to raise the front end and dispense with spacers on a threadless stem. They also allow, with today's stronger posts, a bike to fit a larger spectrum of riders. Flat top tube bikes are only useful for aesthetics and for cyclocross when you shoulder the bike. It's really a non-issue that only curmudgeons grouse about. Brakes: old center pivots if set up properly, brake great. However, we're in a golden age of fantastic DP, direct pull, and canti brakes that are dirt cheap and easy to set up--just keep 'em adjusted. Clicky shifting: I don't mind friction shifting and chose to do so on the road with seven speed stuff when DT shifters were the norm and the feel at the lever was great. That said, for everyday riders, cheap Shimano and SRAM pods are rock solid and reliable. If you prefer drop bars and tour with STIs, just throw a DT lever in the toolkit when crossing the Andes. > > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I love STI. Having used all the olde-tyme stuff as a kid in the 60s and a racer in the 70s, I am totally content with SPD/Look pedals, STI and whatever frame fits me -- sloping or non-sloping. My clicky shifting is sucky right now, but that is because I have ignored maintenance all winter, and the grease on my cables finally washed out and the mud is caked on the BB cable guides. I like threadless, too. I just don't buy stupid light stuff that breaks. I don't miss boat- anchor steel frames with short top-tubes and crappy shifting. I do miss lower prices for things like rims and tires. Tires are almost a joke price-wise these days. -- Jay Beattie. > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. <snip> Most of Jobst's comments are right on, especially the statement above! Last week, a guy told me of his pending bicycle purchase. He's spending about $6,500 on a RACING bike from a MAJOR bike company (he doesn't race). It'll have CARBON bars, fork, frame, etc. He went on to mention his main goal is COMFORT, and he'll be doing some charity rides in the year ahead... I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have gladly helped if asked... Cheers, Sergio Moretti Wisconsin, USA Op 19-2-2010 20:03, Sergio Moretti schreef: >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > He's spending about $6,500 on a RACING bike from a MAJOR bike company > (he doesn't race). Why should he race? It'll have CARBON bars, fork, frame, etc. He went > on to mention his main goal is COMFORT, and he'll be doing some > charity rides in the year ahead... He can do that on the bike he ordered? > I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have > gladly helped if asked... Typical. Lou > Op 19-2-2010 20:03, Sergio Moretti schreef: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why should he race? Didn't mean to imply he should. Merely suggesting a race bike might be less than ideal for his needs. > It'll have CARBON bars, fork, frame, etc. He went > > > on to mention his main goal is COMFORT, and he'll be doing some > > charity rides in the year ahead... > > He can do that on the bike he ordered? Sure, but perhaps not with the level of comfort he's seeking. And maybe he could spend less and still be satisfied... > > I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have > > gladly helped if asked... > > Typical. It's not clear to me what you mean by that. > Lou Sergio Moretti Wisconsin Op 19-2-2010 20:40, Sergio Moretti schreef: >>> I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have >>> gladly helped if asked... >> >> Typical. > > It's not clear to me what you mean by that. The less money part. Lou On Feb 18, 6:09 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote: > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. <snip> ========== Most of Jobst's comments are right on, especially the statement above! Last week, a guy told me of his pending bicycle purchase. He's spending about $6,500 on a RACING bike from a MAJOR bike company (he doesn't race). It'll have CARBON bars, fork, frame, etc. He went on to mention his main goal is COMFORT, and he'll be doing some charity rides in the year ahead... I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have gladly helped if asked... Cheers, Sergio Moretti Wisconsin, USA =========== We don't sell "racing" bikes. In fact, outside of true track bikes, I don't think many shops do. We sell "road" bikes. You could use them for "racing" but they're useful for the manner in which many non-racers ride. Things have changed greatly from the 70s & 80s, when it was common to see ridiculous designs that lacked stability but were supposedly "more responsive" due to incredibly-short wheelbasese and steep heat tubes (anybody remember Gios?). The typical "road" bike of today, as "raced" in the Tour de France, is designed to be comfortable and easy to handle in a day-after-day on-the-bike scenario. In short, aside from the gearing, what a "racer" wants is very similar to what you or I want. Equipment that must hold up under absurd conditions, be comfortable and stable enough that it can get you where you're going when you're dead tired. I "raced" competitively for six years (did very well for three of them). My bike then was considerably less comfortable than my bike now. I know, because I still have my racing bike from back-in-the-day. But many here would suggest that my extremely-expensive Madone 6.9 ("extremely" because it has Shimano Di2 shifting and carbon wheels) is something that only someone racing should use. We all have our priorities and desires. I would rather spend my $$$ on a bike than on a kitchen remodel. Some would rather spend more $$$ on an expensive tube amp because they think it sounds better than a solid-state unit. Some will even spend huge $$$ on special cabling between their various adio/video components, even when the signal is digital, believing that it makes a difference. And maybe, to them, it does. Fine. But what bugs me no end are those who spend their lives on bikes, say there's nothing more important to them than the time they're out riding, and yet have a 25+ year old machine that they try to keep running using various kludges because they can't see the point to spending $$$ for a new bike or even better parts. OK, fine, but then they drive up in a new car every three or so years, and they insist that they don't enjoy driving. There really are people like that out there. Some are customers of mine. Some that I've known for years and years and years. Most are nice enough people. But it just doesn't make sense to spend large amounts of $$$ on things you claim aren't near & dear to your heart, and not spend anything on that which does. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > We all have our priorities and desires. I would rather spend my $$$ > on a bike than on a kitchen remodel. Ditto. > Some would rather spend more $$$ on an expensive tube amp because > they think it sounds better than a solid-state unit. My tube amp sounds better with one of my guitars (a Tele) but not as good as my SS amps with my archtop and classical. Horses for courses. Depends of whether I want to sound like Rory Gallagher or Joe Pass (not that I can manage either of those...). Jeez, I have had one of my guitars 31 years, another one 26 years, another one 20 years... > Some will even spend huge $$$ on special cabling between their > various adio/video components, even when the signal is digital, > believing that it makes a difference. And maybe, to them, it does. > Fine. Belief trumps reality sometimes. > But what bugs me no end are those who spend their lives on bikes, say > there's nothing more important to them than the time they're out > riding, and yet have a 25+ year old machine that they try to keep > running using various kludges because they can't see the point to > spending $$$ for a new bike or even better parts. Hmm. My main bike (Rivendell All-Rounder) is 14 years old and hasn't warn out yet other than tires, chains, cogs and one rim. My other main bike (Ritchey fillet-brazed) is at least 11 years old, but I bought the frame used in 1999 and don't know when it was made. What a great handling bike. My third bike is a Gunnar Crosshairs which IIRC I bought ca. 1998. My fourth bike started out as a drawing and a box o' tubes which I put together myself about 5 years ago. Thus far I haven't found a new bike that meets my needs better than these. No kludges necessary to keep them running (yet, at least). But most new bikes aren't designed for the way I think about bikes, which is admittedly a bit out of the mainstream. > OK, fine, but then they drive up in a new car every three or so > years, and they insist that they don't enjoy driving. Uh-oh. My Volvo was built in 1990 and has 204,000 miles. I plan on replacing it by 2020. My Mac is from 1998 and my iBook is from 2005. My house is from 1908. My wife of 15 years and I are both from 1959. I've had the same cell phone for about 7 years. And I've worked for the same employer for almost 20 years. At least I am consistent- or perhaps I'm just boring. :-P > But it just doesn't make sense to spend large amounts of $$$ on > things you claim aren't near & dear to your heart, and not spend > anything on that which does. Makes sense to me! Signature"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me." >> We all have our priorities and desires. I would rather spend my $$$ >> on a bike than on a kitchen remodel. > > Ditto. I'd rather not throw money at either. I'm currently fitting new ball bearing drawer slides to my 50+ year old kitchen cabinets. Next, I'll add new veneer and pulls. What I'll get is something that looks and functions like new while preserving 90% of the old material. Given that the modern slides are much better than the vintage originals, and the old wood in the carcass is better than new stuff, you wind up with the best of both worlds. There are some parallels to bikes. At the boatyard last summer, I was complementing an old-timer (maybe 80 years old) on his immaculate sailboat. He explained how he had originally built it in the 60's (glass hull) and had spent the last couple of years completely restoring it. "A lot of work", he said, "but very satisfying." Money isn't everything. [...] > But what bugs me no end are those who spend their lives on bikes, say > there's nothing more important to them than the time they're out riding, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doesn't make sense to spend large amounts of $$$ on things you claim aren't > near & dear to your heart, and not spend anything on that which does. It's possible to get a bit sentimentally attached to an old bike which is OK, but not always so easy to admit to. All the talk of saving $$$ is sometimes just a justification for that. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is OK, but not always so easy to admit to. All the talk of saving $$$ is > sometimes just a justification for that. Sometimes, but anyone who wasn't born yesterday knows that when you buy new stuff, it can be expected to either cost a lot or make deep compromises in quality, whereas buying an old, used bike can get you much higher quality throughout for a small fraction of the cost. For some (many) of us it's just about the only way to ever have the really good stuff. > Sometimes, but anyone who wasn't born yesterday knows that when you > buy new stuff, it can be expected to either cost a lot or make deep > compromises in quality, whereas buying an old, used bike can get you > much higher quality throughout for a small fraction of the cost. For > some (many) of us it's just about the only way to ever have the really > good stuff. Even nearly new you can save a whole load of money too. I bought me a Dahon D7 only 9 months old last week for about half what it would have cost new. Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride > But what bugs me no end are those who spend their lives on bikes, say > there's nothing more important to them than the time they're out riding, > and yet have a 25+ year old machine that they try to keep running using > various kludges because they can't see the point to spending $$$ for a > new bike or even better parts. If you're supporting a family of cyclists, and do many kinds of cycling (on & off road, commuting, shopping, touring, etc.) the economics are very different than the typical white collar weekend warrior who does club rides. There are somewhere around 15 bikes in my garage. They can't all be Madone grade. Some of the 25 year old stuff was junk, some is still fine. Many of our bikes are vintage frames. Good quality Japanese sport touring frames from the 70-80's are fine, generally more comfortable (angles) and more practical (frame & fork clearances, braze-ons) than modern frames. You can build up a nice riding, reliable and safe bike from a mix of old and new with a little knowledge and careful shopping. I've done it many times. You can also keep a large fleet in good running order without going broke by avoiding the boutique priced consumables (tires, chains, cassettes, rims, etc.). You will get a lot of snotty remarks, often from people who can't adjust a shifter. I don't mind, if you have a sense of humor it very much adds to the fun. When I see fat guys on $6K bikes it's all I can do to keep a straight face. >Last week, a guy told me of his pending bicycle purchase. > He's spending about $6,500 on a RACING bike from a MAJOR bike company > (he doesn't race). It'll have CARBON bars, fork, frame, etc. He went > on to mention his main goal is COMFORT, and he'll be doing some > charity rides in the year ahead... Yup, he bought the latest design of rack from the Dominican Order (lately known as the Spanish Inquisition) because he want to be comfortable when he practiced his masochism for charity. > I could specify a more apropriate bike for less money! And would have > gladly helped if asked... Tsch! You just don't understand, Sergio. The more money he spends, the less suitable his bike is, the more he demonstrates his *commitment*. This isn't about riding, this is about talking about riding. Andre Jute Edward de Bono shoulda been a cyclist! > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars come to > mind. Toyota screwed up, in a manner that wouldn't have been such a big deal except that they are a HUGE manufacturer and used the same assembly in an extraordinary number of vehicles. We'll see in the next couple of weeks how much they tried to cover things up or ignored early signs of problems. That, to me, would be more indicative of massive system failure (on a company basis) than the problem itself. Parallels to bicycles in this regard escape me. > Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of > the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not aware > of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are often not > skilled at the art of failure analysis. It's not failure analysis that's the problem, but rather an insulation between those who handle warranties, who are very aware of the problem areas, and the design team. At least as far as the total package (complete bicycle) is concerned. > Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the > bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket > bearings that require cleaning for their exposed bearings. Sloping > top tubes to give more step-over clearance. Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic one-bolt design (laprade?) has had a history of that bolt failing, and yet they continue to be available. The Conti tires that you speak of, without a chafing strip, aren't the first tire to have issues, nor will they be the last. The dual-pivot brake design that you dislike so much simply aren't causing the problems you lose sleep over. They've been a standard feature on road bikes since what, 1985 or so? How many tens of thousands have I sold during that period? And maybe I replace, at most, one tire/year where somebody has mis-set a pad or allowed it to wear so much that it contacts the tire? And where is the issue with sloping top tubes? I was on the Sugden & Lynch ride the day Tom Ritchey showed up with his first frame, red I think it was, and he'd screwed up with the measurements and had a sloping top tube. Which, of course, we made fun of. And which, of course, he used to win quite a few races that year. Sloping top tubes do allow us to fit more people to a given frame size, because you can more easily accomodate someone with shorter legs and a longer torso. If the front end is too high, remove the spacers under the stem and flip it so it's parallel. > The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years ago > about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when braking. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was to severely slope them and say it is a feature... a feature to > protect sex organs. Can you think of a more gripping ploy? I'm not aware of anyone selling sloping top tubes as a gonad-protective design. It does help people throw their leg over the top tube if they're shorter-legged though. > Just think how many years bicycles were raced and ridden on tours with > no such fear. Then came the people who could not stop the bicycle for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > centering, dual pivot caliper that is unable to follow a bent > rim... its large cosine error sweeps one brake pad off the rim. "People who could not stop the bicycle for lack of grip strength of brake levers." Well gee, we should require that people do hand exercises or something before letting them out on the road. I don't think we should have power brakes for cars either, because they give a false sense of security and if the engine dies, maybe someone won't have enough strength to safely stop the car. Or at least we should make sure people are tested to ensure they have the leg strength needed. Oh heck, let'sjust get practical about it. The typical woman has much less hand strength than the typical guy. So I guess they shouldn't be riding. And you know what? Back in the day when I was riding with you, mid-70s, there were darned few women out there riding. And those that were riding... well, they were "different." Not bad, just willing to do something that wasn't the norm. Doing a guy's thing. I remember how difficult it was to get women to feel safe on bikes back then, because they didn't feel the brakes were powerful enough. Me, I was like you then, I figured it's just the way things are supposed to be, and they had to get tougher or something. It didn't occur to me that brakes could be made a lot more powerful than they were, and that doing so would be a good thing. > STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and > function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were > shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. Bicycling is an > endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical advantage (under > full power) as riders are lead to believe. Yes, I know, we're shifting too much because it's too easy to do, and contributing to global warming. I agree that STI adds complexity and cost. But so does an automatic transmission, and STI has alot more going for it than automatic transmission. A rider can maintain a heads-up position when shifting, their hands remain on the brake levers. and you don't have to plan your shifts ahead of time. I did fine back in the day with downtube levers. Didn't know what I was missing. "Who knew?" as they say. But I'm a convert. I still have my "iron pig" that I use once in a while as my rain bike, complete with Campy 1014 downtube levers, 5-speed regina freewheel, radical 32-spoke wheels, campy 1044 2-bolt seatpost (had one of those clamps fail during the Squaw Valley crit many many years ago), Campy NR complete with tiny micro-cracks where two others have failed in the past (the usual place at the base of the spider). Is it fun to get out on that bike once in a while? Oh sure, but I enjoy "cycling" more on a bike that I don't have to think about. A bike that shifts more easily, brakes more powerfully. > MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints > a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. You might not believe this, but there are mountain bikers who enjoy climbing every bit as much as you and I. But I agree, there are many others who do a dis-service to the greater community by flying down narrow trails more quickly than they should, cutting illegal trails, riding where they're not allowed, that sort of thing. Good thing road cyclists are law-abiding folk. Must be converts from mountain to road who blow through the stop signs. Dang, it's been a while since you got me going like this. > Jobst Brandt --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This >> is often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums >> are spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars >> come to mind. > Toyota screwed up, in a manner that wouldn't have been such a big > deal except that they are a HUGE manufacturer and used the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > indicative of massive system failure (on a company basis) than the > problem itself. > Parallels to bicycles in this regard escape me. Untalented engineers designing equipment for a use that is not understood by them. It is often engineering project managers who make these errors reach the market and marketing, and top management isn't any better at recognizing these faults. The GP 4000 failure is a classic, as are the failings on the Toyota, where the public believes they are being lead into battle by experts. >> Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of >> the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not >> aware of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are >> often not skilled at the art of failure analysis. > It's not failure analysis that's the problem, but rather an > insulation between those who handle warranties, who are very aware > of the problem areas, and the design team. At least as far as the > total package (complete bicycle) is concerned. It is failure analysis where one learns what does and doesn't work. The lack of a chafing strip on a tire bead is a classic because these tires, newly installed, probably perform better than others. As you see, my front Continental tire that blew out in a couple of places at once had made a trip over the Alps before failure a year later. The Continental representative with whom I spoke at InterBike was sure that I had ridden incorrectly; an example of terrible failure analysis. >> Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the >> bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket >> bearings that require cleaning for their exposed bearings. Sloping >> top tubes to give more step-over clearance. > Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic > one-bolt design (Laprade?) has had a history of that bolt failing, > and yet they continue to be available. The Continental tires that you > speak of, without a chafing strip, aren't the first tire to have > issues, nor will they be the last. You are making an error in failure analysis yourself, judging from that opinion. I hope you don't work for these manufacturers. That these were faulty designs was obvious to me, but other than wreck.bike, I have no way of communicating my findings. You should recognize why I wrote "The Bicycle Wheel". That was a cry for help on wheel failures and those in charge of a grand misunderstanding of why and how spokes, rims, and wheels as a whole, fail. Working at Porsche in the F1 car design, I had managers who recognized that we had unmet design challenges and let me design most of the car that Dan Gurney drove to subsequent victory at Franchorchamps, Belgium. > The dual-pivot brake design that you dislike so much simply aren't > causing the problems you lose sleep over. They've been a standard > feature on road bikes since what, 1985 or so? How many tens of > thousands have I sold during that period? And maybe I replace, at > most, one tire/year where somebody has mis-set a pad or allowed it > to wear so much that it contacts the tire? You've seen people report their brake pads getting into tires, something I predicted when I first saw that brake, because its left side had a lot in common with centerpulls. Likewise, I recognized the Campagnolo Delta brake as a huge and expensive mistake... and it died a slow death with the unwitting faithful mourning its passing. That was an easy one to recognize because the Modolo Chronos, on which it was modeled was an obvious mistake: The problem allows assessing clearance problems with real ladders, if you like. Too bad the designers of the Modolo Chronos and the Campagnolo Delta brakes didn't have a feel for how fast the top of a ladder moves as the foot moves away from the wall. For that matter, they had no idea about hyperbolic functions or that brakes must be linear for usefulness. Good engineering takes some mathematics and practical knowledge of applications. The only picture of such a brake that I could find was here if you scroll down: The world's smallest and lightest brake: http://www.lfgss.com/thread31117.html > And where is the issue with sloping top tubes? I was on the Sugden > & Lynch ride the day Tom Ritchey showed up with his first frame, red > I think it was, and he'd screwed up with the measurements and had a > sloping top tube. Which, of course, we made fun of. And which, of > course, he used to win quite a few races that year. So he made a design error, but didn't repeat it. Races are won by physical superiority while mechanisms fail for mental short sighted designs. > Sloping top tubes do allow us to fit more people to a given frame size, > because you can more easily accommodate someone with shorter legs and a > longer torso. If the front end is too high, remove the spacers under the > stem and flip it so it's parallel. ... and they allow long seat posts to be used. >> The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years >> ago about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> it is a feature... a feature to protect sex organs. Can you think >> of a more gripping ploy? > I'm not aware of anyone selling sloping top tubes as a > gonad-protective design. It does help people throw their leg over > the top tube if they're shorter-legged though. They must throw their leg over the saddle, that hasn't changed it height one bit. >> Just think how many years bicycles were raced and ridden on tours >> with no such fear. Then came the people who could not stop the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> follow a bent rim... its large cosine error sweeps one brake pad >> off the rim. > "People who could not stop the bicycle for lack of grip strength of > brake levers." Well gee, we should require that people do hand [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > should make sure people are tested to ensure they have the leg > strength needed. I like your examples of how these things are solved. It fits right in with my estimation of how the bicycle industry sends trial balloons into the market, some of which are not benign. > Oh heck, let's just get practical about it. The typical woman has > much less hand strength than the typical guy. So I guess they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more powerful than they were, and that doing so would be a good > thing. >> STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and >> function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were >> shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. Bicycling is an >> endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical advantage (under >> full power) as riders are lead to believe. > Yes, I know, we're shifting too much because it's too easy to do, and > contributing to global warming. I like your bizarre justifications for weakly supported design concepts. They support my contentions. > I agree that STI adds complexity and cost. But so does an automatic > transmission, and STI has a lot more going for it than automatic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't have to think about. A bike that shifts more easily, brakes > more powerfully. >> MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport >> paints a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... >> basically a form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents >> and lots of air-time. > You might not believe this, but there are mountain bikers who enjoy > climbing every bit as much as you and I. But I agree, there are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thing road cyclists are law-abiding folk. Must be converts from > mountain to road who blow through the stop signs. These are the smallest part of the genre. We have roads and trails on which bicycles are prohibited because they style is dangerous for riders and hikers, as well as equestrians. Locally Charcoal Road is a no bicycle route because so many MTB'ers crashed descending it with max air time. I found that interesting having descended that on my road bicycle years before. > Dang, it's been a while since you got me going like this. I should say the same for your response. Jobst Brandt > >> This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > >> bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Untalented engineers designing equipment for a use that is not > understood by them. It is often engineering project managers who make It's not been a long day, yet I'm so, so sleepy. JB designed for the POST WW2 German F1 ? waytogo ! no response to Celebrity Marketing from the UNwashed ? CM vs Racing purse say or Racing Technology purse say? Vicariuos ego transfer driving the market supporting bank loans for newbie F1 bicycles as proven market share before the fact ? lika hedge fund ? well. Comment prior was 'thank god that's over caws it was kinda dumb to inflict the unwashed with The Great French Bicycke Race geometry. Did MJ breath asigh oh relief when the last went out the door or did he weep over the 'poor' slobs bad choice ? When Lance vanished back into the mountains, the GFBR geometry went with him, maufacturers then brought the rear wheel away from the seat post, brought the front tire forward a hair or two... and stopped jamming the GFBRGeo down the markets gourmand throat. I had the E250GT tuned for Baja today. In the showroom was a twin shurerock Mustang....Even if the world deafinitlee doesnot need one, it leads the showroom's unwashed dimagination, as a Shelby off course, chicken farmer raced at LeMans, discovered the AC in AD 1740 ? Maybe we could get Barb posing atop a Prius ? > well. Comment prior was 'thank god that's over caws it was kinda dumb > to inflict the unwashed with The Great French Bicycke Race geometry. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > post, brought the front tire forward a hair or two... > and stopped jamming the GFBRGeo down the markets gourmand throat. What French bikes are you talking about? Peugeots, Gitanes, Merciers... for the most part, pretty boring, sometimes even laid back geometry. The exception was Stella. Oh my gosh were those insane machines. Long before Cannondale tried to convince people that no frame could be too stiff (a belief they've thankfully abandoned), Stella was at it. Originally a builder of typical French bicycles with "normal" geometry, they got the idea in the mid-70s to try super-short chainstays and ultra-beefy tube cross sections in the tail end. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > JB designed for the POST WW2 German F1 ? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Maybe we could get Barb posing atop a Prius ? >What French bikes are you talking about? Peugeots, Gitanes, Merciers... for >the most part, pretty boring, sometimes even laid back geometry. Dear Mike, Speaking of Peugeots and laid-back geometry . . . http://bikeroute.com/PeugeotBent1914.jpg Cheers, Carl Fogel > [...] > Maybe we could get Barb posing atop a Prius ? Maybe if you sponsor her RAAM effort? http://www.barbarabuatois.net/index.php?option=com_rokquickcart&view=rokquickcar t&Itemid=7&lang=en SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 On Feb 24, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: > > [...] > > Maybe we could get Barb posing atop a Prius ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 you could change your name to TORN SHERMAN ? > On Feb 24, 8:40 pm, Tom Sherman °_° > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > you could change your name to TORN SHERMAN ? TRANS SHERMAN, TARN SHERMAN ? TUM SHREMIN ? the psossibilities are endless > Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic one-bolt > design (laprade?) I did have a Laprade (SR) and it did not fail, while others (who were lighter and rode with me) with similar one bolt designs did repeatedly have bolt failure. I use a Campag, which is similar with no issues. The failures could possibly be due to not having the saddle centred in the clips. > has had a history of that bolt failing, and yet they > continue to be available. The Conti tires that you speak of, without a > chafing strip, aren't the first tire to have issues, nor will they be the > last. The dual-pivot brake design that you dislike so much simply aren't > causing the problems you lose sleep over. They've been a standard feature on > road bikes since what, 1985 or so? Introduced 1990 into UK. Not standard in that year. >> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic one-bolt >> design (laprade?) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Introduced 1990 into UK. Not standard in that year. Thanks, should have known that it was around then. Just a year or so ahead of STI if I recall correctly. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > >> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic one-bolt > >> design (laprade?) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks, should have known that it was around then. Just a year or so ahead > of STI if I recall correctly. Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at the brakes at the importers/wholesale/retail business where I got my Time pedals. Unleess it was another occasion, oh yes, perhaps it was to replace a buck, no that was earlier. I'm quite confident it was likely 1990, although probably half the racing men had switched in my club that year, probably due to poor braking on some of the hard anodised rims. I'd got the Chorus equipment whose brakes still are superb. After a season of getting outbraked by those on either the chorus (actually 3 or four years in by then, but not obviously present) or dual pivot, nearly all the mafacs and modolos and many record, superbe and carreras dissapeared from road racing. In racing I watched rear brakes a lot. Trevor Jeffry wrote: >>>> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic >>>> one-bolt design (Laprade?) >>> I did have a Laprade (SR) and it did not fail, while others (who >>> were lighter and rode with me) with similar one bolt designs did >>> repeatedly have bolt failure. I use a Campagnolo, which is similar >>> with no issues. The failures could possibly be due to not having >>> the saddle centered in the clips. >>>> has had a history of that bolt failing, and yet they continue to >>>> be available. The Continental tires that you speak of, without a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> over. They've been a standard feature on road bikes since what, >>>> 1985 or so? >>> Introduced 1990 into UK. Not standard in that year. >> Thanks, should have known that it was around then. Just a year or >> so ahead of STI if I recall correctly. > Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at the > brakes at the importers/wholesale/retail business where I got my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > record, superbe and carreras disappeared from road racing. In > racing I watched rear brakes a lot. I hope you are aware of the other feature of hard anodized rims, beside cracking, initiated by the hard crust that was claimed to make the rim stronger, the anodizing is an insulator (electrical and thermal) that causes the friction interface to overheat and lose grip. That's another one of those stupid things bicycle engineers did for us in the advancement of technology. I recall now how the faithful defended hard anodizing (it must be good, it costs more) in the days when I tried to expose its flaws. It was much like this thread. Jobst Brandt > I recall now how the faithful defended hard anodizing (it must be > good, it costs more) in the days when I tried to expose its flaws. It > was much like this thread. > > Jobst Brandt No it was not. In this thread you're describing theoretical deficiencies that should be causing problems that nobody's reporting. The anodized rim thread was almost the opposite, with people looking for reasons why rims were failing, anodizing being an explanation. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Jobst Brandt > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > >>>> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Jobst Brandt And I have reported repeatedly that the only cracking i have personally experienced was with Mavic MA40s which exibited surface cracking only, the whole inner rim wall is crazed, there is no big stress riser because the whole surface is like a fine snakeskin. Rim splits are due to overtensioning of spokes. A position I thought I was at with that rim, but obviously not since I managed to get a significant mileage in. > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > >>>> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > good, it costs more) in the days when I tried to expose its flaws. It > was much like this thread. "Oh the frustration when they won't Believe!" --D-y > > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > > >>>> Seatposts have failed from the beginning of time. The classic [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > "Oh the frustration when they won't Believe!" > --D-y Actually the good thing about these hard rims is that they did get hot and managed to grab a film of rubber so that when braking in the wet, the performance was still good. All of course with Campag Chorus or dual pivot brakes. Trevor Jeffry wrote: >>>> Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at >>>> the brakes at the importers/wholesale/retail business where I got [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>> carreras disappeared from road racing. In racing I watched rear >>>> brakes a lot. >>> I hope you are aware of the other feature of hard anodized rims, >>> beside cracking, initiated by the hard crust that was claimed to >>> make the rim stronger, the anodizing is an insulator (electrical >>> and thermal) that causes the friction interface to overheat and >>> lose grip. That's another one of those stupid things bicycle >>> engineers did for us in the advancement of technology. >>> I recall now how the faithful defended hard anodizing (it must be >>> good, it costs more) in the days when I tried to expose its >>> flaws. It was much like this thread. >> "Oh the frustration when they won't Believe!" > Actually the good thing about these hard rims is that they did get > hot and managed to grab a film of rubber so that when braking in the > wet, the performance was still good. All of course with Campagnolo > Chorus or dual pivot brakes. I think you need to inform yourself how friction heating preferentially generates heat in the softer of a sliding pair because heating occurs from molecular dislocations and bond breaking. Therefore, heat is generated in the brake pad and must transfer to the aluminum rim to be dissipated to the atmosphere. If the rim has an insulating coating, this function is perverted. Jobst Brandt > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > >>>> Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Jobst Brandt I think you must considetr the practicalities. The blocks (black Campagnolo) adhered to the new rims despite your moaning. Yes, they were awful at first, but following hard applications in the dry, the braking worked well in the wet. The rim had become coated wilth a film of rubber. Every nw and again I would clean it offf when there was a build up and the braking would revert to being non-grabby. This rubber transfer did not occur with bare aluminium and so no gain could be found in the wet. 36, try spraying belt dressing from CRC on the rim braking surface. Clean lightly with Isopropyl, remove and redo with thinner then iso. evreyone shifts down for stops. > 36, try spraying belt dressing from CRC on the rim braking surface. > Clean lightly with Isopropyl, remove and redo with thinner then iso. It probably works well. I havn't got round to doing it because I rarely ride in the wet and if brake pads seem lacking when wet it is quick and easy enough to run a saw through their faces. The extra slots cannot abrade away and are good enough for all but torrential rain. I think the belt dressing would be most appropriate when needing to go over a long hill in the morning. A cold bare rim attracts dew and is very poor unless all oil has been removed prior to riding. > 36, try spraying belt dressing from CRC on the rim braking surface. > Clean lightly with Isopropyl, remove and redo with thinner then iso. > > evreyone shifts down for stops. Not me. I have a hub gear so I shift down for starts! :-) Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride In article <4eb3c742-b175-42d5-974f-6e4959bc5462@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > evreyone shifts down for stops. I do not shift at stops or starts; and ride a geared bicycle. SignatureMichael Press > In article > <4eb3c742-b175-42d5-974f-6e4959bc5...@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do not shift at stops or starts; > and ride a geared bicycle. But surely you shift down when you know that you're *going to* stop. That's shifting down for stops. In article <fa2c30dc-a53b-4fce-aa25-eca7f927542d@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <4eb3c742-b175-42d5-974f-6e4959bc5...@k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But surely you shift down when you know that you're *going to* stop. > That's shifting down for stops. Read my words. And don't call me Shirley. Okay, I will spell it out. I pick a gear and ride it; ride it into a traffic stop, ride it out of a traffic stop, ride it between traffic stops. There. SignatureMichael Press > In article > <fa2c30dc-a53b-4fce-aa25-eca7f9275...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And don't call me Shirley. No offense :-). I just read the words, "do not shift at stops", to mean that you do not shift *at* stops. (Neither do I.) However, I figured that maybe (not calling you "Maybe"), just maybe you *do* shift (as do I) when you come into circumstances that warrant being more prepared to stop. If not, my mistaken supposition. > Okay, I will spell it out. I pick a gear and ride it; > ride it into a traffic stop, ride it out of a traffic > stop, ride it between traffic stops. There. Okay, fair enough and far be it for me to tell anyone else how they should ride. And I think I understand: When I "pick a gear" for circumstances that make me prepared to stop, it's usually still the 48-14 anyway. But you never shift *between* traffic stops? That seems kind of weird, man (again, no offense). In article <db07fb41-aeb7-4459-b90e-2ee55b299bb9@a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > In article > > <fa2c30dc-a53b-4fce-aa25-eca7f9275...@z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > But you never shift *between* traffic stops? That seems kind of > weird, man (again, no offense). You think it weird, so we will leave it at that. SignatureMichael Press There's new "improvements" coming along all the time. Just in case, here's another improvement in performance for the competitor: http://www.gizmag.com/shimano-dura-ace-di2-electronic-shift/11407/ How will I ever keep up if I don't get one? Jobst Brandt Op 23-2-2010 8:55, Jobst Brandt schreef: > There's new "improvements" coming along all the time. Just in case, > here's another improvement in performance for the competitor: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Geez Jobst I'm tempted to buy a di2 equipped bike now, just to piss you old school guys off and to reward Shimano for their good work. This bike off mine is hopeless outdated ;-). http://picasaweb.google.nl/LoetjeH/Maratona2007#5441498948105349906 Lou, yes it's me celebrity racing bicycle designs fly off the walls... walking down National City's "Mile Of Cars" (fleet side), I came onto a: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chicagosportscars.com/cars/gallery /9007070.jpg&imgrefurl=http://chicagosportscars.com/cars/gallery/9007070.html&us g=__yvXyh1-6NdmyAcCOxDgHZNowvhk=&h=600&w=800&sz=97&hl=en&start=11&um=1&itbs=1&tb nid=zQpd5Gk13FkkgM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmercedes%2Bbenz%2B320%2 B2003%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ_en%26tbs%3Disch:1 > celebrity racing bicycle designs fly off the walls... > > walking down National City's "Mile Of Cars" (fleet side), I came onto > a: > > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://chicagosportscars.com/cars/gallery /9007070.jpg&imgrefurl=http://chicagosportscars.com/cars/gallery/9007070.html&us g=__yvXyh1-6NdmyAcCOxDgHZNowvhk=&h=600&w=800&sz=97&hl=en&start=11&um=1&itbs=1&tb nid=zQpd5Gk13FkkgM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmercedes%2Bbenz%2B320%2 B2003%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ_en%26tbs%3Disch:1 How much?!? > > celebrity racing bicycle designs fly off the walls... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How much?!? I dunno. spoke with a used Merc man in Tampa...MD buys used A1 Merc and signs the rebuild check. SOP. Did that with muh 544 doin muh own work off course. The one here is best. I see late '60's Falcons here and a terminal Valiant wagon - back glass gone - no talent. The 2003 looks a bit like the Ferrari Mustang followed the beaut square Mustang. I have a yen for the French Nose and Curve 4wd v12 AMG saloon or is that sailon ? with electrostatic screens...in Bahma Blue... Trevor Jeffry wrote: >>>>>> Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at >>>>>> the brakes at the importers/wholesale/retail business where I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>>>>> and carreras disappeared from road racing. In racing I watched >>>>>> rear brakes a lot. >>>>> I hope you are aware of the other feature of hard anodized rims, >>>>> beside cracking, initiated by the hard crust that was claimed to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>>> it costs more) in the days when I tried to expose its flaws. It >>>>> was much like this thread. >>>> "Oh the frustration when they won't Believe!" >>> Actually the good thing about these hard rims is that they did get >>> hot and managed to grab a film of rubber so that when braking in >>> the wet, the performance was still good. All of course with >>> Campagnolo Chorus or dual pivot brakes. >> I think you need to inform yourself how friction heating >> preferentially generates heat in the softer of a sliding pair [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> atmosphere. If the rim has an insulating coating, this function is >> perverted. > I think you must considetr the practicalities. The blocks (black > Campagnolo) adhered to the new rims despite your moaning. Yes, they > were awful at first, but following hard applications in the dry, the > braking worked well in the wet. The rim had become coated wilth a > film of rubber. You describe melted brake material, as one should expect from running a brake pads on hard insulation. Anodizing is a ceramic thermally insulting coating electro-chemically grown from the base aluminum. > Every now and again I would clean it offf when there was a build up > and the braking would revert to being non-grabby. This rubber > transfer did not occur with bare aluminium and so no gain could be > found in the wet. Your brakes were melting, the "grab" being adhesion of molten brake material to brake pad. With all the technical advice you give here, you should have analyzed what was going on with your unpredictable braking. This is all part of tribology, a greatly misunderstood subject in engineering, as I have mentioned here often. Jobst Brandt > Trevor Jeffry wrote: > >>>>>> Couldn't tell you on that. Just remember having a good look at [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Practically, it is as I say, the wet weather braking on a hard anodised rim was better than bare aluminium when a rubber film had formed on the rim. This is contrary to to your 'mentioning'. You obviously do not understand. On Feb 19, 8:18 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote: > > Then came the people who could not stop the bicycle for > > lack of grip strength on brake levers. The solution was to increase [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Oh heck, let'sjust get practical about it. The typical woman has much less > hand strength than the typical guy. So I guess they shouldn't be riding. After the British left, in Zimbabwe the queues in every post office grew in concert with Africanization, until eventually they reached several times around the block. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs invented a wonderful solution to the incompetence of his staff. Nobody in the queue would be permitted to buy more than one stamp at a time. The queues were institutionalized forever. It was declared a racist activity to mention the queues. I definitely think we should put Jobst in charge of making cycling a popular activity in the US. In the blink of an eyelid he'd have the whole country back in the Stone Age, and the President will hail him as a national genius! And after Jobst has "reformed", he can start "reforming" women. I'll vote for that! Andre Jute Thank god I live elsewhere! >"Jobst Brandt" <jbrandt@sonic.net> wrote in message >And where is the issue with sloping top tubes? I was on the Sugden & Lynch >ride the day Tom Ritchey showed up with his first frame, red I think it was, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >design. It does help people throw their leg over the top tube if they're >shorter-legged though. Dear Mike, Sloping top tubes also helped with higher frames and monster seat posts. Sloping top tubes were popular with the early safeties: http://www.princetonhistory.org/polImage.cfm?Doc_Id=9&Size_Code=large http://www.flickr.com/photos/radlmax/4118721533/in/set-72157602098075292/ Cheers, Carl Fogel > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars come to > mind. A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost spokeless wheels are ready to go and the carbon fork has a dent on it (from being locked up). In other words the bike is trashed. It makes me want to puke every time a see a company that began from rock solid lugged reynolds bikes hand built in a barn selling this kind of crap as a "commuter". http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/portland/portland/ > Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of > the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not aware > of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are often not > skilled at the art of failure analysis. I think you are giving the designers too much credit. This is avarice, not stupidity. They are building bikes *designed to fail*. http://www.bustedcarbon.com/ > Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the > bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. The transformation of the classic mountain bike from a stout, all purpose mutt into the twitchy, fragile, and inbred show it has become dog is one the greatest crimes in the history of bicycling. Many modern moutain bikes need a trip to the mechanic after *every* ride. -Rando > A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek > portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/portland/portland/ It's not a bike, Rando, it's a fashion statement. It says "I care about the environment. I'm trendy, hep, with it." I can easily see it parked in the hallway of an expensive apartment within view of the Mies Barcelona chair: both serve the same purpose of establishing the image the owners wish to project but are functionally worse than useless. Now imagine if the guy bought a bike truly capable of commuting, something like my Gazelle Toulouse http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20Bauhaus.html -- why, it wouldn't look sporting, and he'd have to explain that "Andre Jute says it is an expression of de Stijl, which was a sort of better Dutch version of the Bauhaus," and he'd look a nerd, and then somebody might ask him about de Stijl and he wouldn't know and he'd look an idiot, even though he owns a bike on which he can actually commute. Far better for him to buy a Trek Portland after Trek has spent the money telling everyone it is a "commuter". So, the real thing would be an embarrassment to him, while the pseudo- commuter does everything he wants it to do, none of which is to commute... (There's a product manager at Trek that has earned a big bonus for the Portland!) BTW, Trek treats only its US customers with such open contempt. European customers are treated to good value, appropriate bikes by Trek Benelux. I had a Trek Navigator from Trek Benelux that was extremely satisfactory (after a minimum of reengineering); mine was fitted with the all-auto Shimano Cyber Nexus groupset. It's on my netsite if you haven't seen it yet. Andre Jute "The first American car was sold to an American on April Fool's Day, 1898." -- Ralph Stein in "Vintage and Classic Cars", Bantam Books, 1977 > > A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek > > portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > image the owners wish to project but are functionally worse than > useless. Hey, I've been commuting every day in PDX for the last 26 years -- commuting altogether for maybe 42+ years (I always rode to school). I'd love a Trek Portland. It would be my perfect commuting bike because it has discs and it is reasonably light. Many of my commute routes take me over 10-15% hills (tonight I might go home up S.W. College the wrong way which is a 31% grade). A nice light-ish bike with tire clearance for the winter months and discs would be great. I don't know about the low-spoke count wheels, but some people like them a lot. If they were a problem, I would throw on another pair. > Now imagine if the guy bought a bike truly capable of commuting, > something like my Gazelle Toulouse [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > fitted with the all-auto Shimano Cyber Nexus groupset. It's on my > netsite if you haven't seen it yet. You like boat anchors. I don't, and in fact, I commute all summer on a racing bike. There is nothing magical about dry-weather commuters -- you can commute on a f****** unicycle if you want. IMO, the poseurs are the people with the flat bar fixies or weird retro bikes like Varsities. These clowns -- who are usually about the age of my SPD pedals -- think that any piece of crap from the past is somehow special or better. It isn't. Who needs a fifty pound tank to ride to work. I don't get all the "commuter bike" hubbub. Every bike is a commuter bike. Now, if I parked my bike outside at an unmonitored rack, I would not ride anything worth over about $50 bucks, but that is a different issue -- and not one I need to cope with because I have a nice, safe parking lot in my building. -- Jay Beattie. > > > A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek > > > portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > - Show quoted text - all hail Jay Beattie.... say Jay, this here racing bike of yourn, how's the maintenance schedule ? 8 - 9 -10 speed ? JB could write up a superior component roadtest. My finding was Deore got the commute done but racier parts - bought used pulease - gave up right quick. > > > > A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek > > > > portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Jay ? yawl broken down out on the road in Lower Portland or out in the garage fixing the warp runner ? > > > > A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek > > > > portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My standard commute bike is a Cannondale disc cross bike with 9sp STI and zero maintenance except for generous 30W on the chain. It's a wreck and caked in mud right now with lots of ghost shifting, but I'll get that under control on Sunday, if I have time. Tires have gone from 35mm to 25mm (Schwalbe Blizzard and Gatorskin 28mm) in the last week due to local global warming. It's a collection of 105 and Deore with a crappy ISIS BB on a Truvativ crank. Wheels are OpenPros on Deore disc hubs that I built and work fine. The only part I have replaced are chains and cogs and BBs because ISIS is crap. I broke the OEM Cinelli bars while commuting to work. Meanwhile, I have 34 year old Cinellli bars on my tourning bike. New Cinelli is not old Cinelli. I also have one platform pedal to accommodate my CAM boot, which I will transition out of this week and back in to a cleated shoe (SPD). My racing bike is all Ultegra 9sp. It never breaks down. I use conventional 32/36 spoke wheels that I built. I break spokes now and then because I recycle spokes without regard for prior orientation. I probably have 30 year old spokes in some of my current wheels, which are Aerohead OCs on ancient Ultegra hubs. -- Jay Beattie. On Feb 18, 4:09 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote: > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars come to > mind. ========= A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost spokeless wheels are ready to go and the carbon fork has a dent on it (from being locked up). In other words the bike is trashed. It makes me want to puke every time a see a company that began from rock solid lugged reynolds bikes hand built in a barn selling this kind of crap as a "commuter". ========= How quickly we forget about the ease with which those "rock solid lugged reynolds bikes" of any variety would fold up their front ends in crash that never seemed all that bad. Many shops of that era had these torture contraptions consisting of two long pipes connected by a hinge, one threaded, with an attachment on one end that would fit over the bottom bracket shell, and the other end would go up through the head tube (fork having been removed). By unthreading the pipe you would be pushing the headtube pipe away from the bottom bracket, theoretically straightening out a crumpled down tube. After you saw a few downtubes tear after this "repair" you started thinking about your product liability insurance. We've sold quite a few Portlands, and they've done very well for our customers. Sure, with a carbon fork, you're going to have to be more careful than with something more conventional, but the fork's no lightweight and can take quite a beating (it's a variant of a cyclocross fork, which is meant for abuse). Don't know about spokeless wheels. The ones we've sold have had 24 spokes, if I recall correctly. Signature--Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA On Feb 18, 4:09 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote: > This subject arises now and then when someone buys an expensive > bicycle believing that it is the best technology can offer. This is > often incorrect in the age of marketing in which inordinate sums are > spent to create a suitable image for a product. Toyota cars come to > mind. A friend of mine (against my advice) recently purchased a Trek portland as a commuter bike. Now, half a year later, the almost spokeless wheels are ready to go and the carbon fork has a dent on it (from being locked up). In other words the bike is trashed. It makes me want to puke every time a see a company that began from rock solid lugged reynolds bikes hand built in a barn selling this kind of crap as a "commuter". http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/urban/portland/portland/ > Reviewing what has come along recently, I am convinced that most of > the "advances" are the opposite, because the designers are not aware > of the long term effects. In bicycling the designers are often not > skilled at the art of failure analysis. I think you are giving the designers too much credit. This is avarice, not stupidity. They are building bikes *designed to fail*. http://www.bustedcarbon.com/ > Classically, seatposts, saddles, tires with no chafing strip at the > bead, brakes with large cosine error in pad sweep, bottom bracket [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. The transformation of the classic mountain bike from a stout, all purpose mutt into the twitchy, fragile, and inbred show it has become dog is one the greatest crimes in the history of bicycling. Many modern moutain bikes need a trip to the mechanic after *every* ride. -Rando READS as Jay replaces parts. Equation is as Brandt sez - cannah arrrgeu - as equipment lightens thru development/racing, breakage and wear increase. Bontrager Satellite Elite, carbon - eeyyehahaa Satellite elite - funny copy standard. I'm not up on it. Where's over the line, a moveable point. Time for an interactive NYT graphic. As eg, how are the carbon seat stays selling and riding ? Ask the Trek copy writer. Balance tween repair - as Jay is/was replacing/modifying -is a complex equation: who can, who can't, time vs $$$. Complete market failure when small breakages eliminate a customer forever - not an infrequent happening from what I hear...long list of human behaviors in supply and demand. The celebrity/racing problem, as it was with rearwheel/seat stay rub, sometimes gets everything slightly out of whack. The Shurerock Mustang had a buyer - he couldn't find insurance. Trek's writer writes for Ford ? http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___89123 > READS as Jay replaces parts. > Equation is as Brandt sez - cannah arrrgeu - as equipment lightens [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The Shurerock Mustang had a buyer - he couldn't find insurance. Trek's > writer writes for Ford ?http://www.campmor.com/outdoor/gear/Product___89123 It's commuting and not single track or demolition derby. My long weekend rides often include my five mile commute to or from downtown PDX. It's not like my racing bike is breaking down on those five miles because they are special or magical. The only difference is that when I am going to work, I usually have a back pack. Now, if I were going shopping, I would take a bike with a rack and something more stable riding with a load -- like my touring bike. And when the weather is super bad, I ride my cross bike commuter on weekend rides because I like the fat tires for traction, and it has fenders. My bike choices are driven more by weather than anything else. I wouldn't commute all the time in dry weather on my racing bike, though, because I don't like wearing out the expensive ties. -- Jay Beattie. > I wouldn't > commute all the time in dry weather on my racing bike, though, because > I don't like wearing out the expensive ti[r]es. -- Jay Beattie. Something smells to high heaven in the kingdon of cycling when the cost of tyres becomes a consideration... Andre Jute Down with the spoilsport Telemachus! > STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and > function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were > shifting continually, as some riders do to no avail. Bicycling is an > endurance sport, not a quick switch of mechanical advantage (under > full power) as riders are lead to believe. "To no avail"-- as if efficiency were the only point. You've said here before that there is no point to downshifting for red lights because going up through gears while accelerating won't get you back up to speed any quicker. To state what I would hope is obvious: efficiency is not everyone's sole concern. To lots of us, gears are used to make cycling more pleasant. We shift at stops and on rolling terrain not out of a belief that it makes us faster, but rather because we have preferences about how much force we feel like applying at the pedals. Tom Ace > > STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and > > function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have preferences about how much force we feel > like applying at the pedals. Far too much cycling discussion is made aridly unproductive by the assumption that efficiency is the sole, single, exclusionary standard of judgment for any component or alteration, and furthermore that the only worthwhile measure of efficiency is speed. It is what I generally shorthand as 'that deleterious racing mindset'. However much I may agree with you on the above, Tom, I think we want to be careful not to let Jobst get away with his statement which you've paraphrased as: > there is no point to > downshifting for red lights because going up through > gears while accelerating won't get you back up to > speed any quicker. Clearly, even on the level, a gearbox offers advantages, and here they should be easily measurable with a stopwatch. The argument is simply to take the extreme: a big chainwheel that even the lion-thewed will take a while to get moving and to accelerate, versus gears chosen to optimize the acceleration of the cyclist. It is obvious what the outcome will be. A more realistic big chainwheel will just be less far behind the thoughtfully selected gearset. Andre Jute A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes > [...] > However much I may agree with you on the above, Tom, I think [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Clearly, even on the level, a gearbox offers advantages, and > here they should be easily measurable with a stopwatch. [...] I tried. His response was that tests showed no benefit because time lost to operating the shifter negated any advantage. I couldn't take his report seriously without knowing the details of the equipment, methodology, and test conditions. I'd like Jobst to say what downside he thinks there is to shifting when you feel like it. He writes as if any shifter more convenient than a downtube lever is an invitation to decadence, on a par with unveiled women and easy access to alcohol. Tom Ace > I'd like Jobst to say what downside he thinks there > is to shifting when you feel like it. He writes as if > any shifter more convenient than a downtube lever > is an invitation to decadence, on a par with unveiled > women and easy access to alcohol. It does lead to de cadence improper. Choose your gear according to desired pedal force and let your legs turn at whatever speed suits your effort level. This will likely result in a lower starting than running gear, but there is no need to choose five gears in between. The speed and low pedal pressure help to remove toxins from the muscles. For short duration rapid acceleration, high pedal speeds with low pedal pressure are easier and obtainable. >> [...] However much I may agree with you on the above, Tom, I think >> we want to be careful not to let Jobst get away with his statement >> which you've paraphrased as: >>> there is no point to downshifting for red lights because going up >>> through gears while accelerating won't get you back up to speed >>> any quicker. >> Clearly, even on the level, a gearbox offers advantages, and here >> they should be easily measurable with a stopwatch. [...] > I tried. His response was that tests showed no benefit because time > lost to operating the shifter negated any advantage. I couldn't > take his report seriously without knowing the details of the > equipment, methodology, and test conditions. > I'd like Jobst to say what downside he thinks there is to shifting > when you feel like it. He writes as if any shifter more convenient > than a downtube lever is an invitation to decadence, on a par with > unveiled women and easy access to alcohol. I think you are using your own interpretation of what I wrote. Because brake levers that shift are not necessary to select a correct gear, the complexity and vagary of a wobbly brake lever offer no advantage, I think keeping shifting and braking separate is preferable. Not shifting at a stop arises from the days when gears were allowed for the Standing Start 1KM record, for which fixed gear riders were always faster than the two speeds that were allowed for the track. Subsequently, most riders did standing starts, shifting and not, usually riding a 90" (or 88") fixed gear when not shifting. A rested rider can put more power into a fixed gear at a start. That gears are used in road racing (and touring), arises from fatigue, when the rider can no longer put as high a rate of power into the pedals. Gears on bicycles are there to climb grades, not starting on flat land. Railway over and under-crossings for which most fast riders don't shift. I suppose those of us who are no longer "young and beautiful", the ability to ride a fixed gear fades. However, I still ride a 90" gear, (amongst my 14 ratios), all day from Palo Alto to San Jose, over Mount Hamilton to Livermore and back through Niles canyon to Palo Alto. I recall years ago that I could out-sprint riders to the top of the (4209ft) summit, below the observatory, in that gear. I don't expect to do that today. http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm Jobst Brandt > That > gears are used in road racing (and touring), arises from fatigue, when > the rider can no longer put as high a rate of power into the pedals. > Gears on bicycles are there to climb grades, not starting on flat > land. Railway over and under-crossings for which most fast riders > don't shift. Sounds like one of those gyms that won't let you join unless you're already fit and slender... ...and people wonder why Joe Bloggs greets the very idea of cycling with repugnance. Don't sweat it, Jobst. I'm not picking on you in particular. Engineers and roadies are expected to be insensitive, and when someone is both an engineer and a roadie, and old besides, it would amaze us all the more to discover he is in the least sensitive. You're just conforming to classification. Andre Jute Don't mess with the gorilla. > >> [...] However much I may agree with you on the above, Tom, I think > >> we want to be careful not to let Jobst get away with his statement [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > http://www.rntl.net/mthamiltonlookout.htm Jobst, we've had this conversation like a billion times. You're a freak. No one rides a 90" gear over Mt. Hamilton except you. I've raced over Hamilton and ridden with people far better than me (many of them rode with you, too), and I can say with certainty that no one rode a 90" gear over Hamilton -- not even Greg LeMond. So, if we go back to the real world with normal riders, fixed gear bikes are fun and have their place, but if you are riding fast in a group over sharply varied terrain, you are going to want gears. If you stand and climb like me, STI gives you the ability to shift while standing. It may be a fussy mechanism, but my have lasted for many years without failure. I have never had wobbly brakes or any ill effects from a combined brake/shift mechanism. In fact, the opposite is true -- I can brake and shift with both hands on the bars; I can shift fast out of corners; I can shift more confidently over rough road. STI is superior in every way to DT friction shifting except simplicity and durability -- but again, durability has not been an issue for me. We can get in to the touring in Timbuktu/mud hut repair argument, but we are just talking about riding around domestic locales.-- Jay Beattie. > > >> [...] However much I may agree with you on the above, Tom, I think > > >> we want to be careful not to let Jobst get away with his statement [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Jobst, we've had this conversation like a billion times. You're a > freak. Certainly, my thoughts. > No one rides a 90" gear over Mt. Hamilton except you. I've > raced over Hamilton and ridden with people far better than me (many of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bikes are fun and have their place, but if you are riding fast in a > group over sharply varied terrain, you are going to want gears. Or make sure half the group is on fixed all riding 72" or less. > If you > stand and climb like me, STI gives you the ability to shift while [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > argument, but we are just talking about riding around domestic > locales.-- Jay Beattie. > I'd like Jobst to say what downside he thinks there > is to shifting when you feel like it. He writes as if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom Ace Jobst Brandt as a closet fixie? Tullio is spinning in his grave! Andre Jute You can ride only one bike at a time In article <dcf3bb58-6a5b-47f6-a318-486229be5ccb@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, > > STI shifting greatly complicated the mechanical part in cost and > > function as well as interfering with hand position as though one were [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have preferences about how much force we feel > like applying at the pedals. I do not shift for traffic stops, because it is much more pleasant that way. SignatureMichael Press > I do not shift for traffic stops, > because it is much more pleasant that way. A fine reason for making the choice. Tom Ace > The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years ago > about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when braking. It [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Jobst, I thought it was common knowledge that sloping top tubes enabled manufacturers to make lesser sizes but fit more people in? -Ron Op 20-2-2010 21:41, bicycle_disciple schreef: >> The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years ago >> about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when braking. It [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -Ron Common knowledge is outdated. Lou Ron (who?) wrote: >> The last one is a holdover from non riders who warned us 50 years >> ago about sex organs being impaled on the handlebar stem when [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> it is a feature... a feature to protect sex organs. Can you think >> of a more gripping ploy? > I thought it was common knowledge that sloping top tubes enabled > manufacturers to make lesser sizes but fit more people in? I think you'll find that even the smallest bicycles today have hyena like sloping top tubes and that adults have huge seat posts to make up for the low places seat cluster on the frame. Besides, what's wrong with a making frames the correct size? Jobst Brandt http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/hyenas-laugh-2.jpg > MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints > a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a > form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of > air-time. IMHO a MTB is just a bad compromise: it's a heavy piece of metal, built up with complicated components that need lots of maintenance (suspension fork, hydraulic brakes) and that's beaten on the road by racing bikes and beaten on dirt roads by a CX bike. And what it's good for is for area's where you shouldn't cycle to start with, because you don't want to ride through bushes where zillions of ticks are waiting to give you Lyme disease ..but I don't like MTB"s, so maybe my observations aren't 100% objective ;-) Derk Op 21-2-2010 12:01, Derk schreef: >> MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints >> a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a >> form of downhill dirt motorcycling. Gnarly descents and lots of >> air-time. > IMHO a MTB is just a bad compromise: it's a heavy piece of metal, 9-10 kg is not to hard to achieve. built up > with complicated components that need lots of maintenance (suspension fork, > hydraulic brakes) Fork yes but there are benefits. Hydraulic brakes are not complicated and don't need a lot of maintenance, period. What brakes does your car have? and that's beaten on the road by racing bikes True. and beaten > on dirt roads by a CX bike. That depends on what terrain. You can ride a MTB on terrain where you have to carry a CX. Ever rode a CX bike for more than 2-3-4 hours. > And what it's good for is for area's where you > shouldn't cycle to start with, because you don't want to ride through > bushes where zillions of ticks are waiting to give you Lyme disease It's fun and the scenery is often breathtaking ie in the Alpes. > ..but I don't like MTB"s, so maybe my observations aren't 100% objective ;-) It shows. Lou > Op 21-2-2010 12:01, Derk schreef: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > True. Depends on the rider. I have seen MMTB racers on the road on their MTBs just cooking along as fast as road bikes (with knobbies singing). I'm sure that while they were working harder than me, they were also much fitter than me. > > and beaten on dirt roads by a CX bike. > > That depends on what terrain. You can ride a MTB on terrain where you > have to carry a CX. Ever rode a CX bike for more than 2-3-4 hours. I have, but around here we really have no "mountain biking" as such. We have trails through the woods, nothing like Marin County and other places where this sport was born. The main difference in what's ridable and what's not, to my comparison of my MTBs and my 'cross bikes is gearing. None of my 'cross bikes had a 24 x 32 low gear option; when I've had to portage the 'cross bike it's been because the pitch has been too steep to climb on a 34 x 28. Someone who lives where there are rock gardens and the like might have a different experience. Even "racing" bikes work quite well off-road: http://siliconvalleycyclist.com/rides/slideshow_coast.htm > > And what it's good for is for area's where you shouldn't cycle to > > start with, because you don't want to ride through bushes where > > zillions of ticks are waiting to give you Lyme disease Oh, there are other reasons not to ride MTBs in a lot of places, like damaging fragile soils and causing erosion. > It's fun and the scenery is often breathtaking ie in the Alpes. Which you can ride all over without a mountain bike. <http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps /Pics/f_tende_89.jpg> And a few nice road-bike-on-mountain-trails photos in this interview with Gary Erickson (Clif Bar): <http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-clifbars-gary-erickson-1 8250> Signature"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me." > Oh, there are other reasons not to ride MTBs in a lot of places, like > damaging fragile soils and causing erosion. The studies I've seen show no difference in impact between cycling and walking. Erosion control is almost entirely a matter of trail design, whether biking or hiking. There are a lot of really badly designed trails, most were laid out without a thought given to erosion. >> Oh, there are other reasons not to ride MTBs in a lot of places, >> like damaging fragile soils and causing erosion. > The studies I've seen show no difference in impact between cycling > and walking. > Erosion control is almost entirely a matter of trail design, whether > biking or hiking. There are a lot of really badly designed trails, > most were laid out without a thought given to erosion. You probably don't ride the Santa Cruz Mountains where steep tails, that are never ridden uphill, are gouged out so you cannot walk on them. MTB riders call these gnarly descents as thy jump from one landing to the next, but not being able to stop on any of them. The rear wheel lock-up is the standard method. Jobst Brandt >>> Oh, there are other reasons not to ride MTBs in a lot of places, >>> like damaging fragile soils and causing erosion. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Skidding knobbies will chew up trails by purely mechanical action, excavation, if you will, not erosion. Good mountain bike trails should use switchbacks to control both speed and water erosion. Hikers don't like switchbacks for obvious reasons. In many places it makes sense to separate mountain bikers onto trails specifically designed for them. That approach has worked well here in MA in the few places it's been tried. For mountain bikers that like downhill action, I think ski slopes are good venues. These are highly artificial landscapes to begin with, so environmental degradation isn't an issue. Fire roads also offer an outlet for the thrill seekers with pretty benign effects. It may not sound like it, but I agree with your criticisms of that style (in particular) of mountain biking. I think mountain biking can be compatible with other uses and with land conservation, but the bikes with deep front & rear suspensions and riders in full body armor on hiking trails typify what is wrong with the status quo. When I characterize mountain bike racing as an oxymoron, I get incredulity at best, but more often hostility. I find myself opposed to both MTB and road cycling club's policies over mostly the same issues -- the behavior on group rides and the promotion of what are essentially races either on the roads or in the woods. I have done volunteer mountain biking patrol for years in a local state park. My family and I ride the same way we hike, with care and courtesy for others in the woods. My love of mountain biking has mostly to do with being able to cover a lot of ground in the woods in near silence. The challenges become like trials riding, negotiating narrow twisting and steep trails without dislodging stones or ever skidding a wheel. We carry bikes over wet sections. We only have to ride faster than the mosquitoes, which isn't very fast. In the New England woods, topsoils are thin, and trails (even under just walking) usually erode quickly to the the glacial rock and gravel just under the surface, so deep erosion generally isn't a problem. I've seen sand and clay regions where erosion can be much worse, but the mechanism is usually water after the root mat is disturbed, switchbacks can arrest it. The areas you describe sound more delicate, I've seen deep carving of that sort in spots around here, but only by motorized bikes -- mostly banned in all state parks now. If mountain bikes are chewing up delicate terrain, they should be banned. Restricting bikes to fire roads may be the only practical alternative. As you've pointed out so often in other contexts, simple courtesy should guide behavior. My point is that, just like on the road, courteous cycling on the trails, not encroaching on another's enjoyment of either the moment or the pristine setting, is not only possible, but can improve the cycling experience as well. By adopting a off road riding style that's more like cross country skiing than alpine, you can have the experience without it subtracting from anyone else's. It's just a matter of changing your aesthetic. This article, from 1994, describes the birth of mountain biking and the onset of the conflict in Marin county: http://sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/smithsonian.htm I don't think that the culture of mountain biking and its roots in racing are coincidental. Those who have participated in or promoted bicycle (or automotive for that matter) road or trail racing should take a hard look in the mirror before criticizing the adrenaline junkies they have spawned. The article quotes a rider who defines 2 groups: "hammerheads" and "flower sniffers". The ranks of both road and off-road riders are equally stocked with "hammerheads". The racing culture and commercial interests that encourages it are no mystery, pick up any magazine or walk into any bike store, then go watch the yahoo "consumers" on the roads or trails. Op 21-2-2010 18:21, Tim McNamara schreef: >> and that's beaten on the road by racing bikes >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure that while they were working harder than me, they were also much > fitter than me. Off course it depends on the rider, geez. Bart Brentjes the first Olympic MTB champion used to live around the corner. No way I could beat him on the road with my roadbike. >>> and beaten on dirt roads by a CX bike. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > too steep to climb on a 34 x 28. Someone who lives where there are rock > gardens and the like might have a different experience. Any terrain were you need wide nobby tired for traction you beat a CX bike. Any longer steep downhill you beat a CX bike with a mountain bike and of course when you need lower gears as you mentioned. I'm always beat up after 1-2 hours on a CX bike. With my FS MTB 5 hours is no problem. > Even "racing" bikes work quite well off-road: > > http://siliconvalleycyclist.com/rides/slideshow_coast.htm Quite well? It is doable that is about it. >>> And what it's good for is for area's where you shouldn't cycle to >>> start with, because you don't want to ride through bushes where [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Which you can ride all over without a mountain bike. No no the general scenery is the same but with a MTB you can reach places you can't reach with a roadbike or CX. It is like hiking in the mountains. > <http://www.trentobike.org/Countries/Europe/Tour_Reports/Tour_of_the_Alps > /Pics/f_tende_89.jpg> Are you saying that that is as relaxing as with a mountain bike? I don't think so. Wrong bike on that terrain I would say. > And a few nice road-bike-on-mountain-trails photos in this interview > with Gary Erickson (Clif Bar): > > <http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/interview-clifbars-gary-erickson-1 > 8250> Link doesn't work. Lou >> MTB's typify the reliance on arcane equipment while that sport paints >> a dirty picture of bicycling for most outdoor people... basically a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Derk We've been living in a golden age -- mountain bikes have been extremely popular while mountain biking has not. I've thoroughly enjoyed all the inexpensive high quality bikes and components and the empty woods. I hope it lasts a while longer. The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble commuter and utility cyclist. One which I was recently impressed with are those inline brake levers you see on some cyclo-cross bikes now. I'm not a huge fan of drop bars mainly because I find the action of braking when 'on the hoods' so unnatural. I used to like those Weinemann extension levers, although I can see why they had a reputation for being dangerous. I don't actually posess a bicycle with drop bars at the moment, but if I did, I'd definitely give those inline brake levers a go. Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride > The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in > racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride When one considers the untold millions spent developing and testing racing gear, that's not a fabulously long list you have there, Jim, just one item. And that one item is hardly the stuff of a universal Eureka among cyclists... I suppose we have to show goodwill to all men, even roadies... Lead the way, McDuff! Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review > When one considers the untold millions spent developing and testing > racing gear, that's not a fabulously long list you have there, Jim, > just one item. And that one item is hardly the stuff of a universal > Eureka among cyclists... Indeed. I can't think of anything else I want thanks. Maybe I'm just easily pleased :-) ... thinks ... ... hmmm ... I like the look of the go-cycle. http://www.gocycleblack.com/ If I ever get my hands on one of those I guess the list would be a fair bit longer. Not sure if you could call the frame monocoque, but it seems to borrow a fair bit from Chris Boardman. Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride > > The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in > > racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I suppose we have to show goodwill to all men, even roadies... Lead > the way, McDuff! Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were working simultaneously on touring derailleurs), six-plus speed freewheels and then freehubs with cassettes, threadless headsets (which I first saw on a track bike), vertical drop-outs, Ti, CF and aluminum first showed up on racing bikes, silica-based tread compounds, folding tires, dual pivot brakes, all of the various BB styles and now outboard bearings, electronic shifting (FWIW -- no trickle down there), Negative trickle down came with low spoke-count wheels, IMO (although many people seem to like them), Racing does not account for the development of much of the stuff on a Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for generators and kick stands in the racing world. -- Jay Beattie. > Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > trickle down there). Negative trickle down came with low > spoke-count wheels, IMO (although many people seem to like them). http://tinyurl.com/yaulgsb > Racing does not account for the development of much of the stuff on > a Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for > generators and kick stands in the racing world. So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. Jobst Brandt > > Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then > > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical > dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. You don't. I said that vertical dropouts were developed (as you know) for racing and specifically, time trial bikes -- at least the first generation thin Campy dropouts. I said nothing about track bikes. -- Jay Beattie. >>> Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS >>> then STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>> low spoke-count wheels, IMO (although many people seem to like >>> them). http://tinyurl.com/yaulgsb >>> Racing does not account for the development of much of the stuff >>> on a Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for >>> generators and kick stands in the racing world. >> So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical >> dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. > You don't. I said that vertical dropouts were developed (as you > know) for racing and specifically, time trial bikes -- at least the > first generation thin Campy dropouts. I said nothing about track > bikes. I guess the juxtaposition implied fixed gear, and that doesn't work with vertical dropouts. That's where I assumed more than I read. Jobst Brandt > >>> Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS > >>> then STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I guess the juxtaposition implied fixed gear, and that doesn't work > with vertical dropouts. <http://www.whiteind.com/rearhubs/singlespeedhubs.html> You're welcome, Jobst! >That's where I assumed more than I read. Or something like that <g>. --D-y > > > Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then > > > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Correction, I did say that I first saw threadless on a track bike. It was sitting in a store in Carbondale, Ill in 1981. The bike also had a coating of LPS3 instead of pain to save weight. -- Jay Beattie. > The bike also had a > coating of LPS3 instead of pain to save weight. -- Jay Beattie. Roadies should know how much pain weighs! It's just surprising that they should try to save it instead of savouring it. -- Andre Jute > Correction, I did say that I first saw threadless on a track bike. It > was sitting in a store in Carbondale, Ill in 1981. The bike also had a > coating of LPS3 instead of pain to save weight. -- Jay Beattie. I dunno, I'd think a coating of pain would make it go /faster/. Mark J. :) > > Correction, I did say that I first saw threadless on a track bike. It > > was sitting in a store in Carbondale, Ill in 1981. The bike also had a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark J. :) screaming fast red pain. > > > Correction, I did say that I first saw threadless on a track bike. It > > > was sitting in a store in Carbondale, Ill in 1981. The bike also had a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > screaming fast red pain. "t". But pain works, too. The bike was supposedly ridden by some local time trial or pursuit champ. I can't remember now. It was all so unimportant after seeing Popeye on the banks of the Mississippi coming through Chester. http://www.guide4chester.com/popeye.html -- Jay Beattie. > > > Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then > > > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - AHA ! The Kranich - the geometery is my German friend In FLA's 'unusual' pump the down lever pedaling action ! perfecto. it's regional . is regionall....well there's the French ankle.... what do the BC's do ? > > Racing inspired step in pedal systems and "click" shifting (SIS then > > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yaulgsb Bit difficult to know what point you're making when you merely supply a reference to a collection of images of Utopia bikes. Or are you dumbly to make the point that, which I made in my own reply to Jay, that much on the Kranich is racing developed, though not necessarily for road-racing. > > Racing does not account for the development of much of the stuff on > > a Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for > > generators and kick stands in the racing world. > So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical > dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. > > Jobst Brandt See what I mean about insensitivity, feller? Jay has a whole long list of stuff that you cannot find fault with but the single nit you pick makes the rest "incredible" for you. You're a curmudgeon, Jobst. Andre Jute Those who live in glass houses shouldn't stack stones at a convenient overarm distance. > So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical > dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. You could use an eccentric bottom bracket. Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride > > So how did you adjust chain tension on a track bike with vertical > > dropouts? That gives this response a ring of incredibility. > > You could use an eccentric bottom bracket. > > --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride With a half link (not essential) and 1 tooth difference on accurately mounted sprockets it is possible to run a chain with less than 1/4" freedom. A slight eccentricity with the axle (by filing) will permit further precision in chain fit (If you feel you must). >>> The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in >>> racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for > generators and kick stands in the racing world. -- Jay Beattie. Not yet. When Mr Jute gets on the UCI equipment committee... SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > >>> The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in > >>> racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Not yet. When Mr Jute gets on the UCI equipment committee... Dynamo lights front and rear will definitely be made compulsory for all classes. No lights, no homologation, no certification of race, contestants or results. Cyclists are trendsetters and should set an example, including a safety example, to the young and the general populace. Come to think of it, make that a steady light and a blinkie front and rear, with reflectors separately if not already build in, with the dynamo and lights performing to an agreed output standard, though there will be no minimum weight requirement. Andre Jute You may be joking. I'm not. I have no sense of humour. -- "jim beam" > > > The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in > > > racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Racing inspired .........electronic shifting (FWIW -- no > trickle down there), I have an electronically shifting bike built in 2004, years before electronic shifting trickled down to racing c2009... The Dura Ace Di2 system for racers is a cut-down version of a system Shimano first sold c1996 for city bikes. That's more than a decade before it trickled down to racing bikes... > Racing does not account for the development of much of the stuff on a > Utopia Kranich, however. You'd be terribly surprised if you took this seriously enough to investigate rather than shooting from the hip. Just offhand, I can list the lightweight butted tubes, the threadless headset and the sturdy stem (mine is adjustable but it's non-adjustable sibling qualifies) from MTB competition, the Rohloff gearbox is intended for offroad competition, butted spokes, folding tyres. Even the special rims appear to be a scaled-up version of MTB competition rims. It's actually ex-racing gear, mainly ex-MTB racing, that accounts for much of the maintenance-free sturdiness and the surprisingly low weight (the steel Kranich is actually lighter ex-factory in the same level of trim than either my Gazelle Toulouse or my Trek Navigator 700 Smover, both the latter ali bikes with specially formed tubes to save weight...) > There is not much of a calling for > generators and kick stands in the racing world. -- Jay Beattie. Yup, that's where they lose me. Andre Jute Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar I think hardly any of those made their way on to my main bicycle.. > Racing inspired step in pedal systems No. I don't even use toe-clips. > and "click" shifting (SIS then > STI) improved derailleur design (although Shimano and SunTour were > working simultaneously on touring derailleurs) I use a 5-speed SA hub gear. > , six-plus speed > freewheels and then freehubs with cassettes, Ditto. > threadless headsets > (which I first saw on a track bike), I hardly know what that is, but my headset does have threads. > vertical drop-outs Horizontal here. > , Ti, CF and > aluminum first showed up on racing bikes Steel here. > , silica-based tread > compounds Tick! (I guess - don't really know as I'd just call it 'rubber'). > , folding tires, No. > dual pivot brakes, Drum brakes here. > all of the various BB > styles I guess mine is a cartridge BB. I would quite like an eccentric BB though - it would make chain tensioning a whole lot easier. > and now outboard bearings Outboard? I confess I don't know what that means. > , electronic shifting (FWIW -- no > trickle down there), Negative trickle down came with low spoke-count [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for > generators and kick stands in the racing world. -- Jay Beattie. I don't have a kick-stand yet - but would quite like one! :-) Signaturewww.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride In article <b55e717e-a5ea-4846-bc91-b6222fdb9dd4@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments in > > > racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Utopia Kranich, however. There is not much of a calling for > generators and kick stands in the racing world. -- Jay Beattie. Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. SignatureMichael Press > Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, > and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. http://www.michelinmotorcycle.com/index.cfm?event=technology.silica If only those fools at Michelin would pay attention to the RBT tire experts. Dave Lehnen > > Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, > > and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dave Lehnen I had two flipping accidents caws of the M Man's wet road design incompetence on ZX. Last week ran into the same criticism of current Michelins on the internet. France as Texas ? The tires lock up and slide in a straight line. On a curve terrific, gnaw gnaw gnaw but braking? GOOD BYE ******* ! >> Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, >> and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Dave Lehnen Dear Dave, Eventually RBT will pay attention: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/922425d8253693da http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/861a3ae5b01c3422?dmode=source Cheers, Carl Fogel > > Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, > > and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dave Lehnen Silica is a poor heat conductor and carbon a good heat conductor. It seems that use of much silica in the filler allows the latex or butyl to heat up and combat the cooling of the water so providing stickiness in wet conditions. > > > Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, > > > and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to heat up and combat the cooling of the water so providing stickiness > in wet conditions. AND WALNUT SHELLS ! > Silica tread is treacherous because it grips better in dry, > and worse in wet than carbon fill tread. I think you are confusing poor examples of synthetic (butyl) based rubber. > The subject of this thread got me thinking about what developments > in racing have created improvements which filter down to the humble > commuter and utility cyclist. > One which I was recently impressed with are those inline brake > levers you see on some cyclo-cross bikes now. I'm not a huge fan of > drop bars mainly because I find the action of braking when 'on the > hoods' so unnatural. I used to like those Weinmann extension > levers, although I can see why they had a reputation for being > dangerous. > I don't actually possess a bicycle with drop bars at the moment, but > if I did, I'd definitely give those inline brake levers a go. www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride What might not be noticed is the cover shot on the right side of the page of a six-day rider, in a classic neutralized mode, is riding with one foot strapped in and the other in the hook of the bar for steering while eating dinner and reading the newspaper. I saw many of these scenes at the six day races I attended in Europe. Jobst Brandt On Feb 21, 6:48 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote: > Jay Beattie wrote: > > On Feb 21, 1:58 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Not yet. When Mr Jute gets on the UCI equipment committee... He would mandate a triode-based headlamp with no negative feedback.-- Jay Beattie. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.