Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of
Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of >>> Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many
different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally in
one sentence is possible.
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of >> Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years
by many different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating
Rivendell generally in one sentence is possible.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
On 9/22/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of >>> Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally in
one sentence is possible.
THose bikes never did a thing for me, like Surly bikes. I find them just
like a boxy 4 door uninspiring sedan.
--
Deacon Mark
On 9/22/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:THose bikes never did a thing for me, like Surly bikes. I find them just
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good explanation of >>>> Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many
different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally in
one sentence is possible.
like a boxy 4 door uninspiring sedan.
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 9/22/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:THose bikes never did a thing for me, like Surly bikes. I find them just like a boxy 4 door uninspiring sedan.
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good
explanation of
Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-
slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many
different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally
in one sentence is possible.
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
--
- Frank Krygowski
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 9/22/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:THose bikes never did a thing for me, like Surly bikes. I find them just
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good
explanation of
Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-
slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many
different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally
in one sentence is possible.
like a boxy 4 door uninspiring sedan.
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to >> the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, Id suggest that as with >adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which >was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than >been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has >changed.
Roger Merriman
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to >>> the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>> I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>>>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>> have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, I’d suggest that as with >> adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which >> was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than
been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has >> changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist,
I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes,
I’d suggest that as with
adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has changed.
Roger Merriman
On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being >>>>>>> involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>>> I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>>> front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>>> have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's >>>> just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, Id suggest that as with >>> adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which >>> was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than >>> been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has >>> changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist,
I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road
cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More complex than that. Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:24:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being >>>>>>>> involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>>>> I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike >>>>>> that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>>>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>>>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well >>>>>> enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>>>> front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a >>>>>> bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>>>> have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's >>>>> just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, I’d suggest that as with
adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which
was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than >>>> been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has >>>> changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist,
I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road
cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More complex than that. Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.
Perhaps, but the teams also want to win.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/23/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:24:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>>>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual >>>>>>>>> "improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being >>>>>>>>> involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some >>>>>>>>> incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>>>>> I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike >>>>>>> that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>>>>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well >>>>>>> enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>>>>> front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a >>>>>>> bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>>>>> have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's >>>>>> just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, Id suggest that as with >>>>> adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which
was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than >>>>> been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has
changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist, >>>> I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road >>>> cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More complex than that. Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.
Perhaps, but the teams also want to win.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes they do, else there's no (or at least less) recompense.
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents
certainly, the skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter
non-disc wheels) for TT and ascent stages. For most rolling
road stages it makes no significant difference.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 16:30:30 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 4:16 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:24:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual >>>>>>>>>> "improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being >>>>>>>>>> involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some >>>>>>>>>> incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike >>>>>>>> that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well >>>>>>>> enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by. >>>>>>>> Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes. >>>>>>>>
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>>>>>> front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a >>>>>>>> bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment. >>>>>>>
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a >>>>>>> wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's >>>>>>> just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, I’d suggest that as with
adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which
was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than
been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has
changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want... >>>>> and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist, >>>>> I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road >>>>> cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw >>>>> an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More complex than that. Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.
Perhaps, but the teams also want to win.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Yes they do, else there's no (or at least less) recompense.
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents
certainly, the skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter
non-disc wheels) for TT and ascent stages. For most rolling
road stages it makes no significant difference.
I don't disagree. I just prefer disks.. not that I have a choice with
the Catrike
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff better.
On 9/23/2024 5:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes they do [want to win], else there's no (or at least
less) recompense.
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents
certainly, the skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter
non-disc wheels) for TT and ascent stages. For most
rolling road stages it makes no significant difference.
The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:31:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike >>>that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a >>>bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's
just you saying it.
Ah well... some will speak harshly about any innovation.
I can clearly remember the first "English Racing Bike" that I and my
running mates saw. Weak frame - only 1 top tube, can't carry your mate >sitting side saddle any more, and even worse the guy was trying to
top up his tires at a local "filling Station" and the bike tires
wouldn't accept air from the station air hose.
Foolish Frankie's posts should be collected in an "I Don't Like it and
thus it is a bad idea" folder which can be read by other bigots and
ignored by common ordinary folks. Or perhaps, "folks with at least
some sense".
On 9/23/2024 5:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes they do [want to win], else there's no (or at least less) recompense.
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents certainly, the
skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter non-disc wheels) for TT and
ascent stages. For most rolling road stages it makes no significant
difference.
The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people.
On 9/23/2024 8:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/23/2024 5:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes they do [want to win], else there's no (or at least
less) recompense.
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents
certainly, the skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter
non-disc wheels) for TT and ascent stages. For most
rolling road stages it makes no significant difference.
The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people.
Right.
A typical stage in which one seldom applies the brake, and
even for those lightly, would be the same result with any
system. Better potential brake force with disc, but then
again you carry the extra weight always. There are more
important questions.
Foolish Frankie's posts should be collected in an "I Don't Like it and
thus it is a bad idea" folder which can be read by other bigots and
ignored by common ordinary folks. Or perhaps, "folks with at least
some sense".
On 9/23/2024 7:52 PM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
Foolish Frankie's posts should be collected in an "I Don't Like it and
thus it is a bad idea" folder which can be read by other bigots and
ignored by common ordinary folks. Or perhaps, "folks with at least
some sense".
A better folder would be: "This is what I do and everyone that doesn't
do what I do is stupid."
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's a tiny weigh
penalty but that is offset by improved aerodynamics. But it does add complexity. It also may cause some people to not know or care when their wheels are out of true.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:24:21 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 2:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 19:35:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 13:54:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological
simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being >>>>>>>> involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as
opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other. >>>>>> I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike >>>>>> that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to
the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road
tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the
occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>>>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>>>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well >>>>>> enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two >>>>>> front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a >>>>>> bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise >>>>>> have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
It appears that the pros are slowly moving toward disk brakes,
regardless of them being heavier and taking more time to change a
wheel. You can say that the average riders doesn't benefit, but that's >>>>> just you saying it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I believe road pros are universally disk brakes, Id suggest that as with >>>> adoption that disks make less sense for Pros than the Average Cyclist which
was born out by the drive for disks coming from the consumer market, than >>>> been trickle down technology from the Pros which is one way the Market has >>>> changed.
Roger Merriman
I think the road cycling professional teams get whatever they want...
and apparently, they want disk brakes. Were I an average road cyclist,
I'd choose what the pros choose. From what I've seen, the average road
cyclists are not content unless their steaming.. They can't do what
the pros do, but they're doing the best they can to match them. I saw
an awful lot of 20/25/even 30 MPH guys Yesterday.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
More complex than that. Pros certainly do sometimes run
non-Team gear (famous examples of not-Team frames with Team
graphics) but the sponsors get an even stronger vote; Pros
ride what the sponsor needs to sell, mostly.
Perhaps, but the teams also want to win.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/23/2024 8:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
I would hate to see the state of the bicycle industry if consumers were
all to buy bicycles like Rivendells.
One bike could serve as a road bike, touring bike, gravel bike, commuter bike, and utility bike. It would decimate the bicycle business.
It would also decimate parts and accessories sales. Imagine being able
to raise the handlebars to a comfortable riding position without the use
of funky stem extenders on threadless headsets. No more funky clamps to attach accessories since there are so many braze-ons.
Since the frames are lugged steel, there would be no repeat business
from broken aluminum or carbon-fiber frames, you could keep the same
bike for 50 years, as Grant Peterson pointed out in the article.
Clothing makers would go out of business if a lot of cyclists realized
that they did not have to buy specialized clothing to ride a bicycle.
Since Rivendell doesn't use carbon forks there could also be negative implications to the health care industry.
The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found out that with
proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric motor and batteries.
I do think that he's a bit of a retro-grouch when it comes to shifting,
there is nothing wrong with indexed shifting. And I confess to liking
disc brakes.
Grant Peterson is stuck in the 1980's when similar bicycles to the ones
he sells, were mainstream, not expensive boutique items. It's a decent
niche business.
On 9/23/2024 8:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
I would hate to see the state of the bicycle industry if consumers were
all to buy bicycles like Rivendells.
One bike could serve as a road bike, touring bike, gravel bike, commuter bike, and utility bike. It would decimate the bicycle business.
It would also decimate parts and accessories sales. Imagine being able
to raise the handlebars to a comfortable riding position without the use
of funky stem extenders on threadless headsets. No more funky clamps to attach accessories since there are so many braze-ons.
Since the frames are lugged steel, there would be no repeat business
from broken aluminum or carbon-fiber frames, you could keep the same
bike for 50 years, as Grant Peterson pointed out in the article.
Clothing makers would go out of business if a lot of cyclists realized
that they did not have to buy specialized clothing to ride a bicycle.
Since Rivendell doesn't use carbon forks there could also be negative implications to the health care industry.
The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found out that with
proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric motor and
batteries.
I do think that he's a bit of a retro-grouch when it comes to shifting,
there is nothing wrong with indexed shifting. And I confess to liking
disc brakes.
Grant Peterson is stuck in the 1980's when similar bicycles to the ones
he sells, were mainstream, not expensive boutique items. It's a decent
niche business.
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:10:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 5:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes they do [want to win], else there's no (or at least less) recompense. >>>
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents certainly, the
skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter non-disc wheels) for TT and
ascent stages. For most rolling road stages it makes no significant
difference.
The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people.
The "different personal preferences" baffles a lot of people.
The "I don't need to justify my personal preferences" idea is far
beyond some people's comprehension. Those people do need to justify
their preferences, at least to themselves.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:...
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >clearance.
But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!)
As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
On 9/24/2024 5:48 AM, sms wrote:
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's a tiny weigh
penalty but that is offset by improved aerodynamics.
All my bikes since about 1970 have always had caliper brakes. I continue
to ride caliper brake bikes with no problems. I see no reason to change
to something that's more complex.
So can we do a poll?
How many here no longer use any bikes except those
with disc brakes? How many are still somehow surviving with (horrors!) >caliper brakes?
On 9/24/2024 5:48 AM, sms wrote:
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's a tiny weigh
penalty but that is offset by improved aerodynamics.
All my bikes since about 1970 have always had caliper brakes. I continue
to ride caliper brake bikes with no problems. I see no reason to change
to something that's more complex.
So can we do a poll? How many here no longer use any bikes except those
with disc brakes? How many are still somehow surviving with (horrors!) >caliper brakes?
On 9/24/2024 6:35 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
For most part disks in of themselves, advantages for Pros
are mostly not
likely to be race winners. A fast decent with hard braking
yes, though even
fast descenders the time you gain isn’t huge though can be
enough, and yes
some folks like Tom Pidcock are really quite a bit faster
than most.
This said some such as the sprinters are just as fast if
not faster but by
some margin slower up hill.
But disks have allowed wider tires and shaken up the
industry to try new
stuff, hence modern race bikes have 28mm tires and unlike
consumers has
serious tall gearing as the average speeds of the Tour and
similar have
just kept on climbing.
Let's talk about discs enabling wider tires, like 28s.
I've run mostly 28 mm tires since about 1975. I'm thinking
of moving to 32s soon. I've gone as wide as 37mm on occasion.
I don't have disc brakes. I've been able to run those
without disc brakes.
On 9/24/2024 4:08 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024 21:10:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 5:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Yes they do [want to win], else there's no (or at least less) recompense. >>>>
Which would mean modern hydraulic systems for descents certainly, the
skimpiest lightest calipers (and lighter non-disc wheels) for TT and
ascent stages. For most rolling road stages it makes no significant
difference.
The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people.
The "different personal preferences" baffles a lot of people.
The "I don't need to justify my personal preferences" idea is far
beyond some people's comprehension.
Nobody _has_ to justify their personal preferences.
And certainly,
nobody has to read others' justifications for their personal preferences.
But if a person doesn't find such _discussion_ interesting, perhaps they >should find something else to do, other than reading a group devoted to
such _disussions_.
How weird to spend so much time in a forum whose very purpose makes you >angry!
On 9/24/2024 5:48 AM, sms wrote:
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's a tiny weigh
penalty but that is offset by improved aerodynamics.
All my bikes since about 1970 have always had caliper brakes. I continue
to ride caliper brake bikes with no problems. I see no reason to change
to something that's more complex.
So can we do a poll? How many here no longer use any bikes except those
with disc brakes? How many are still somehow surviving with (horrors!) caliper brakes?
+1
'Best' ought to be followed by 'to what purpose?' or 'for whom?'.
The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found out that with
proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric motor and
batteries.
Sorry, not buyin' it. Not to mention the fact that taking someone off an e-bike and telling them they have to pedal is one way to completely put
them off cycling, regardless of the proper gearing. I'd suggest you go
out on an E-bike for an hour and ride some hills. You'll get a good
sense of why "with proper gearing there is usually no need for an
electric motor" is a rather myopic comment.
On 9/24/2024 5:23 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found out that
with proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric motor
and batteries.
Sorry, not buyin' it. Not to mention the fact that taking someone off
an e-bike and telling them they have to pedal is one way to completely
put them off cycling, regardless of the proper gearing. I'd suggest
you go out on an E-bike for an hour and ride some hills. You'll get a
good sense of why "with proper gearing there is usually no need for an
electric motor" is a rather myopic comment.
That's why included "usually" in that paragraph.
And BTW, going up a
steep grade with low gearing you'll be at 2-3 MPH, not 6MPH.
In addition, wider tires and disk brakes aren't really new, either.
"Latest advertising themes" is hyperbole.
On 9/24/2024 6:35 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
For most part disks in of themselves, advantages for Pros are mostly not
likely to be race winners. A fast decent with hard braking yes, though even >> fast descenders the time you gain isn’t huge though can be enough, and yes >> some folks like Tom Pidcock are really quite a bit faster than most.
This said some such as the sprinters are just as fast if not faster but by >> some margin slower up hill.
But disks have allowed wider tires and shaken up the industry to try new
stuff, hence modern race bikes have 28mm tires and unlike consumers has
serious tall gearing as the average speeds of the Tour and similar have
just kept on climbing.
Let's talk about discs enabling wider tires, like 28s.
I've run mostly 28 mm tires since about 1975. I'm thinking of moving to
32s soon. I've gone as wide as 37mm on occasion.
I don't have disc brakes. I've been able to run those without disc brakes.
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage over
rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they
work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive
to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with your implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except those pushing performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work better - that you
may not experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
On 9/24/2024 9:01 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage over
rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they
work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive
to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with your
implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except those pushing
performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work better - that you
may not experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
Anyone who is not using disc brakes, and is still using caliper brakes
or V brakes or center-pull brakes or U brakes or drum brakes, is
standing in the way of human progress.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:38:11 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 9/24/2024 9:01 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage over >>> rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they
work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive >>> to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with your
implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except those pushing
performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work better - that you
may not experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
Anyone who is not using disc brakes, and is still using caliper brakes
or V brakes or center-pull brakes or U brakes or drum brakes, is
standing in the way of human progress.
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/24/2024 9:01 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think
they're overly complex for their purpose, and don't
provide enough of an advantage over rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid
rationalizations: They provide better braking power with
equal if not better modulation, they work better in the
rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive to
off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with
your implication that they provide no benefit to anyone
except those pushing performance to the extremes. Disc
brakes simply work better - that you may not experience
that in your riding style is specific to you.
Anyone who is not using disc brakes, and is still using
caliper brakes or V brakes or center-pull brakes or U brakes
or drum brakes, is standing in the way of human progress.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:38:11 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 9/24/2024 9:01 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage over >>> rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they
work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive >>> to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with your
implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except those pushing
performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work better - that you
may not experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
Anyone who is not using disc brakes, and is still using caliper brakes
or V brakes or center-pull brakes or U brakes or drum brakes, is
standing in the way of human progress.
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/24/2024 7:15 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<snip>
In addition, wider tires and disk brakes aren't really new, either.
"Latest advertising themes" is hyperbole.
The Great American Bicycle Tour in 1975 was exclusively on Shimano disc brake-equipped (rear wheel only) bicycles. This was the disc brake: <https://thecabe.com/forum/attachments/brake-jpg.746751/>.
The tour was sponsored by an American retailer, JC Penney, that was the
first company to sell the disc brake bicycles. Very heavy bicycles (≈ 40 pounds), reportedly manufactured by Huffy. This i a video of the tour: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k10233DdFi0>. Note that safety levers
on the brake levers were standard equipment. No helmets on the tour.
It just took 40 years or so for disc brakes to become mainstream.
Amusingly, shortly after JC Penney came out with their disc brake
bicycle, Sears introduced a hydraulic brake bicycle < https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikeforums.net-
<snip>
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies wanted
to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems inaccurate
at best.
On 9/24/2024 12:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 10:38:11 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 9/24/2024 9:01 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage over >>>> rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they >>>> work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive >>>> to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree with your
implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except those pushing >>>> performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work better - that you >>>> may not experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
Anyone who is not using disc brakes, and is still using caliper brakes
or V brakes or center-pull brakes or U brakes or drum brakes, is
standing in the way of human progress.
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Just read the New Yorker piece on Grant Peterson which a
friend mailed to me. Your comment reminded me of Mr
Peterson, ascribing Deeper Meaning to mere bicycle parts,
From my 1965 Weinmann sidepulls, through Mafac Racers, then
Mafac Competitions, on to Universal Super 68 which I tossed
aside for the latest deep blue anodized Modolo Pros, which I
then sold to acquire the modern aero DiaCompe AGCs before I
returned to classic aesthetics with NOS early 1970s
Campagnolo Record, they all worked just fine. I have never
suffered a lack of braking power. Leg power, yes, just not
braking power.
And now in my dotage I'm back to a Swiss Weinmann front
sidepull caliper on my fixie. La plus ca change and all
that. There is no deeper meaning.
On 9/24/2024 12:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:48 AM, sms wrote:
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's a tiny weigh
penalty but that is offset by improved aerodynamics.
All my bikes since about 1970 have always had caliper brakes. I
continue to ride caliper brake bikes with no problems. I see no
reason to change to something that's more complex.
So can we do a poll? How many here no longer use any bikes except
those with disc brakes? How many are still somehow surviving with
(horrors!) caliper brakes?
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think they're overly
complex for their purpose, and don't provide enough of an advantage
over rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid rationalizations: They
provide better braking power with equal if not better modulation, they
work better in the rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are
exclusive to off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree
with your implication that they provide no benefit to anyone except
those pushing performance to the extremes. Disc brakes simply work
better - that you may not experience that in your riding style is
specific to you.
Both my mountain bikes are disc. One came that way and the other I
converted. It's one of the best equipment decisions I've ever made.
All of my road bikes are rim brakes. I haven't converted any of them
for a couple of very good reasons:
- I currently have 4 road bikes that I ride on a regular basis* and
seven wheelsets. I don't need another bike right now.
- I can mix and match wheels with bikes as necessary. Having one bike
with discs would limit that as well as needing to have a spare wheelset.
As you point out, discs don't provide enough of an advantage on the
road for me to spend $10K on a new complete bike, plus a Spare
wheelset. Let's not forget the 'evolution' of wheel retention
technologies, further limiting compatibility. Disc brakes won't offer
a rider at my level enough of a performance advantage to justify the
expense.
However, If I was in a situation where I wanted or needed a new bike,
I wouldn't hesitate to buy a decent racing machine with disc brakes.
They _do_ work better, and having ridden newer bikes with disc brakes,
I know I won't be disappointed with the decision.
Having read that post twice, I can say: Thanks for a post that almost entirely agrees with my positions!
On 9/24/2024 11:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I'm always happy to engage in a friendly discussion, but, IMO,
friendly discussions don't involve one person criticizing other
people's and their preferences.
In my opinion, a friendly discussion would be like someone saying,
"it's interesting that you prefer blah, blah, blah. Can you explain
why you prefer that?"
When someone tells me or insinuates that I'm wrong, it's no longer a
friendly discussion.
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
How weird to spend so much time in a forum whose very purpose makes you
angry!
You seem to be the one whose angry all the time.
Sorry, that's just your mistaken impression.
Your "The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people."
is an example of that.
Why does that upset you so much?
It doesn't upset me. But it's a mistake, and some people actually learn >things when they see mistakes corrected.
On 9/24/2024 12:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:And when someone's explanation for their choices involves factual
<snip>
+1
'Best' ought to be followed by 'to what purpose?' or 'for whom?'.
It's best when you can explain to someone why you made the choices you
did and why they might or might not also be the right choices for them.
mistakes, what should our reaction be?
"Of course you're right. Red bikes are always faster!"
Not every opinion is correct.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 11:42 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I'm always happy to engage in a friendly discussion, but, IMO,
friendly discussions don't involve one person criticizing other
people's and their preferences.
In my opinion, a friendly discussion would be like someone saying,
"it's interesting that you prefer blah, blah, blah. Can you explain
why you prefer that?"
When someone tells me or insinuates that I'm wrong, it's no longer a
friendly discussion.
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things. >>
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
How weird to spend so much time in a forum whose very purpose makes you >>>> angry!
You seem to be the one whose angry all the time.
Sorry, that's just your mistaken impression.
Why else would you make such a point of berating people who don't do
as you do?
Your "The "no significant difference" idea baffles a lot of people."
is an example of that.
Why does that upset you so much?
It doesn't upset me. But it's a mistake, and some people actually learn
things when they see mistakes corrected.
It clearly upsets you. You immediately demand that the person who does
things different than you justify it to you. Why would you do that if
it didn't upset you?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Maybe that's _your_ experience >https://www.strava.com/activities/12410134378/segments/3270099075888545958
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
--
- Frank Krygowski
On Mon Sep 23 13:54:09 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >> >> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >> >> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >> >> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >> >> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >> > budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >> > the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >> > tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >> > occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >> > ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
--
- Frank Krygowski
No one should argue that you should not like Grant Peterson's theory of bicycles. You should like whatever you like. But you should not argue about other's ideas of good bikes for exactly the same reasons.
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 12:41:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Maybe that's _your_ experience
https://www.strava.com/activities/12410134378/segments/3270099075888545958
Strava is complaining:
"Sorry, you don't have access to this page."
"Activity Privacy Controls" <https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216919377-Activity-Privacy-Controls>
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Not really clearly they could of made wide tired rim brake bikes though
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies
wanted to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems inaccurate
at best.
they would of had to chnage equipment ie callipers that could handle
extra width which would be a performance decline, and realistically
would become more so as tires got wider.
But this wasn’t what consumer wanted ie they wanted disks in many ways needed encouragement to try wider tires.
Roger Merriman
On 9/24/2024 4:11 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 12:41:14 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Maybe that's _your_ experienceStrava is complaining:
https://www.strava.com/activities/12410134378/segments/3270099075888545958 >>
"Sorry, you don't have access to this page."
"Activity Privacy Controls"
<https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/articles/216919377-Activity-Privacy-Controls>
Hmm...It's not a privacy issue. I've always had all my activities
publicly available, they still are. It might be because I tried to send
a link to a segment. Segments aren't visible unless you have an account
and are signed in.
It's here:
https://www.strava.com/activities/12410134378
Scroll down to "Butterhill Beginning", .32 miles @ 10%, most people
would call that steep. Average speed 6 mph.
There are other segments on that ride that are steeper for longer, but >include more gradual sections that drop the average gradients in the
5-6% range, my speed showing a proportion increase over the segment.
On 9/24/2024 2:59 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 2:17 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 12:01 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 10:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:48 AM, sms wrote:
Even racers have now switched to disc brakes. There's
a tiny weigh penalty but that is offset by improved
aerodynamics.
All my bikes since about 1970 have always had caliper
brakes. I continue to ride caliper brake bikes with no
problems. I see no reason to change to something that's
more complex.
So can we do a poll? How many here no longer use any
bikes except those with disc brakes? How many are still
somehow surviving with (horrors!) caliper brakes?
we get it frank, you don't like disc brakes, you think
they're overly complex for their purpose, and don't
provide enough of an advantage over rim brakes.
That's fine for you, all reasonably valid rationalizations.
Some people prefer discs for equally valid
rationalizations: They provide better braking power with
equal if not better modulation, they work better in the
rain, snow/ice, and muck (none of which are exclusive to
off-road riding). That said, No one is going to agree
with your implication that they provide no benefit to
anyone except those pushing performance to the extremes.
Disc brakes simply work better - that you may not
experience that in your riding style is specific to you.
Both my mountain bikes are disc. One came that way and
the other I converted. It's one of the best equipment
decisions I've ever made.
All of my road bikes are rim brakes. I haven't converted
any of them for a couple of very good reasons:
- I currently have 4 road bikes that I ride on a regular
basis* and seven wheelsets. I don't need another bike
right now.
- I can mix and match wheels with bikes as necessary.
Having one bike with discs would limit that as well as
needing to have a spare wheelset.
As you point out, discs don't provide enough of an
advantage on the road for me to spend $10K on a new
complete bike, plus a Spare wheelset. Let's not forget
the 'evolution' of wheel retention technologies, further
limiting compatibility. Disc brakes won't offer a rider
at my level enough of a performance advantage to justify
the expense.
However, If I was in a situation where I wanted or
needed a new bike, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a decent
racing machine with disc brakes. They _do_ work better,
and having ridden newer bikes with disc brakes, I know I
won't be disappointed with the decision.
Having read that post twice, I can say: Thanks for a post
that almost entirely agrees with my positions!
With a diametrically opposed attitude
I'm sure Andrew thinks that's just fine! ;-)
The issues are two-fold
- Tom has never ridden a bike with disc brakes
On 9/24/2024 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 18:46:57 +0000, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Not really clearly they could of made wide tired rim brake bikes though
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies
wanted to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems inaccurate >>>> at best.
they would of had to chnage equipment ie callipers that could handle
extra width which would be a performance decline, and realistically
would become more so as tires got wider.
But this wasn’t what consumer wanted ie they wanted disks in many ways >>> needed encouragement to try wider tires.
Good V-brakes REALLY outperform disks under all conditions that I've used
them in including heavy rain. Disks are there for one reason. To make you
buy a new frame and fork and special wheels.
I agree with Tom on this point.
bikes as being consumer driven. ISTM instead that within the space of a
few years, if you wanted to buy a bike, you pretty much had to buy a
bike with disc brakes.
As I've said often, none of my riding mates ever complained about their caliper brakes. Most folks are still using caliper brakes. It's the
folks who bought new bikes - for other reasons, BTW - who are now using discs.
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies wanted
to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems inaccurate
at best.
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things. >>>
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
On 9/24/2024 3:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:23:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 12:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:mistakes, what should our reaction be?
<snip>
+1
'Best' ought to be followed by 'to what purpose?' or 'for whom?'.
It's best when you can explain to someone why you made the choices you >>>> did and why they might or might not also be the right choices for them. >>> And when someone's explanation for their choices involves factual
"Of course you're right. Red bikes are always faster!"
Not every opinion is correct.
It might be right for them. Their opinion is all that matters to them.
I know that's hard for you to understand.
Right. Red bikes really are faster for "them"?
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency.
Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things. >>>
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
On 9/24/2024 5:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 18:46:57 +0000, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Not really clearly they could of made wide tired rim brake bikes though >>>>> they would of had to chnage equipment ie callipers that could handle >>>>> extra width which would be a performance decline, and realistically
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies >>>>>>> wanted to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems
inaccurate
at best.
would become more so as tires got wider.
But this wasn’t what consumer wanted ie they wanted disks in many ways >>>>> needed encouragement to try wider tires.
Good V-brakes REALLY outperform disks under all conditions that I've
used
them in including heavy rain. Disks are there for one reason. To make
you
buy a new frame and fork and special wheels.
I agree with Tom on this point.
Nope. Tom is completely wrong. V-brakes do not outperform disks, under
any conditions.
Again, you may not have discerned the difference in your riding style,
but I can guarantee to that as a someone who has had V-brakes and disc
brakes on the same bike, discs are better all around. Casual riding
generally won't reveal the advantages.
The issues are two-fold
- Tom has never ridden a bike with disc brakes
- toms cycling skills are highly questionable given his documented
claims of such things as needing to stop pedaling to shift, needing to
look down to shift with downtube shifters, and his claim that every
cyclist sprints from a stop at maximum effort.
I don't see the disc takeover of road
bikes as being consumer driven. ISTM instead that within the space of
a few years, if you wanted to buy a bike, you pretty much had to buy a
bike with disc brakes.
You are correct about this.
That's the point about which I was agreeing with Tom.
About disc brakes giving "better braking," I think that's true. But for anything close to typical road riding, the improvements are marginal and unimportant. Or IOW "Casual riding generally won't reveal the advantages."
We're getting perilously close to total agreement now!
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great
respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to >> the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and
budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear
ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Your argument that road bikes could of had rim brakes with wider clearance
On 9/24/2024 5:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 18:46:57 +0000, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Not really clearly they could of made wide tired rim brake bikes though >>>>>> they would of had to chnage equipment ie callipers that could handle >>>>>> extra width which would be a performance decline, and realistically >>>>>> would become more so as tires got wider.
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies >>>>>>>> wanted to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems
inaccurate
at best.
But this wasnt what consumer wanted ie they wanted disks in many ways >>>>>> needed encouragement to try wider tires.
Good V-brakes REALLY outperform disks under all conditions that I've >>>>> used
them in including heavy rain. Disks are there for one reason. To make >>>>> you
buy a new frame and fork and special wheels.
I agree with Tom on this point.
Nope. Tom is completely wrong. V-brakes do not outperform disks, under
any conditions.
Again, you may not have discerned the difference in your riding style,
but I can guarantee to that as a someone who has had V-brakes and disc
brakes on the same bike, discs are better all around. Casual riding
generally won't reveal the advantages.
The issues are two-fold
- Tom has never ridden a bike with disc brakes
- toms cycling skills are highly questionable given his documented
claims of such things as needing to stop pedaling to shift, needing to
look down to shift with downtube shifters, and his claim that every
cyclist sprints from a stop at maximum effort.
I don't see the disc takeover of road
bikes as being consumer driven. ISTM instead that within the space of
a few years, if you wanted to buy a bike, you pretty much had to buy a >>>> bike with disc brakes.
You are correct about this.
That's the point about which I was agreeing with Tom.
About disc brakes giving "better braking," I think that's true. But for
anything close to typical road riding, the improvements are marginal and
unimportant. Or IOW "Casual riding generally won't reveal the advantages." >>
We're getting perilously close to total agreement now!
no one is disputing that, they can handle 32mm maybe more not sure what the >limit is for long reach seems to be mostly where my bike is ie 32mm
maximum, and likewise folks commenting on the slight reduction in power as >they are long reach.
But short reach stuff will get to 28mm which is probably enough for most >roadies?
But realistically since the market clearly wanted disks, and the advantages >of keeping them are really marginal, and its just a non issue.
Roger Merriman
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:05:30 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:28 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:Your argument that road bikes could of had rim brakes with wider clearance >> no one is disputing that, they can handle 32mm maybe more not sure what the >> limit is for long reach seems to be mostly where my bike is ie 32mm
On 9/24/2024 5:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:03 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 18:46:57 +0000, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:Not really clearly they could of made wide tired rim brake bikes though >>>>>>> they would of had to chnage equipment ie callipers that could handle >>>>>>> extra width which would be a performance decline, and realistically >>>>>>> would become more so as tires got wider.
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if companies >>>>>>>>> wanted to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires" seems
inaccurate
at best.
But this wasnt what consumer wanted ie they wanted disks in many ways >>>>>>> needed encouragement to try wider tires.
Good V-brakes REALLY outperform disks under all conditions that I've >>>>>> used
them in including heavy rain. Disks are there for one reason. To make >>>>>> you
buy a new frame and fork and special wheels.
I agree with Tom on this point.
Nope. Tom is completely wrong. V-brakes do not outperform disks, under >>>> any conditions.
Again, you may not have discerned the difference in your riding style, >>>> but I can guarantee to that as a someone who has had V-brakes and disc >>>> brakes on the same bike, discs are better all around. Casual riding
generally won't reveal the advantages.
The issues are two-fold
- Tom has never ridden a bike with disc brakes
- toms cycling skills are highly questionable given his documented
claims of such things as needing to stop pedaling to shift, needing to >>>> look down to shift with downtube shifters, and his claim that every
cyclist sprints from a stop at maximum effort.
I don't see the disc takeover of road
bikes as being consumer driven. ISTM instead that within the space of >>>>> a few years, if you wanted to buy a bike, you pretty much had to buy a >>>>> bike with disc brakes.
You are correct about this.
That's the point about which I was agreeing with Tom.
About disc brakes giving "better braking," I think that's true. But for
anything close to typical road riding, the improvements are marginal and >>> unimportant. Or IOW "Casual riding generally won't reveal the advantages." >>>
We're getting perilously close to total agreement now!
maximum, and likewise folks commenting on the slight reduction in power as >> they are long reach.
But short reach stuff will get to 28mm which is probably enough for most
roadies?
But realistically since the market clearly wanted disks, and the advantages >> of keeping them are really marginal, and its just a non issue.
Roger Merriman
And rim brakes are not going away for the people who want them, so,
why argue about them?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/24/2024 3:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:23:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 12:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:And when someone's explanation for their choices involves
<snip>
+1
'Best' ought to be followed by 'to what purpose?' or
'for whom?'.
It's best when you can explain to someone why you made
the choices you
did and why they might or might not also be the right
choices for them.
factual
mistakes, what should our reaction be?
"Of course you're right. Red bikes are always faster!"
Not every opinion is correct.
It might be right for them. Their opinion is all that
matters to them.
I know that's hard for you to understand.
Right. Red bikes really are faster for "them"?
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
Thats really hard to see how, youve mentioned that the trike pitches
which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic >systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I run Magic Marys at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they >are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious!
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:05:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency.
Riding a bicycle is not a technical thing, Dummy.
Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
Education is not an achievement, it's a tool. What you do with your
tools is what counts. You, apparently couldn't make it in the real
world where you get judged on your performance every day. You quit,
(or were you fired?) and had to come running back home to the halls of education where all you had to be is not so terrible as to get too
many complaints from students and their parents. Then, safe in your
little tenured cocoon, you did nothing to improve yourself. You
performed the same monotonous job for the rest of your working life.
You have a terrible need to be seen as better than you really are, but
all you have to brag about is riding your bicycle.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
Sorry, your opinion on that matter is worthless.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
<chuckle> Do you really believe I care what you think?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/24/2024 9:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:21 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:23:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 12:28 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/24/2024 5:39 AM, AMuzi wrote:And when someone's explanation for their choices involves
<snip>
+1
'Best' ought to be followed by 'to what purpose?' or
'for whom?'.
It's best when you can explain to someone why you made
the choices you
did and why they might or might not also be the right
choices for them.
factual
mistakes, what should our reaction be?
"Of course you're right. Red bikes are always faster!"
Not every opinion is correct.
It might be right for them. Their opinion is all that
matters to them.
I know that's hard for you to understand.
Right. Red bikes really are faster for "them"?
Celeste beats Red.
Am 24.09.2024 um 19:31 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 9/24/2024 1:08 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
They absolutely could have just added wider clearance if
companies wanted
to...
That's my point. So saying "Discs allowed wider tires"
seems inaccurate at best.
It's an incomplete statement like 99% of all statements in
normal conversation.
An extended version of the statement includes the
introductiory sentence
"With traditional crown-mounted rim brakes, shorter reach
resulted in superior braking performance".
Fork mounted braking systems like cantilever did not reach
the traditional road-bike market.
Rolf
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
That’s really hard to see how, you’ve mentioned that the trike pitches >> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
I run Magic Mary’s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious!
I use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted
earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And rim brakes are not going away for the people who want them
, so,
why argue about them?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Am 25.09.2024 um 14:46 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
Thats really hard to see how, youve mentioned that the trike pitches
which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Pitching forward is a clear indicator that for your Cattrike (like for
most upright bike but unlike some recumben bicycles) , the limiting
factor for braking performance is the geometry rather than tires or brakes.
I run Magic Marys at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they >>> are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>I use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
Irrelevant; as long as the front tire(s) don't lock and slip, it's all
the geometry.
IIRC, some realistic numbers are:
road bike: 0.6g
MTB (bum behind saddle): 0.7g
standard car: 1.0 g
race car: 1.2 g
(spoilers to increase pressure, special tire s etc)
I'm speculating
Cattrike 0.9g
On 9/25/2024 4:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have >>>>>> always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there >>>>>> have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true >>>>>> brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two
front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I understand your point that a dual front disc tricycle can
stop in much shorter distance than a common two wheeler. I
agree with that and it's readily observed.
But without an assistant/observer and some measurement
devices, it merely _seems_ like two meters. The numbers just
don't work. I believe you are sincere. but haven't actually
accurately measured.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absoluteThere are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
Thats really hard to see how, youve mentioned that the trike pitches
which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic
systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times
more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed
my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who
have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
I run Magic Marys at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they >> are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious!
I use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Fork mounted braking systems like cantilever did not reach the
traditional road-bike market.
Except specialty machines such as cyclo cross
https://www.speedbicycles.ch/velo/428/
guerciotti_cross_competition_1981.html
and time trial bikes with the incredibly light Mafac Jacky brake.
... and except for almost every bike I own and ride.
On 9/25/2024 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 4:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group.
There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and >>>>>>> there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the
process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed
with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absoluteThere are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and >>>>>>> noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I
think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually
learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail >>>>>>> by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel >>>>>>> makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by
doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a
touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows
one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has
weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as
your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I understand your point that a dual front disc tricycle can stop in much
shorter distance than a common two wheeler. I agree with that and it's
readily observed.
But without an assistant/observer and some measurement devices, it
merely _seems_ like two meters. The numbers just don't work. I believe
you are sincere. but haven't actually accurately measured.
Exactly. Except that his "sincerity" is being clouded by his emotional
need to prove that he can violate laws of physics.
The numbers just don't work.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:45:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
Exactly. Except that his "sincerity" is being clouded by his emotional
need to prove that he can violate laws of physics.
The numbers just don't work.
It's amazing how a simple offhand opinion of mine can trigger
Krygowski into one of his fanatical tirades. I rejoice in his need to
try to put me down. It's an accurate indication of how much above him
he believes me to be.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>>>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>>>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>>>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>>>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches
which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >easy at all, if its more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if
Im not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat >ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isnt particularly an issue if I can
get in position and if not its more likely to lock the rear than lift it.
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isnt the issue its the weight forward/rear and that >your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic
systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed
my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the
calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who
have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
Thats all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie its weight forward so its >limited by its pitching, that doesnt make the cable disks powerful just
that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable >disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they >>> are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>I use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many >thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot
of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I
can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes >particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see
my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:38:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 4:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process >>>>>>> of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making
things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absoluteThere are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted >>>>>>> as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes >>>>>>> the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I understand your point that a dual front disc tricycle can
stop in much shorter distance than a common two wheeler. I
agree with that and it's readily observed.
But without an assistant/observer and some measurement
devices, it merely _seems_ like two meters. The numbers just
don't work. I believe you are sincere. but haven't actually
accurately measured.
True, and I don't believe I'll ever bother to measure. It's not as big
deal for me as it is for other people.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 10:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
... I don't believe I'll ever bother to measure. It's not as big
deal for me as it is for other people.
IOW, "It's not a big deal for me to speak actual truth."
The other problem with measuring is the subsequent need to confess.
Am 25.09.2024 um 16:28 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 9/25/2024 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Fork mounted braking systems like cantilever did not
reach the traditional road-bike market.
Except specialty machines such as cyclo cross
https://www.speedbicycles.ch/velo/428/
guerciotti_cross_competition_1981.html
and time trial bikes with the incredibly light Mafac
Jacky brake.
... and except for almost every bike I own and ride.
OK, I should have said "penetrate the market" rather than
"reach the market".
The "problem" in the past was that road bikes usually had
caliper brakes and that for caliper brakes, narrow tires
mean better braking performance.
By moving to V-brakes, disk brakes or similar brakes, you
avoid the constraints of the past, enabling wider tires on
road bikes.
On 9/25/2024 5:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
No you didn't, unless your "about 6 feet" has a tolerance of something
like 50%.
For the engineers in the crowd: It's a simple constant (negative) >acceleration problem. Acceleration (or deceleration) is given by V^2/2X
where V is initial speed, X is stopping distance. 15 mph = 22 ft/s
(22 ft/s)^2/(2*6ft)= 40.33 ft/s^2 deceleration. That's 1.25 times the >acceleration of gravity. For that, you'd need tires with a coefficient
of friction of at least 1.25, which would be very, very unusual. (0.9 is
a typical upper limit.) But more important, you'd need to _immediately_
apply the brakes to the very limit of traction with no skidding; and
you'd need no weight on the unbraked rear wheel, so all the decelerating
mass was contributing to braking traction. You'd also need exactly the
same amount of braking on each front wheel so as to prevent a spin,
given that the rear wheel would have to be raised.
Oh, and whether or not the rear wheel would raise to put all the weight
into front wheel traction depends on the geometry of the bike+rider. The >elevation angle of the total center of mass would have to be precisely
right, not too high nor too low.
All this is based on the physics of the real world. Those living in
other universes should post their math, or their videos.
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with
mechanical rod brakes that contact the underside of the rim
instead of the sides. See <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future.
No cables to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be
much more reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop
in Shanghai.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >> easy at all, if it’s more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >> I’m not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat
ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isn’t particularly an issue if I can >> get in position and if not it’s more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isn’t the issue it’s the weight forward/rear and that
your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic
systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed
my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the
calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who
have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
That’s all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie it’s weight forward so it’s
limited by its pitching, that doesn’t make the cable disks powerful just >> that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable
disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >> as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac theyI use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>>
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many
thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I
can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see
my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to >>> the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Absolutely in the same way Ive taken my gravel bike down some fairly >technical trails, we both survived and it was for most part doable.
But there is a difference between just doable and pleasant.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff
better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on,
though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
That shows your circle of cyclists really, they really where not, and since >roadies and MTBers are not totally separate species and they have used
disks.
Its quite noticeable in wet weather the Embankment is/was a good example
of this on wet days youd see roadies having to give much more braking >distance at each junction rather than just brake as well normal or >thereabouts with disks.
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one
of my bikes are doubles.
Just because its not something youve encountered doesnt mean it isnt a >thing.
Roger Merriman
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes
that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See ><https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to >brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy >replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
On 9/25/2024 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:38:02 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 4:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the
corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those
standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with >>>>>> you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think, >>>>>>>> just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with
slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing >>>>>> what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake
levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch >>>>> as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to >>>>> get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to >>>>> the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your >>>>> in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
I understand your point that a dual front disc tricycle can
stop in much shorter distance than a common two wheeler. I
agree with that and it's readily observed.
But without an assistant/observer and some measurement
devices, it merely _seems_ like two meters. The numbers just
don't work. I believe you are sincere. but haven't actually
accurately measured.
True, and I don't believe I'll ever bother to measure. It's not as big
deal for me as it is for other people.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
As with the general advice to politicians 'never promise and
amount and a date' you're right about the general braking
performance. Just leave out the numbers.
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes
that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
On 9/25/2024 10:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>>
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-) >>>>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when >>>>>>>> calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >>> easy at all, if its more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >>> Im not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat
ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isnt particularly an issue if I can >>> get in position and if not its more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isnt the issue its the weight forward/rear and that >>> your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic >>>>> systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>>>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed >>>> my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the >>>> calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who >>>> have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
Thats all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie its weight forward so its >>> limited by its pitching, that doesnt make the cable disks powerful just >>> that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable >>> disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >>> as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac theyI use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are >>>> glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>>>
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many
thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >>> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >>> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I >>> can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see >>> my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Differently so.
A high wheeler is amazingly easy to balance compared to
same-size-wheel bicycles.
Tricycles of course do not require rider input at all to
keep from falling over.
On 9/25/2024 10:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>>
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-) >>>>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when >>>>>>>> calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >>> easy at all, if its more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >>> Im not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat
ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isnt particularly an issue if I can >>> get in position and if not its more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isnt the issue its the weight forward/rear and that >>> your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic >>>>> systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>>>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed >>>> my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the >>>> calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who >>>> have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
Thats all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie its weight forward so its >>> limited by its pitching, that doesnt make the cable disks powerful just >>> that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable >>> disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >>> as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac theyI use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are >>>> glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>>>
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many
thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >>> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >>> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I >>> can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see >>> my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Differently so.
A high wheeler is amazingly easy to balance compared to
same-size-wheel bicycles.
Tricycles of course do not require rider input at all to
keep from falling over.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:42:08 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/23/2024 11:18 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:What one retro grouch likes another! Gosh! ;)
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great >>>>> respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to >>>>> either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological >>>>> simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine >>>>> promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead >>>>> help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as >>>>> opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some
incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
It's natural for people who share preferences to approve of each other.
I'm sure it happens among people who would never dare ride any bike
that's not up to the latest trendy fashion craze!
I say that for a time ie road bikes where fairly narrow use, mainly down to
the naff all tire clearances my new commute road bike with rim brakes and >>>> budgets kit, managed absolutely fine down some of the gravel roads down to >>>> the Cheese Market. Somewhat pinged about, as 32mm even if a good wide road >>>> tire is somewhat narrow for such surfaces ie old track down hill, plus the >>>> occasional cobblestone thrown in!
IOW, your somewhat less trendy bike did fine for you.
Absolutely in the same way Ive taken my gravel bike down some fairly
technical trails, we both survived and it was for most part doable.
But there is a difference between just doable and pleasant.
Those two paragraphs are echoing the latest advertising themes.
Basically more modern bikes are more adaptable with wider tires and gear >>>> ranges, and disk brakes which certainly cope wet, and more steep stuff >>>> better.
And certainly 1by setups are more simple ie just one shifter and so on, >>>> though road bikes in general tend to towards doubles than 1by.
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
That shows your circle of cyclists really, they really where not, and since >> roadies and MTBers are not totally separate species and they have used
disks.
Its quite noticeable in wet weather the Embankment is/was a good example >> of this on wet days youd see roadies having to give much more braking
distance at each junction rather than just brake as well normal or
thereabouts with disks.
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about
And millions of "sport" cyclists are still unconfused by (gosh!) two
front chainrings instead of one. (Some of us even have three!) As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one
of my bikes are doubles.
Just because its not something youve encountered doesnt mean it isnt a
thing.
Roger Merriman
I don't shift my triple chainrings often but when I do, it's just a
flick of my thumb and a half second ease off the pedals. I never
thought of it as being tedious. As for cross chaining, it's not an
issue with a Catrike. I have the access to, and have used on occasion,
all nine gears with all three chainrings.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 6:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Most of my remarks on this issue relate not only my own experiences, but
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
That shows your circle of cyclists really...
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about
if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one
of my bikes are doubles.
Just because it’s not something you’ve encountered doesn’t mean it isn’t a
thing.
the experiences I've observed among my riding friends. So yes, they do
show my circle of cyclists.
But the question becomes, whose "circle of cyclists" is closer to
typical? I think only a tiny percentage who are riding fast enough to
benefit from minor aerodynamic changes, who are braking hard enough to benefit from improvements in brake modulation, who need ultra fast gear changes, etc. The folks I ride with will do 40 to 50 miles without
worry, and that already exceeds the ability of "everyman" cyclists.
(Heck, I had many folks amazed that I rode seven miles to get to work!)
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:05:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency.
Riding a bicycle is not a technical thing, Dummy.
Professional
Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those
institutions for whom I've worked.
Education is not an achievement, it's a tool.
What you do with your
tools is what counts.
You, apparently couldn't make it in the real
world where you get judged on your performance every day. You quit,
(or were you fired?) and had to come running back home to the halls of education where all you had to be is not so terrible as to get too
many complaints from students and their parents. Then, safe in your
little tenured cocoon, you did nothing to improve yourself. You
performed the same monotonous job for the rest of your working life.
You have a terrible need to be seen as better than you really are, but
all you have to brag about is riding your bicycle.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect
application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute
limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose
wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible.
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and
besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term
gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
Sorry, your opinion on that matter is worthless.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're
claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
<chuckle> Do you really believe I care what you think?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes
that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
On 9/25/2024 10:20 AM, sms wrote:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with
mechanical rod brakes that contact the underside of the rim
instead of the sides. See <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future.
No cables to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be
much more reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop
in Shanghai.
The Italians still build Tipo R, stirrup brakes with 700C-38:
https://www.ledueruote.biz/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/28042010020-1280x960.jpg
which were standardized in 1919.
Which shows really that your experience is rather car centric no one has
ever been amazed that I rode to work, remember I see and encounter huge number of cyclists London’s heat maps glow vividly unlike Youngstown there are multiple large bike clubs within my area and so on.
London population and we’re not even counting the folks who commute in from the Home Counties is larger than Ohio let alone Youngstown. And bikes are a common sight.
On 9/25/2024 10:01 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
Which shows really that your experience is rather car centric no one has
ever been amazed that I rode to work, remember I see and encounter huge
number of cyclists London’s heat maps glow vividly unlike Youngstown there >> are multiple large bike clubs within my area and so on.
London population and we’re not even counting the folks who commute in from
the Home Counties is larger than Ohio let alone Youngstown. And bikes are a >> common sight.
To be fair, Youngstown is a very depressed, former steel town, that has
seen its population decline by half since the 1950's. There aren't going
to be a lot of cyclists in an area like that.
Some people tend to try to extrapolate his own personal experiences onto
the whole world without understanding that there's a great big world out there that doesn't necessarily operate in the same way as what they are
used to.
“When science discovers the center of the universe, a lot of people will
be disappointed to find they are not it.” ― Bernard Bailey
On 9/25/2024 5:39 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's
brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings
off the ground.
No you didn't, unless your "about 6 feet" has a tolerance of something
like 50%.
For the engineers in the crowd: It's a simple constant (negative) >acceleration problem. Acceleration (or deceleration) is given by V^2/2X
where V is initial speed, X is stopping distance. 15 mph = 22 ft/s
(22 ft/s)^2/(2*6ft)= 40.33 ft/s^2 deceleration. That's 1.25 times the >acceleration of gravity. For that, you'd need tires with a coefficient
of friction of at least 1.25, which would be very, very unusual. (0.9 is
a typical upper limit.) But more important, you'd need to _immediately_
apply the brakes to the very limit of traction with no skidding; and
you'd need no weight on the unbraked rear wheel, so all the decelerating
mass was contributing to braking traction. You'd also need exactly the
same amount of braking on each front wheel so as to prevent a spin,
given that the rear wheel would have to be raised.
Oh, and whether or not the rear wheel would raise to put all the weight
into front wheel traction depends on the geometry of the bike+rider. The >elevation angle of the total center of mass would have to be precisely
right, not too high nor too low.
All this is based on the physics of the real world. Those living in
other universes should post their math, or their videos.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old >>>>>>>>> frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid. >>>>>>>>> Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-)
20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when
calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the >>>>>> rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >> easy at all, if its more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >> Im not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat
ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isnt particularly an issue if I can
get in position and if not its more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isnt the issue its the weight forward/rear and that >> your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic
systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed
my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the
calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who
have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
Thats all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie its weight forward so its
limited by its pitching, that doesnt make the cable disks powerful just
that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable
disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >> as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac theyI use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>>
glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many
thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I
can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see
my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/24/2024 10:15 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
I wasn't confused by those three front chaingrings on the bike a local
shop built for me in 1996...
But I certainly learned to dislike its many weaknesses.
As a
bonus, most with >1 chainring get more gear range than they'd otherwise
have, and without resorting to unusual or proprietary equipment.
I wouldn't call what Shimano and SRAM sell for ordinary road bikes or
MTB for quite some time now "unusual" or "proprietary". There is the
usual fight about patents, but that's about it.
Anyway. Those two bikes that I built for my wife and me in early 2023
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20240624/P1107879.jpg>
got a single narrow/wide chainring and a gear range of 10:52. ...
She likes it and so do I. I'm grateful to have finally got rid of the
misconstruction called a front derailleur. That radio-controlled
electric gearshift works like charm, too.
My touring bike matches your gear range: 19 inch low, 100 inch high
gear.
(For the uninitiated, those are equivalent wheel diameters.) All
done with very conventional equipment, stuff available in the mid-1980s.
I'm not sure what you consider "many weaknesses."
But I value the fact
that if a problem arises with shifting, I can diagnose it visually and
fix it. I'll never be able to do that with a radio link, and probably
not even with wired electronic shifting.
Same with brakes, BTW. As mentioned, I fixed a brake clearance problem
on a friend's bike last week, one that required disassembling her brake.
If a similar problem occurred with a disc brake, I'd have been reluctant
to disassemble.
I dislike black boxes with hidden functions. And I tend
to disbelieve the sales pitch "But nothing will ever go wrong with this >system!"
For roadies yes, MTBers had embraced disks in the 90’s and become >mainstream by late 90’s and the various mounting standards!
On 9/25/2024 11:40 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Current selection BTW:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/SINGLEPV.JPG
plus these:
https://www.yellowjersey.org/spmxgrey.jpg
Nothing wrong with V brakes or cantilevers, but people do
have their preferences and there are tradeoffs so the
selection is and has been quite broad.
Yep. The fundamental problem, if the brake is to be mounted
to the fork crown, is that a sidepull must have arm lengths
at least vaguely proportional to tire size. That reduces the
mechanical advantage of the caliper, requiring more hand
force for a given deceleration. That's the fact that
originally caused me to choose cantilevers.
ISTM that center pull brakes, or their variants, could have
less of that problem, since their arm pivots can be lower
than their mounting point. But they're not currently
fashionable.
On 9/25/2024 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Whether or not my opinions on my braking ability are correct or not is
not an issue with me.
IOW you're happy to spout absolute bullshit. Priceless! We'll remember
that.
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near >>>>>>>> the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feet >>>>>>>> from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2 >>>>>>>> or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit >>>>>>>> of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>>There are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the >>>>>>>>> ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight >>>>>>>>> is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>>
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-) >>>>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when >>>>>>>> calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the >>>>>>> rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >>> easy at all, if it?s more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >>> I?m not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat
ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isn?t particularly an issue if I can >>> get in position and if not it?s more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop
your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isn?t the issue it?s the weight forward/rear and that >>> your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic >>>>> systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times >>>>> more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed >>>> my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the >>>> calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who >>>> have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
That?s all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie it?s weight forward so it?s >>> limited by its pitching, that doesn?t make the cable disks powerful just >>> that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable >>> disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same >>> as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac theyI use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are >>>> glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious! >>>>
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many
thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >>> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >>> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I >>> can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see >>> my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Look at your trike and how much the chainrings and thus your legs overhang >the front wheels, its clearly going to be prone to pitching forward with
the weight so forward, that the weight is low isnt really going to change >that significantly.
Roger Merriman
On 9/25/2024 2:09 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
You can measure acceleration (or deceleration) using a smartphone:
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=accelerometer&c=apps>
Measurements are always useful as a sanity check.
Good point. He could measure his deceleration, and give us a screen shot
to prove it was well over one "gee." But we'd have to trust that he
wouldn't fake the exercise!
I believe that you'll find that the acceleration (or deceleration) isRight. That's why I pointed out that he'd need to immediately and
not constant and varies substantially. To properly compare calculated
and measured AVERAGE acceleration, you'll need to collect some data
and crunch the numbers.
precisely reach and maintain absolute maximum deceleration. Any
deviation - like taking half a second to get the braking precisely right
- would add to his stopping distance.
On 9/25/2024 11:44 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Whether or not my opinions on my braking ability are correct or not is
not an issue with me.
IOW you're happy to spout absolute bullshit. Priceless! We'll remember
that.
On 9/25/2024 11:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 10:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
Differently so.
A high wheeler is amazingly easy to balance compared to same-size-wheel
bicycles.
True. I've ridden a high wheeler and balanced perfectly easily at less
than walking speed.
This has been discussed and explained here, using both simple analogies
and explanation of moment of inertia about the ground axis.
On 9/25/2024 11:18 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:45:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 9:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
But without an assistant/observer and some measurement devices, it
merely _seems_ like two meters. The numbers just don't work. I believe >>>> you are sincere. but haven't actually accurately measured.
Exactly. Except that his "sincerity" is being clouded by his emotional
need to prove that he can violate laws of physics.
The numbers just don't work.
It's amazing how a simple offhand opinion of mine can trigger
Krygowski into one of his fanatical tirades. I rejoice in his need to
try to put me down. It's an accurate indication of how much above him
he believes me to be.
:-) I do believe myself to be technically and educationally above you.
If you were my equal,
ou'd be attempting to point out errors in my
calculations instead of snarking about personalities. But it's too late
for you to take a course in even high school physics.
Face it: You're emotionally compelled to discount physics, if physics
proves your claims wrong!
On 9/25/2024 11:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 9:20 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I don't believe I'll ever bother to measure. It's not as big
deal for me as it is for other people.
As with the general advice to politicians 'never promise and amount and
a date' you're right about the general braking performance. Just leave
out the numbers.
He volunteered the numbers in an attempt to brag. Now that they've been
shown to be impossible (i.e. a lie) he's claiming technical accuracy has
no value.
But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:55:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 14:46:35 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:05:25 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/24/2024 3:17 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Even if he means without thinking time
On Tue, 24 Sep 2024 14:14:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
You might do well to read some of the archives of this group. There have
always been people posting opinions that were factually wrong, and there
have always been people pointing out those mistakes. As I've noted >>>>>>>>>>> earlier, having mistakes pointed out is a necessary part of the process
of education.
That's fine of the person being corrected understands that the >>>>>>>>>> corrector is qualified to do so and is truly interested in making >>>>>>>>>> things better. In my opinion, you fall far short of both those >>>>>>>>>> standards.
Your opinion on that matter is worthless. You don't have anywhere near
the background needed to judge technical proficiency. Professional >>>>>>>>> Engineering licensing boards of two different states have disagreed with
you, not to mention those conferring my engineering degrees and those >>>>>>>>> institutions for whom I've worked.
Right, good one. There is no way you can stop your tricycle in 10 feetThere are many examples of ideas that were posted frequently, and noted20 MPH would be maybe 9/10 feet if I didn't concern myself with >>>>>>>>>> slamming the chain rings into the ground or doing a face plant on the
as wrong. Most of them seldom pop up any more - and not only, I think,
just because there are fewer posts. I think people actually learned things.
Examples of mistaken claims? Chains wear by stretching the metal. Old
frames get "soft." Increasing spoke tension makes a wheel more rigid.
Tying and soldering spokes makes a wheel stronger. Headsets fail by true
brinelling due to impact loads. Hanging a bike by the front wheel makes
the spokes stretch... and many more.
BTW, what was that stopping distance from 20 mph again? ;-) >>>>>>>>>>
ground in front of the bike. 30 MPH would be a little further. Two >>>>>>>>>> front brakes work better than one, especially when the rider's weight
is already more over the front wheels before he applies the brakes. >>>>>>>>>
from 20 miles per hour. That would require a deceleration of 43 ft/s^2
or 1.34 times the acceleration of gravity. IOW you'd need tires with a
static coefficient of friction at least 1.34, plus absolutely perfect >>>>>>>>> application of both brakes so that both wheels were at the absolute >>>>>>>>> limit of traction but not skidding. And you'd have to be in a "nose >>>>>>>>> wheelie" all the while, with your rear tire up in the air so every bit
of your weight was on the front wheels. It's essentially impossible. >>>>>>>>>
For 9 feet, your acceleration would have to be nearly 48 ft/s^2, and >>>>>>>>> besides absolutely perfect braking reflexes, you'd need tires with a >>>>>>>>> static coefficient of friction at least 1.48.
And 30 mph would be _much_ farther, not "a little." The velocity term >>>>>>>>> gets squared in the relevant calculation, much as it does when >>>>>>>>> calculating kinetic energy.
I'm sure you don't know what a lot of that means. But what you're >>>>>>>>> claiming is practically impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong by doing
what you claim and posting video evidence.
Yes, I know I'm going to stop and my fingers are already on the brake >>>>>>> levers.
20mph is 6 meters or 20ft for a car,
which almost certainly can out brake the trike.
I doubt that.
If a planned braking action on the MTB probably could reduce that a touch
as it has huge amounts of grip and braking force, and frame allows one to
get behind the rear wheel.
Other bikes at best would equal, the old commute bike as it has weight to
the rear is surprisingly effective at emergency stops or just using the
rear brake hard, but even that will during a emergency start to lock the
rear.
Neither of the road/gravel bikes would do well at emergency stops as your
in the wrong position ie far too forward.
Roger Merriman
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>>>> off the ground.
That?s really hard to see how, you?ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the >>>>> road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to >>>>> someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the >>>>> ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Lifting the rear wheel on the MTB in position ie off the rear wheel Is not >>>> easy at all, if it?s more of emergency brake the rear wheel might lock if >>>> I?m not in position in position your not lifting the rear wheel on flat >>>> ground.
Even my gravel bike tipping forward isn?t particularly an issue if I can >>>> get in position and if not it?s more likely to lock the rear than lift it. >>>>
My old commute bike with a lot of rear weight even on an emergency stop >>>> your not going to lift it at worse it will lock.
The weight being low isn?t the issue it?s the weight forward/rear and that >>>> your weight is static.
Note that cable disks are by some margin less powerful than hydraulic >>>>>> systems, ie even a fairly modest cheap twin pot is going to be many times
more powerful, let alone 4 pots and so on.
I really don't understand the issue of more powerful brakes. I changed >>>>> my Avid bb7s from long pull to short pull and I still have to back the >>>>> calipers off so as to not lock up the brakes at high speeds. The
brakes are perfectly capable of slamming the chain rings into the
ground and pitching 205 lb me out on my face. I've heard of people who >>>>> have had that experience. One on a Catrike 700 with an even lower
center of gravity than my Expedition.
That?s all to do with the CatTrike Geometry ie it?s weight forward so it?s >>>> limited by its pitching, that doesn?t make the cable disks powerful just >>>> that the geometry limits the trikes braking, I have had bikes with cable >>>> disks a few different models in fact, powerful they are not, about the same
as rim brake bike.
I run Magic Mary?s at 2.40 they are soft and gummy tires and on tarmac they
are effectively glued to it! Even with that 6ft at 15MPH seems ambitious!
I use road tires, of course. 40MM at 70/80 psi. I suspect my tires are >>>>> glued to the road better than your knobby MTB tires.
Not a chance, Marathons are designed for touring and commuting get many >>>> thousands of miles out of those, compounded with higher pressures, my
Gravel bike with similar sized tires but half the pressure and more volume >>>> and softer rubber and so on. Is likely to be a better at this.
Let alone the MTB with soft sticky rubber much more volume 700*64 is a lot >>>> of air a frame that allows one to get off the back its geometry etc, ie I >>>> can if break to the limits of the tires for that reason.
Your limited clearly by the trikes geometry, where as upright bikes
particularly slacker geometry MTB are able to utilise not just more
powerful brakes but brakes with absolutely enormous amounts of power, see >>>> my posts few months back with the DH brakes.
Roger Merriman
--Roger Merriman
C'est bon
Soloman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Do you really believe that a lower center of gravity does not make a
bike more stable?
--
C'est bon
Soloman
Look at your trike and how much the chainrings and thus your legs overhang >> the front wheels, it’s clearly going to be prone to pitching forward with >> the weight so forward, that the weight is low isn’t really going to change >> that significantly.
Roger Merriman
Actually a low center of gravity does make a significant difference.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<BIG snip>
But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that
is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single
actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg
device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a
degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control
and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
It depends on how deep you want to go with your root cause
failure analysis, or preemptively, your FMEDA.
(this comparison is ignoring the parallelogram/jockey wheel
cage assembly; e.g. the basics mechanics of the derailleur)
But at the top level they have about the same number of
failure points: the points you note above VS a switch,
battery, and ECM/derailleur.
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism.
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?
The downtube:
- not much can go wrong, even if it's indexed. You might
break a cable. Easy to diagnose, easy and extremely cheap to
fix. A failed shift lever isn't likely, at least, in my 40
years of riding, I've never seen a failed downtube shifter
that wasn't from abuse.
The integrated mechanical system - A bit more than the down
tube, but still extremely easy to diagnose. If it happens to
be the shifter, it's usually a replacement, but sometimes
repairable for the Fore mechanically inclined (If the mfr
sells part: ratchet, bearing, spring....). The complete
assembly might be expensive depending on the model. If you
can get parts, relatively cheap.
The wireless:
- the switch contains a battery, physical switch,
microcontroller, and transceiver (latter two likely
integrated).
- The derailleur contains a battery, transceiver,
microcontroller, stepper motor, worm gear.
Lots to go wrong there, none of it repairable.
After replacing batteries fails, It's still not clear. Is it
the switch or the derailleur? Considering they're a matched
pair, it's irrelevant. You're fucked either way, and need to
replace the entire shifter and switch set (unless you're
lucky enough to have a firmware bug that can be fixed with a
new download).
If you want to dig deeper into the failure analysis- Is it a
mechanical failure (corrosion/breakage)? Firmware bug (how
would you tell except to try a new download)? or did the
silicon just decide to quit? Lot's more points failure there
than a mechanical system.
So which would you rather have? A system that has easily
diagnosable exposed mechanical parts with the likely
possibility of a cheap repair, or an expensive system with
no replaceable electronic parts?
There's no right, or wrong answer.
On 9/24/2024 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
SMS was being facetious, you ignorant twat
On 9/24/2024 5:23 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
<snip>
The entire eBike industry would collapse if people found out that with
proper gearing there is usually no need for an electric motor and
batteries.
Sorry, not buyin' it. Not to mention the fact that taking someone off an e-bike and telling them they have to pedal is one way to completely put them off cycling, regardless of the proper gearing. I'd suggest you go
out on an E-bike for an hour and ride some hills. You'll get a good
sense of why "with proper gearing there is usually no need for an
electric motor" is a rather myopic comment.
That's why included "usually" in that paragraph. And BTW, going up a
steep grade with low gearing you'll be at 2-3 MPH, not 6MPH.
On 9/24/2024 11:05 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
<snip>
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
SMS was being facetious, you ignorant twat
LOL, I guess that I should have included /s at the end, but I didn't
think it was necessary. I have Catrike filtered out so I didn't even see
his nonsense.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:20:03 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/welby.jpg
wrote:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes
that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to
brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy
replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
I was riding a bike with a similar setup in Japan in the early 1950's
:-)
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:24:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 25.09.2024 um 14:46 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>> off the ground.
That’s really hard to see how, you’ve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Pitching forward is a clear indicator that for your Cattrike (like for
most upright bike but unlike some recumben bicycles) , the limiting
factor for braking performance is the geometry rather than tires or brakes.
Any bike will lift the rear wheel given enough braking power at the
front wheel.
On 9/25/2024 5:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:49:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
He volunteered the numbers in an attempt to brag. Now that they've been
shown to be impossible (i.e. a lie) he's claiming technical accuracy has >>> no value.
I've seen nothing that proves it's impossible.
Rather, you've _understood_ nothing that proves its impossible. You're >determined to remain ignorant to cling to your fantasy of correctness.
On 9/25/2024 8:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:20:03 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/welby.jpg
wrote:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes >>> that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to >>> brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy
replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
I was riding a bike with a similar setup in Japan in the early 1950's
:-)
Am 25.09.2024 um 16:15 schrieb Catrike Ryder:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:24:29 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Am 25.09.2024 um 14:46 schrieb Catrike Ryder:Any bike will lift the rear wheel given enough braking power at the
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:57:52 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
A few weeks ago, after posting about braking, I tested the Catrike's >>>>>> brakes at 15 MPH. I stopped at about 6 feet, keeping the chain rings >>>>>> off the ground.
Thats really hard to see how, youve mentioned that the trike pitches >>>>> which suggests that its weight is quite forward.
Indeed it does pitch forward. It's easy to lift the rear tire off the
road, however, the center of gravity of me on the Catrike compared to
someone on a two wheeler is much lower. LIfting the rear wheel of the
ground still requires a lot of braking force.
Pitching forward is a clear indicator that for your Cattrike (like for
most upright bike but unlike some recumben bicycles) , the limiting
factor for braking performance is the geometry rather than tires or brakes. >>
front wheel.
This assumption gave me a fractured wrist when I was 18:
Motorbikes will lock the front wheel before lifting the rear wheel.
Motorbikes and some recumbent bikes (where the line from the front wheel >patch to the dynamic center of gravity is shallower than 45 degrees)
will lock the front whell instead of lifting the rear wheel, enabling a >deceleration of around 1 g (but the biker will not normally be able to
handle that unless he's supported by anti-lock brakes).
Your description of pitching the Cattrike points to a deceleration of
just under 1 g.
*Normal bicycles* on *dry tarmac* roads will lift the rear wheel,
therefore for them the tire details are irrelevant for braking performance. >When braking on ice or wet grass, the tire details will be very
important for braking performance.
Rolf
On 9/25/2024 6:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?
The downtube:
- not much can go wrong, even if it's indexed. You might break a cable.
Easy to diagnose, easy and extremely cheap to fix. A failed shift lever
isn't likely, at least, in my 40 years of riding, I've never seen a
failed downtube shifter that wasn't from abuse.
I'll just note, that paragraph also applies to my favorite, the bar end shifters.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 04:33:34 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:42:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski >><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 5:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:49:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
He volunteered the numbers in an attempt to brag. Now that they've been >>>>> shown to be impossible (i.e. a lie) he's claiming technical accuracy has >>>>> no value.
I've seen nothing that proves it's impossible.
Rather, you've _understood_ nothing that proves its impossible. You're >>>determined to remain ignorant to cling to your fantasy of correctness.
I make no claims of correctness. Rather, I am entertained by your >>unsuccessful attempts at gaslighting. You have such a need to put me
down, to try to make me feel as worthless and shameful as you feel
about yourself.
That's not ever going to happen.
See... You don't know nothing! Why! Frankie was a school teacher! One
of, what's the number? 4 million? other teachers? a Very Important
Person! Why they probably play the national anthem when he walks down
the street..... or at least toot the horn.
I'll tell you a secret... I put a kill mark on Frankie's posts a bit
ago, and guess what. If you don't see him you don't miss him.
Now like Tommy, if you don't see him you do miss him. Not his
blathering, perhaps, but at least the volume.... "Gee there seems to
be something missing, a lot of volume yesterday?
But Frankly? Nada!...
See there? I just misspelled him and never even noticed it :-)
On 9/25/2024 10:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.09.2024 um 16:28 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 9/25/2024 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Fork mounted braking systems like cantilever did not reach the
traditional road-bike market.
Except specialty machines such as cyclo cross
https://www.speedbicycles.ch/velo/428/
guerciotti_cross_competition_1981.html
and time trial bikes with the incredibly light Mafac Jacky brake.
... and except for almost every bike I own and ride.
OK, I should have said "penetrate the market" rather than "reach the
market".
The "problem" in the past was that road bikes usually had caliper
brakes and that for caliper brakes, narrow tires mean better braking
performance.
By moving to V-brakes, disk brakes or similar brakes, you avoid the
constraints of the past, enabling wider tires on road bikes.
Sidepull and centerpull calipers exist for clearance with many tire
widths. This is not news.
From short:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/agccat.jpg
On 9/25/2024 1:01 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 6:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Most of my remarks on this issue relate not only my own experiences, but >>> the experiences I've observed among my riding friends. So yes, they do
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonable tire >>>>> clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
That shows your circle of cyclists really...
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about >>>> if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one >>>> of my bikes are doubles.
Just because it’s not something you’ve encountered doesn’t mean it isn’t a
thing.
show my circle of cyclists.
But the question becomes, whose "circle of cyclists" is closer to
typical? I think only a tiny percentage who are riding fast enough to
benefit from minor aerodynamic changes, who are braking hard enough to
benefit from improvements in brake modulation, who need ultra fast gear
changes, etc. The folks I ride with will do 40 to 50 miles without
worry, and that already exceeds the ability of "everyman" cyclists.
(Heck, I had many folks amazed that I rode seven miles to get to work!)
Which shows really that your experience is rather car centric no one has
ever been amazed that I rode to work, remember I see and encounter huge
number of cyclists London’s heat maps glow vividly unlike Youngstown there >> are multiple large bike clubs within my area and so on.
London population and we’re not even counting the folks who commute in from
the Home Counties is larger than Ohio let alone Youngstown. And bikes are a >> common sight.
I think a valid question might be: Did London's heat maps show much more activity when 1x gearing or road disc brakes get popular? IOW, did they really make a difference?
I doubt it. In fact, I think if you described the typical London commute bike, it would be far from this year's fashionable bike shop offering.
That's what I see among the admittedly few bike commuters around here.
It's also what I saw in Portland, OR, in Amsterdam, in Paris, etc. etc.
People just don't need ultra-trendy gear to ride a bike for utility. Its really needed only for competition. And I take it as an axiom that the
best bikes for practical use are not racing bikes.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 20:47:59 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 8:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 08:20:03 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>https://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/welby.jpg
wrote:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod brakes >>>> that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables to >>>> brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more reliable. Buy >>>> replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
I was riding a bike with a similar setup in Japan in the early 1950's
:-)
Seems to me that such a setup would run the risk of the brake getting involved with the spokes, and that wouldn't be a happy thing. It
certainly would require a properly aligned wheel. I vote against it.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:42:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 5:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:49:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
He volunteered the numbers in an attempt to brag. Now that they've been >>>> shown to be impossible (i.e. a lie) he's claiming technical accuracy has >>>> no value.
I've seen nothing that proves it's impossible.
Rather, you've _understood_ nothing that proves its impossible. You're
determined to remain ignorant to cling to your fantasy of correctness.
I make no claims of correctness. Rather, I am entertained by your unsuccessful attempts at gaslighting. You have such a need to put me
down, to try to make me feel as worthless and shameful as you feel
about yourself.
That's not ever going to happen.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:06:43 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
On 9/24/2024 11:05 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/24/2024 1:45 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
<snip>
Good grief. What one person does or doesn't do isn't standing in the
way of anything unless he's standing where other people want to be.
SMS was being facetious, you ignorant twat
LOL, I guess that I should have included /s at the end, but I didn't
think it was necessary. I have Catrike filtered out so I didn't even see
his nonsense.
Soem liberal loons are afraid of me. I don't mind. It lets me know I'm
doing the right thing.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 5:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<BIG snip>
But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
It depends on how deep you want to go with your root cause failure
analysis, or preemptively, your FMEDA.
(this comparison is ignoring the parallelogram/jockey wheel cage
assembly; e.g. the basics mechanics of the derailleur)
But at the top level they have about the same number of failure
points: the points you note above VS a switch, battery, and ECM/
derailleur.
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism.
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?
The downtube:
- not much can go wrong, even if it's indexed. You might break a
cable. Easy to diagnose, easy and extremely cheap to fix. A failed
shift lever isn't likely, at least, in my 40 years of riding, I've
never seen a failed downtube shifter that wasn't from abuse.
The integrated mechanical system - A bit more than the down tube, but
still extremely easy to diagnose. If it happens to be the shifter,
it's usually a replacement, but sometimes repairable for the Fore
mechanically inclined (If the mfr sells part: ratchet, bearing,
spring....). The complete assembly might be expensive depending on the
model. If you can get parts, relatively cheap.
The wireless:
- the switch contains a battery, physical switch, microcontroller, and
transceiver (latter two likely integrated).
- The derailleur contains a battery, transceiver, microcontroller,
stepper motor, worm gear.
Lots to go wrong there, none of it repairable.
After replacing batteries fails, It's still not clear. Is it the
switch or the derailleur? Considering they're a matched pair, it's
irrelevant. You're fucked either way, and need to replace the entire
shifter and switch set (unless you're lucky enough to have a firmware
bug that can be fixed with a new download).
If you want to dig deeper into the failure analysis- Is it a
mechanical failure (corrosion/breakage)? Firmware bug (how would you
tell except to try a new download)? or did the silicon just decide to
quit? Lot's more points failure there than a mechanical system.
So which would you rather have? A system that has easily diagnosable
exposed mechanical parts with the likely possibility of a cheap
repair, or an expensive system with no replaceable electronic parts?
There's no right, or wrong answer.
There is an alternate; fixed gear.
On 9/22/2024 4:20 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:
On 9/22/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/22/2024 9:53 AM, cyclintom wrote:THose bikes never did a thing for me, like Surly bikes. I find them just like a boxy 4 door uninspiring sedan.
On Sat Sep 21 14:10:46 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
Long article on Grant Petersen and Rivendell. Pretty good
explanation of
Grant's ideas, I think.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/23/the-art-of-taking-it-
slow?mc_cid=5c59e2814d&mc_eid=435456b007
--
- Frank Krygowski
Grant Peterson is a bicycle afficianado. Ricendell is not a
particularly good bike. Not BAD but nothing to write home about. They
are heavier than necessary and they have a decent finish.
Considering Rivendells span many models over some 25 years by many
different manufacturers, I'm not sure evaluating Rivendell generally
in one sentence is possible.
I'm not a Rivendell rider, and probably never will be. But I have great respect for many of Grant's ideas.
Ideas like: Bicycling should be about much more than always trying to
either go faster or "train" (for what?). Like him, I value technological simplicity and versatility. I believe that most of the annual
"improvements" that manufacturers dream up and _Buycycling_ magazine
promotes are of no significant benefit to the customer/rider but instead
help the industry push more stuff out the door. And I like being
involved with the bike, and knowing how every bit of it works. That's as opposed to, say, pushing an electrical button and having some incomprehensible system shift my gears for me.
YMMV of course.
--
- Frank Krygowski
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Am 25.09.2024 um 17:40 schrieb AMuzi:
On 9/25/2024 10:12 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 25.09.2024 um 16:28 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 9/25/2024 9:28 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2024 3:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Fork mounted braking systems like cantilever did not reach the
traditional road-bike market.
Except specialty machines such as cyclo cross
https://www.speedbicycles.ch/velo/428/
guerciotti_cross_competition_1981.html
and time trial bikes with the incredibly light Mafac Jacky brake.
... and except for almost every bike I own and ride.
OK, I should have said "penetrate the market" rather than "reach the
market".
The "problem" in the past was that road bikes usually had caliper
brakes and that for caliper brakes, narrow tires mean better braking
performance.
By moving to V-brakes, disk brakes or similar brakes, you avoid the
constraints of the past, enabling wider tires on road bikes.
Sidepull and centerpull calipers exist for clearance with many tire
widths. This is not news.
From short:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/agccat.jpg
Sure they do but by construction, long reach caliper brakes have a lot
of internal losses. The bike builder decides which version of caliper
brake he puts on the bike, and the consumer has to live with the
restriction (only narrow rides, no mudguards etc).
With V-brakes, drum brakes or disk brakes, brake clearance does not have
an influence on possible tire widths.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
On 9/26/2024 8:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
In 1987 I went to China on a low-budget bicycle trip. The tour company provided us with Chinese bicycles with rod brakes. It was a good
decision, because the last thing you wanted to do when riding in a mass
of commuters was to slam on your brakes and cause a pile-up. You needed
to just go with the flow and not make any sudden turns or stops. Since
the rod brakes only slightly slowed the bicycle there were no rear-end collisions.
On 9/26/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2024 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with
mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of
the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the
future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much
more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in
Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never
heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Having sold a large number of them over many years I do
hear that, mostly from commuters after a near death
experience in traffic.
With slippery chrome steel rims, I can understand that. How
about with aluminum rims? (Are rod brakes ever used with
aluminum rims?)
On 9/26/2024 5:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I have backed off the calipers to where a full pull at higherIOW, you've reduced your braking capacity. That's fine if it
speeds won't slam the chainrings into the ground, nor
pitch me out on
my face.
works for you, and if you don't then lie about your
fantastic braking.
On 9/26/2024 5:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
I have backed off the calipers to where a full pull at higherIOW, you've reduced your braking capacity. That's fine if it works for
speeds won't slam the chainrings into the ground, nor pitch me out on
my face.
you, and if you don't then lie about your fantastic braking.
On 9/26/2024 4:33 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 22:42:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 9/25/2024 5:30 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:49:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
He volunteered the numbers in an attempt to brag. Now that they've been >>>>> shown to be impossible (i.e. a lie) he's claiming technical accuracy has >>>>> no value.
I've seen nothing that proves it's impossible.
Rather, you've _understood_ nothing that proves its impossible. You're
determined to remain ignorant to cling to your fantasy of correctness.
I make no claims of correctness.
IOW, you posted your bragging claim about your impossibly short stopping >distance. But you now don't claim it's correct.
We'll remember that your claims are worthless.
On 9/26/2024 7:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Hydraulic system being in someways simpler ie only mechanical moving parts >> are the pistons and the levers and sealed from grot so will work even if
completely clogged up.
I thought the pad retraction depended on the proper flexing of a rubber
ring or seal; and I thought I came across a video detailing the need for cleaning that stuff inside the caliper to maintain proper retraction. Am
I remembering wrong? ISTM that without some such mechanism, removing hydraulic pressure would still leave the pads lightly scuffing the disc.
Extremely easy to live with change pads every so often, for my uses less
often than rim pads which just get eaten by the slop.
Your use must be unusual. My rim brake shoes seem to last decades. And
I've mentioned the Warm Showers guest whose disc pads surprised hiim by wearing out on a hilly northern Pennsylvania tour.
At least with rim brakes, shoe wear is easily visible.
On 9/26/2024 2:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2024 12:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2024 5:03 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:Unlikely.
I have backed off the calipers to where a full pull at higherIOW, you've reduced your braking capacity. That's fine if it works for
speeds won't slam the chainrings into the ground, nor pitch me out on
my face.
you, and if you don't then lie about your fantastic braking.
More probably changed the lever sensitivity. Discs apply power over a
shorter span of lever travel and adjusting them back a bit allows a full
grip before significant brake application. Still won't run out of lever
travel.
As I recall, he loosened things up to the point that the levers hit the
bars before locking the brakes. He can correct me if I'm wrong.
On 9/26/2024 1:51 PM, sms wrote:
On 9/26/2024 8:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See >>>> <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
In 1987 I went to China on a low-budget bicycle trip. The tour company
provided us with Chinese bicycles with rod brakes. It was a good
decision, because the last thing you wanted to do when riding in a mass
of commuters was to slam on your brakes and cause a pile-up. You needed
to just go with the flow and not make any sudden turns or stops. Since
the rod brakes only slightly slowed the bicycle there were no rear-end
collisions.
That reminds me of the complaints I heard about the first ABS introduced
by Mercedes in the late 70's.
'They work great....They work so great they're going to cause more
accidents because of the drivers behind them without an ABS'.
On 9/26/2024 7:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Hydraulic system being in someways simpler ie only
mechanical moving parts
are the pistons and the levers and sealed from grot so
will work even if
completely clogged up.
I thought the pad retraction depended on the proper flexing
of a rubber ring or seal; and I thought I came across a
video detailing the need for cleaning that stuff inside the
caliper to maintain proper retraction. Am I remembering
wrong? ISTM that without some such mechanism, removing
hydraulic pressure would still leave the pads lightly
scuffing the disc.
Extremely easy to live with change pads every so often,
for my uses less
often than rim pads which just get eaten by the slop.
Your use must be unusual. My rim brake shoes seem to last
decades. And I've mentioned the Warm Showers guest whose
disc pads surprised hiim by wearing out on a hilly northern
Pennsylvania tour.
At least with rim brakes, shoe wear is easily visible.
On 9/26/2024 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/26/2024 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See >>>> <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Having sold a large number of them over many years I do hear that,
mostly from commuters after a near death experience in traffic.
With slippery chrome steel rims, I can understand that. How about with aluminum rims? (Are rod brakes ever used with aluminum rims?)
On 9/26/2024 1:22 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2024 7:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Hydraulic system being in someways simpler ie only
mechanical moving parts
are the pistons and the levers and sealed from grot so
will work even if
completely clogged up.
I thought the pad retraction depended on the proper flexing
of a rubber ring or seal; and I thought I came across a
video detailing the need for cleaning that stuff inside the
caliper to maintain proper retraction. Am I remembering
wrong? ISTM that without some such mechanism, removing
hydraulic pressure would still leave the pads lightly
scuffing the disc.
Extremely easy to live with change pads every so often,
for my uses less
often than rim pads which just get eaten by the slop.
Your use must be unusual. My rim brake shoes seem to last
decades. And I've mentioned the Warm Showers guest whose
disc pads surprised hiim by wearing out on a hilly northern
Pennsylvania tour.
At least with rim brakes, shoe wear is easily visible.
The systems are just different. Disc pads are readily
observed in place for wear depth and change easily without
disturbing any adjustments. Damaged piston seals are
possible yes, but in practice uncommon. The system is
heavier but allows more tire/mudguard clearance AEBE.
Different, but neither is compelling IMHO. Both systems
work well for many riders.
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You're still riding that bicycle built in the mid-1980s? ;-)
Yes, and I love it!
I'd really like to know what chainrings and cassettes you've got, for
tha.
Oh, it's ancient technology! I'm using "half step plus granny" cranks, 48-44-24 (Sugino) and SunTour freewheels. The Cannondale's rear hub is a sealed bearing unit, and apparently due to a lack of stress riser
threads, it's never broken an axle (unlike other bikes I've had). Years
ago when a local bike shop closed, I inherited a huge collection of
SunTour cogs, and I'm still using those. My touring bike has five cogs,
13 - 34. (On my wife's identical bike, I put six cogs.) I'm apparently
more tolerant of cadence changes than some cyclists. The biggest
difficulty I have is having to notice whether I'm in the 48 or the 44
when I feel the need for a half-step change.
I've ridden that setup with only minor changes since 1986. It just keeps working for me.
[FK:] I dislike black boxes with hidden functions. And I tend
to disbelieve the sales pitch "But nothing will ever go wrong with this
system!"
Sure. So do I. But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
Nope, I would not like that. And BTW, my shifting apparatus doesn't have
to fit into a brake lever. I'm running friction bar ends on that bike.
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<BIG snip>
But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
It depends on how deep you want to go with your root cause failure
analysis, or preemptively, your FMEDA.
(this comparison is ignoring the parallelogram/jockey wheel cage
assembly; e.g. the basics mechanics of the derailleur)
But at the top level they have about the same number of failure points:
the points you note above VS a switch, battery, and ECM/derailleur.
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?
The downtube:
- not much can go wrong, even if it's indexed. You might break a cable.
Easy to diagnose, easy and extremely cheap to fix.
A failed shift lever
isn't likely, at least, in my 40 years of riding, I've never seen a
failed downtube shifter that wasn't from abuse.
The integrated mechanical system - A bit more than the down tube, but
still extremely easy to diagnose.
If it happens to be the shifter, it's
usually a replacement, but sometimes repairable for the Fore
mechanically inclined (If the mfr sells part: ratchet, bearing,
spring....). The complete assembly might be expensive depending on the
model. If you can get parts, relatively cheap.
The wireless:
- the switch contains a battery, physical switch, microcontroller, and >transceiver (latter two likely integrated).
- The derailleur contains a battery, transceiver, microcontroller,
stepper motor, worm gear.
Lots to go wrong there, none of it repairable.
After replacing batteries fails, It's still not clear. Is it the switch
or the derailleur?
Considering they're a matched pair, it's irrelevant.
You're fucked either way, and need to replace the entire shifter and
switch set (unless you're lucky enough to have a firmware bug that can
be fixed with a new download).
If you want to dig deeper into the failure analysis- Is it a mechanical >failure (corrosion/breakage)? Firmware bug (how would you tell except to
try a new download)? or did the silicon just decide to quit? Lot's more >points failure there than a mechanical system.
So which would you rather have? A system that has easily diagnosable
exposed mechanical parts with the likely possibility of a cheap repair,
or an expensive system with no replaceable electronic parts?
There's no right, or wrong answer.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:39:03 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/26/2024 1:22 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/26/2024 7:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Hydraulic system being in someways simpler ie only
mechanical moving parts
are the pistons and the levers and sealed from grot so
will work even if
completely clogged up.
I thought the pad retraction depended on the proper flexing
of a rubber ring or seal; and I thought I came across a
video detailing the need for cleaning that stuff inside the
caliper to maintain proper retraction. Am I remembering
wrong? ISTM that without some such mechanism, removing
hydraulic pressure would still leave the pads lightly
scuffing the disc.
Extremely easy to live with change pads every so often,
for my uses less
often than rim pads which just get eaten by the slop.
Your use must be unusual. My rim brake shoes seem to last
decades. And I've mentioned the Warm Showers guest whose
disc pads surprised hiim by wearing out on a hilly northern
Pennsylvania tour.
At least with rim brakes, shoe wear is easily visible.
The systems are just different. Disc pads are readily
observed in place for wear depth and change easily without
disturbing any adjustments. Damaged piston seals are
possible yes, but in practice uncommon. The system is
heavier but allows more tire/mudguard clearance AEBE.
Different, but neither is compelling IMHO. Both systems
work well for many riders.
I can check my brake pads in bright sunlight or with a small
flashlight.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 9/25/2024 6:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Most of my remarks on this issue relate not only my own experiences,
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonableThat shows your circle of cyclists really...
tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about
if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one
of my bikes are doubles.
Just because it’s not something you’ve encountered doesn’t mean it
isn’t a
thing.
but the experiences I've observed among my riding friends. So yes,
they do show my circle of cyclists.
But the question becomes, whose "circle of cyclists" is closer to
typical? I think only a tiny percentage who are riding fast enough to
benefit from minor aerodynamic changes, who are braking hard enough to benefit from improvements in brake modulation, who need ultra fast
gear changes, etc. The folks I ride with will do 40 to 50 miles
without worry, and that already exceeds the ability of "everyman"
cyclists. (Heck, I had many folks amazed that I rode seven miles to
get to work!)
Am Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:00:21 -0400 schrieb Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<BIG snip>
But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
It depends on how deep you want to go with your root cause failure
analysis, or preemptively, your FMEDA.
(this comparison is ignoring the parallelogram/jockey wheel cage
assembly; e.g. the basics mechanics of the derailleur)
I ignored that assembly because both systems have these basic mechanics.
But ok, let's compare them in detail. There is a relevant detail, where
both are quite different: The delicate mechanical clockwork inside the brifters have to work against the varying losses from the Bowden cable
and a spring inside that derallieur assembly, in addition. That spring
has to be strong enough to move it reliably into the other direction,
over the full range.
The actuator, on the other hand, just sits there, without having to
overcome force from a spring in either direction, so it has to apply
only enough force to move the derailleur against its own friction and
mass, now and then.
But at the top level they have about the same number of failure points:
the points you note above VS a switch, battery, and ECM/derailleur.
Have you ever disassembled a modern mechanical brifter like for example
those Shimano sold in 2010, in order to remove a broken cable?
I have.
Wasn't fun.
Replacing a CR2032 after two years or changing an battery
for recharging every 500-1000 km is a breeze, on comparison. The former action just needs a coin, the other one needs no tool at all.
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism
But still not failsafe.
My Peugeot PR60/L from 1978 had only friction
shifters (indexing didn't exist then), but my Peugeot PR3000 from 1995
can be switched between friction and indexing. Quite a hassle to find a replacement, after one of both broke, years later. Found a compatible replacement from SunTour by asking the owner of a somewhat obscure bike
shop during a business trip to Berlin.
.
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?
That's easy. Just do without changing gears, as our ancestors did,
problem solved.
I'm comparing reasonly recent systems, only. In addition, my current
focus isn't on repairability when being stranded somewhere in the
Sahara, but on convenience under our current conditions, meaning single
day trips around where we live, or somewhere in Europe, do single day
trips during our vacation.
The downtube:
- not much can go wrong, even if it's indexed. You might break a cable.
Easy to diagnose, easy and extremely cheap to fix.
Sure. Did it often enough, even during a bike tour on vacation, once.
A failed shift lever
isn't likely, at least, in my 40 years of riding, I've never seen a
failed downtube shifter that wasn't from abuse.
I did, see above. No abuse, just heavy use, mostly while commuting,
bordering to abuse.
The integrated mechanical system - A bit more than the down tube, but
still extremely easy to diagnose.
Or so you think.
But perhaps "Doesn't shift in one direction, anymore,
but no way to find out, without disassembling a fragile mechanism that
is broken enough to prohibit disassembly" is a diagnose, IYO.
If it happens to be the shifter, it's
usually a replacement, but sometimes repairable for the Fore
mechanically inclined (If the mfr sells part: ratchet, bearing,
spring....). The complete assembly might be expensive depending on the
model. If you can get parts, relatively cheap.
That's a big if. Well, the broken part was a tiny spring deep inside
the ratchet mechanism, as I found out much later, after I had partially disassembled the broken brifter after a shop sold and mounted a new one. Found out that, while shimano sold most parts of that specific brifter
via their distributor, they didn't have a part number for that spring.
After looking into the disassembly instructions later, just out of
curiosity, I was quite sure about the reason for. Mounting that tiny
spring not only needs complete disassembly, there must be a specific
tool used in production, to mount it inside. In short, it's not
repairable, when broken.
The wireless:
- the switch contains a battery, physical switch, microcontroller, and
transceiver (latter two likely integrated).
All sealed and only one simple moving part, a switch.
- The derailleur contains a battery, transceiver, microcontroller,
stepper motor, worm gear.
The battery is an easily replaceable part, a microcontroller isn't
something wearing out within a few years. Actuators are typically sold
with a MTBF around 20.000 hours*)
Lots to go wrong there, none of it repairable.
A broken brake lever assembly can easily be found by looking into the
spare parts catalog from SRAM and then using a search machine for
looking up "ED BRAKE LEVER ASSEMBLY (PADDLE AND ELEC POD) RIVAL ETAP AXS
DISC LEFT".
After replacing batteries fails, It's still not clear. Is it the switch
or the derailleur?
Try the other lever. If that one can operate the derailleur, it's most probably a problem with the lever. Look at the LED on the inner side of
the lever. Does it light up, when you try to shift? If yes, check
whether the derailleur is connected to the failing lever or not, If not,
try another battery and check again. If this fails too, inspect the
battery contacts, carefully. If there isn't an obvious problem, try all
three batteries in the other, working lever. If all three work, you
probably have a problem with the electronics,
not much different from a
broken part inside a mechanical brifter - no way to fix that on the
road.
Considering they're a matched pair, it's irrelevant.
You're fucked either way, and need to replace the entire shifter and
switch set (unless you're lucky enough to have a firmware bug that can
be fixed with a new download).
If you are paranoid, you can buy a "wireless blip" <https://www.sram.com/en/sram/models/ec-blip-b1> and carry that
somewhere on the bike. It is quite simple to reconfigure these switches
using the SRAM app on a mobile phone, and better than not being able to shift, anymore. Just pushing a button on the handlebar is certainly less difficult than operating a lever on the downtube.
If you want to dig deeper into the failure analysis- Is it a mechanical
failure (corrosion/breakage)? Firmware bug (how would you tell except to
try a new download)? or did the silicon just decide to quit? Lot's more
points failure there than a mechanical system.
That's all just idle speculation and arbitrary counting imaginary
failure points.
You could also count each contact point of the inner
wire of a brake cable as a single point of failure and would be less
wrong.
So which would you rather have? A system that has easily diagnosable
exposed mechanical parts with the likely possibility of a cheap repair,
or an expensive system with no replaceable electronic parts?
For our purposes I want a system where some fragile mechanical parts
that quickly wear out are replaced by electronics that easily outlive
those parts. So far, I'm quite optimistic.
There's no right, or wrong answer.
Actually, it's the wrong question.
*) <https://www.linengineering.com/news/selecting-the-right-stepper-motor-for-medical-applications>
"Stepper motors typically have an MTBF of over 20,000 hr of continuous operation. When stepper motors operate at their bearings’ rated axial
and radial loads or less with temperatures kept to less than 50°C,
stepper motors usually last 20 years, assuming a 50% duty cycle."
On 9/26/2024 3:48 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:00:21 -0400 schrieb Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism
But still not failsafe. My Peugeot PR60/L from 1978 had only friction
shifters (indexing didn't exist then), but my Peugeot PR3000 from 1995
can be switched between friction and indexing. Quite a hassle to find a
replacement, after one of both broke, years later. Found a compatible
replacement from SunTour by asking the owner of a somewhat obscure bike
shop during a business trip to Berlin.
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube shifter. I'm
very curious about details, both how it happened and what specifically
broke.
(The difficulty finding another is more a condemnation of the bike
industry's "churning" than anything else.)
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?... my current
focus isn't on repairability when being stranded somewhere in the
Sahara, but on convenience under our current conditions, meaning single
day trips around where we live, or somewhere in Europe, do single day
trips during our vacation.
Ease of repair is still important to me, even though I'm not planning
any long tours in the near future. I know most people just toss out
what's broken and buy a new one, but I almost always at least try to fix >things. See https://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
That's a big if. Well, the broken part was a tiny spring deep inside
the ratchet mechanism, as I found out much later, after I had partially
disassembled the broken brifter after a shop sold and mounted a new one.
Found out that, while shimano sold most parts of that specific brifter
via their distributor, they didn't have a part number for that spring.
After looking into the disassembly instructions later, just out of
curiosity, I was quite sure about the reason for. Mounting that tiny
spring not only needs complete disassembly, there must be a specific
tool used in production, to mount it inside. In short, it's not
repairable, when broken.
Yep. That's why I don't use those things.
On 9/25/2024 1:01 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
I?ve climbed some 20 something miles
up mountains and for the same reason it?s fine, your in the same chainring and relatively few cassette changes, as apposed to rolling terrain or similar, ie places your going from very low to very high and back often very quickly.
I've ridden hills in Devon with full camping gear - very steep and
choppy terrain where big gear changes were frequent. Hills in Western Pennsylvania and West Virginia are very similar.
But I just don't see shifting chainrings to be a huge burden. Hell, even
on department store bikes, the front shift is generally indexed. Push a button or pull a trigger and it changes from chainring "3" to "2."
--
- Frank Krygowski
About "a moment to clear the rim" on road brakes: Yes, that happens.
It's almost never a significant problem. Road riders don't generally
require absolutely perfect braking to stop at exactly the right spot.
And brake failure of any kind is way, way down the list of causes of
bike crashes.
On 9/28/2024 11:08 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:25:26 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube
shifter. I'm
very curious about details, both how it happened and what
specifically
broke.
I still own the bike out of nostalgia, but the broken
parts got into the
trash more than two decades ago.
AFAIR, some part of the internal mechanism broke during
riding in heavy
traffic, while switching, losing retention. Didn't notice it
immediately....
The only problem I ever encountered with downtube shifters
was the friction adjusting screw loosening, causing failure
to hold the derailleur in gear. ISTR trying to cure with
just a tiny drop of blue Loctite, but never getting it quite
right. My cure was to install Suntour "power" shifters, with
a fine toothed internal ratchet to help fight the
derailleur's return spring.
One of our best friends rides and loves her gorgeous 1984
(?) Trek touring bike. She complained about the same problem
I had with her downtube shifters. So for her birthday one
year (over her mild objections - she likes to be very
independent) I bought a NOS set of "power shifters" on Ebay
and installed them. She's been very happy with the since.
On 9/25/2024 3:26 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
You're still riding that bicycle built in the mid-1980s? ;-)
Yes, and I love it!
I'd really like to know what chainrings and cassettes you've got, for
tha.
Oh, it's ancient technology! I'm using "half step plus granny" cranks, >48-44-24 (Sugino) and SunTour freewheels. The Cannondale's rear hub is a >sealed bearing unit, and apparently due to a lack of stress riser
threads, it's never broken an axle (unlike other bikes I've had). Years
ago when a local bike shop closed, I inherited a huge collection of
SunTour cogs, and I'm still using those. My touring bike has five cogs,
13 - 34. (On my wife's identical bike, I put six cogs.) I'm apparently
more tolerant of cadence changes than some cyclists. The biggest
difficulty I have is having to notice whether I'm in the 48 or the 44
when I feel the need for a half-step change.
I've ridden that setup with only minor changes since 1986. It just keeps >working for me.
[FK:] I dislike black boxes with hidden functions. And I tend
to disbelieve the sales pitch "But nothing will ever go wrong with this
system!"
Sure. So do I. But I'm quite sure that a simple switch using a low
power radio signal to communicate with a derallieur that is essentially
reduced to a sealed microcontroller operating a single actuator has a
lot less failure points than a mechanical Rube Goldberg device that has
to fit into a brake lever and has to communicate by a degrading wire
rope running over several corners, merging both control and power into
that single, unreliable channel.
Nope, I would not like that.
And BTW, my shifting apparatus doesn't have
to fit into a brake lever. I'm running friction bar ends on that bike.
On 9/28/2024 11:08 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:25:26 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube shifter. I'm
very curious about details, both how it happened and what specifically
broke.
I still own the bike out of nostalgia, but the broken parts got into the
trash more than two decades ago.
AFAIR, some part of the internal mechanism broke during riding in heavy
traffic, while switching, losing retention. Didn't notice it
immediately....
The only problem I ever encountered with downtube shifters was the
friction adjusting screw loosening, causing failure to hold the
derailleur in gear.
ISTR trying to cure with just a tiny drop of blue
Loctite, but never getting it quite right.
My cure was to install
Suntour "power" shifters, with a fine toothed internal ratchet to help
fight the derailleur's return spring.
One of our best friends rides and loves her gorgeous 1984 (?) Trek
touring bike. She complained about the same problem I had with her
downtube shifters. So for her birthday one year (over her mild
objections - she likes to be very independent) I bought a NOS set of
"power shifters" on Ebay and installed them. She's been very happy with
the since.
Am Sat, 28 Sep 2024 19:53:10 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
On 9/28/2024 11:08 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:25:26 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube shifter. I'm
very curious about details, both how it happened and what specifically >>>> broke.
I still own the bike out of nostalgia, but the broken parts got into the >>> trash more than two decades ago.
AFAIR, some part of the internal mechanism broke during riding in heavy
traffic, while switching, losing retention. Didn't notice it
immediately....
The only problem I ever encountered with downtube shifters was the
friction adjusting screw loosening, causing failure to hold the
derailleur in gear.
That I suspected, too. But after disassembly and reassembly, I wasn't
any wiser.
ISTR trying to cure with just a tiny drop of blue
Loctite, but never getting it quite right.
Didn't try that. I suspect that for some reason, onne of the disks responsible for the friction was worn out or flattened by the load. In
such cases, increasing the friction with Loctite is at most a temporary
help.
My cure was to install
Suntour "power" shifters, with a fine toothed internal ratchet to help
fight the derailleur's return spring.
I didn't ask what kind of used Suntour shifter I got, and I don't
remember anymore if it was indexed or not.
One of our best friends rides and loves her gorgeous 1984 (?) Trek
touring bike. She complained about the same problem I had with her
downtube shifters. So for her birthday one year (over her mild
objections - she likes to be very independent) I bought a NOS set of
"power shifters" on Ebay and installed them. She's been very happy with
the since.
Great. I know people who own an old beetle like the one I got after I
had got my drivers license for cars, spending their weekend to clean the spark plugs, others have somebody doing them a favor, so they just do
some some oldtimer ralley now and then.
Nice for them, but not my thing. I prefer to use stuff for a long time
and try to buy stuff that I'm able to maintain and repair myself. This doesn't imply to buy old stuff, though. Sometimes it takes years for a technology to reach sufficient maturity, and then you have to buy before
it is replaced by something that is overengineered, immature or
intentionally short-lived.
On 9/29/2024 1:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Suntour's 'Power Shifter' series, beginning with the bar
end model but continued across several other products, was
less elegant than the Simplex and Campagnolo designs but
in practice proved exceptionally robust. All of them are
superior to simple friction levers in that they present a
relatively even force required for both lower and higher
gears and better resistance to undesirable 'slipping'.
That said, basic friction shifters are lighter and can
perform acceptably well with a simple cleaning and oil at
5~8 years of regular use.
Suntour (see diagram):
https://velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?
ID=39B0C9B8-10D7-4324-8BF4- F65ECA2D209A
Simplex (also sold as GPM, Mavic, Spidel):
https://www.velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?ID=91D3C48F-
C79E-429C-86AE- E38000AC1AC6
detail:
https://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2020/06/ simplex-retrofriction-components3.jpg
Campagnolo:
https://www.velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?
ID=50f6f350-6df4-4602-9b78-1d7ea4502ea9
Oh, and Shimano 'Light Action' levers:
https://www.velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?ID=ada3c1ed-
ec59-4dfe-822b-8c61a71077d8
My computer is warning me not to got to Velobase. Something
is not set up properly.
I'm curious about the Simplex shifter. Looks like it has an
internal spring, perhaps to balance the force of the
derailleur's return spring? I once (pre-1980) had a set of
Shimano (?) shifters that had that feature. As I recall,
lever force was very light and identical in both upshift and
downshift directions. Friction, not index, of course.
My computer is warning me not to got to Velobase. Something is not set
up properly.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 14:49:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
My computer is warning me not to got to Velobase. Something is not set
up properly.
It's your web browser that's producing the warning. The Velobase web
server does not support the use of SSL encryption as in https. That
means that all the traffic between the Velobase server and your
computer can be sniffed by evil hackers for nefarious purposes. <https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-an-ssl-certificate/>
It looks like they started to implement some security using something
called Fischer Frameworks and something went wrong. Jon Fischer is
the owner of Velobase.
<http://fischerframeworks.com>
It's probably safe to view the Velobase.com site but I can't guarantee
the safety of any transactions or passwords. Maybe contact the owner
and ask him why he doesn't have and use an SSL certificate: <https://www.velobase.com/Help/ContactUs.aspx>
On 9/29/2024 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2024 6:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 14:49:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
My computer is warning me not to got to Velobase. Something is not set >>>> up properly.
It's your web browser that's producing the warning. The Velobase web
server does not support the use of SSL encryption as in https. That
means that all the traffic between the Velobase server and your
computer can be sniffed by evil hackers for nefarious purposes.
<https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-an-ssl-certificate/>
It looks like they started to implement some security using something
called Fischer Frameworks and something went wrong. Jon Fischer is
the owner of Velobase.
<http://fischerframeworks.com>
It's probably safe to view the Velobase.com site but I can't guarantee
the safety of any transactions or passwords. Maybe contact the owner
and ask him why he doesn't have and use an SSL certificate:
<https://www.velobase.com/Help/ContactUs.aspx>
No transactions so little risk.
It's an excellent reference for vintage items, specs, images etc.
I thought I'd viewed things on the site many times before. I was
surprised I got that warning.
On 9/26/2024 3:48 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:00:21 -0400 schrieb Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>:
A down-tube system is even simpler - no ratchet mechanism
But still not failsafe. My Peugeot PR60/L from 1978 had
only friction
shifters (indexing didn't exist then), but my Peugeot
PR3000 from 1995
can be switched between friction and indexing. Quite a
hassle to find a
replacement, after one of both broke, years later. Found
a compatible
replacement from SunTour by asking the owner of a somewhat
obscure bike
shop during a business trip to Berlin.
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube
shifter. I'm very curious about details, both how it
happened and what specifically broke.
(The difficulty finding another is more a condemnation of
the bike industry's "churning" than anything else.)
What can go wrong? How easy is it to repair?focus isn't on repairability when being stranded somewhere
... my current
in the
Sahara, but on convenience under our current conditions,
meaning single
day trips around where we live, or somewhere in Europe, do
single day
trips during our vacation.
Ease of repair is still important to me, even though I'm not
planning any long tours in the near future. I know most
people just toss out what's broken and buy a new one, but I
almost always at least try to fix things. See https:// www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
That's a big if. Well, the broken part was a tiny springYep. That's why I don't use those things.
deep inside
the ratchet mechanism, as I found out much later, after I
had partially
disassembled the broken brifter after a shop sold and
mounted a new one.
Found out that, while shimano sold most parts of that
specific brifter
via their distributor, they didn't have a part number for
that spring.
After looking into the disassembly instructions later,
just out of
curiosity, I was quite sure about the reason for. Mounting
that tiny
spring not only needs complete disassembly, there must be
a specific
tool used in production, to mount it inside. In short,
it's not
repairable, when broken.
On 9/26/2024 3:54 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Oh, it's ancient technology! I'm using "half step plus granny" cranks,
48-44-24 (Sugino) and SunTour freewheels. The Cannondale's rear hub is a >>> sealed bearing unit, and apparently due to a lack of stress riser
threads, it's never broken an axle (unlike other bikes I've had). Years
ago when a local bike shop closed, I inherited a huge collection of
SunTour cogs, and I'm still using those. My touring bike has five cogs,
13 - 34. (On my wife's identical bike, I put six cogs.) I'm apparently
more tolerant of cadence changes than some cyclists. The biggest
difficulty I have is having to notice whether I'm in the 48 or the 44
when I feel the need for a half-step change.
Seems a slightly odd set up that with the 44/48T chain rings, and the bail >> out gear.
In its day, it was the bees knees. (Ancient American idiom.) Half step gearing is less obvious to use. (One dear friend from my early cycling
days claimed "Women can never figure it out." That was before such
comments were forbidden.) With 5 or 6 cog systems, it was a way of
getting a very wide range with acceptably close gaps. My "granny"
chainring is used only when climbing steep hills with very heavy loads.
Fair gear range though! It’s about the same as modern 1by systems certainly
MTB and Gravel set ups, if with less jumps, I’d of thought you’d run out of
gears?
No, and that too has been discussed here frequently. In top gear at just
100 crank rpm, I'd be doing about 30 mph. I'm not sure I can still do
that at all on the flat, although I used to. But on any hill where a
higher gear would make sense, it's better to just tuck in and coast.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 11:51:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See
<https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Name your preferred type of brake and the same statement is likely
true :-)
In the years I've been riding -- started in my 11's or 12's with my schoolmates, I've never has a properly maintained brake fail to stop
me :-)
On 9/26/2024 7:06 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Hydraulic system being in someways simpler ie only mechanical moving parts >> are the pistons and the levers and sealed from grot so will work even if
completely clogged up.
I thought the pad retraction depended on the proper flexing of a rubber
ring or seal; and I thought I came across a video detailing the need for >cleaning that stuff inside the caliper to maintain proper retraction. Am
I remembering wrong? ISTM that without some such mechanism, removing >hydraulic pressure would still leave the pads lightly scuffing the disc.
Extremely easy to live with change pads every so often, for my uses less
often than rim pads which just get eaten by the slop.
Your use must be unusual. My rim brake shoes seem to last decades.
On 9/26/2024 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 11:51:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See >>>> <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables
to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Name your preferred type of brake and the same statement is likely
true :-)
In the years I've been riding -- started in my 11's or 12's with my
schoolmates, I've never has a properly maintained brake fail to stop
me :-)
My experience as well.
On 9/27/2024 6:40 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:...
In top gear at just
100 crank rpm, I'd be doing about 30 mph. I'm not sure I can still do
that at all on the flat, although I used to. But on any hill where a
higher gear would make sense, it's better to just tuck in and coast.
While yes you certainly can just roll, a I think I’d find loosing almost >> two gears on the higher end slightly annoying I generally just roll once in >> the 30’s
On group rides, I'm known for out=coasting most riders. My bike is a bit heavier than those of many of my riding mates, but I think the bigger difference is my position on the bike. I'm more likely to tuck in
carefully, and/or use aero bars.
On yesterday's ride's rest stop there was a discussion about mirrors. As
I later coasted past one friend, I joked that I was more aerodynamic
because my mirror is smaller. :-)
On 9/26/2024 4:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/25/2024 6:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:You have also told us that when it looked like rain you just didn't
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:Most of my remarks on this issue relate not only my own experiences,
It's good that the pendulum has finally swung back to reasonableThat shows your circle of cyclists really...
tire
clearance. But billions of cyclists are still stopping plenty well
enough with rim brakes, even when they're wet.
Never seen folks wildly cross chaining? And yes swapping chainrings about >>>> if your moving fast ie having to move up and down is tedious, all but one >>>> of my bikes are doubles.
Just because it’s not something you’ve encountered doesn’t mean it >>>> isn’t a
thing.
but the experiences I've observed among my riding friends. So yes,
they do show my circle of cyclists.
But the question becomes, whose "circle of cyclists" is closer to
typical? I think only a tiny percentage who are riding fast enough to
benefit from minor aerodynamic changes, who are braking hard enough to
benefit from improvements in brake modulation, who need ultra fast
gear changes, etc. The folks I ride with will do 40 to 50 miles
without worry, and that already exceeds the ability of "everyman"
cyclists. (Heck, I had many folks amazed that I rode seven miles to
get to work!)
ride
to work. Nothing wrong with that -- Do what makes you happy, but please
realize that you have eliminated the data points that might have shown
improved braking to be useful.
As most people do. Which is my point.
On 9/27/2024 12:17 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 9/26/2024 11:14 PM, John B. wrote:I’ve certainly had brakes pull up in more distance than I expected so not >> failed but less distance.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 11:51:14 -0400, Radey Shouman
<shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> writes:
On 9/25/2024 7:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
<snip>
At the 2017 Interbike show there was one bike with mechanical rod
brakes that contact the underside of the rim instead of the sides. See >>>>>> <https://i.imgur.com/iiGTP8a.png>.
I'm pretty sure that rod brakes are the wave of the future. No cables >>>>>> to brake. No hydraulic hoses to leak. They will be much more
reliable. Buy replacement pads at any bicycle shop in Shanghai.
Millions of people used rod brakes for years. I never heard one
complain that they did not stop fast enough.
Name your preferred type of brake and the same statement is likely
true :-)
In the years I've been riding -- started in my 11's or 12's with my
schoolmates, I've never has a properly maintained brake fail to stop
me :-)
My experience as well.
Be that dual pivots that took a moment to clear the rim to start braking or >> the CX canti that really struggled on some very steep and wet technical
descents...
Please remember that we road disc skeptics have already noted that
off-road is a different situation.
About "a moment to clear the rim" on road brakes: Yes, that happens.
It's almost never a significant problem. Road riders don't generally
require absolutely perfect braking to stop at exactly the right spot.
And brake failure of any kind is way, way down the list of causes of
bike crashes.
On 9/27/2024 2:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/26/2024 4:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Ah, so your pronouncements on braking don't apply to people that
You have also told us that when it looked like rain you just
didn't
ride
to work. Nothing wrong with that -- Do what makes you happy, but please >>>> realize that you have eliminated the data points that might have shown >>>> improved braking to be useful.
As most people do. Which is my point.
actually *have* to ride to work? I suppose there isn't much to argue
about then.
:-) Can you describe the typical person in your area who *has* to ride
to work?
I'd say that in my area, it's a low income person riding a BSO that he
bought used. The bike is absolutely nothing fancy or very desireable.
Yes, in the past couple years it might have disc brakes, but until
then it did not, yet those people rode.
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most dedicated
in the area. That title goes to a married couple living maybe two
miles from the university, where he was a professor until his
retirement. They always did almost all their utility transportation by
bike, and he biked to and from work about 99% of the
time. Conventional rim brakes, of course.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/27/2024 2:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/26/2024 4:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:Ah, so your pronouncements on braking don't apply to people that
You have also told us that when it looked like rain you just
didn't
ride
to work. Nothing wrong with that -- Do what makes you happy, but please >>>>> realize that you have eliminated the data points that might have shown >>>>> improved braking to be useful.
As most people do. Which is my point.
actually *have* to ride to work? I suppose there isn't much to argue
about then.
:-) Can you describe the typical person in your area who *has* to ride
to work?
Sure, someone who can't afford a car, or has lost or can't get a
driver's license, and does not have time for public transit. Such
people do exist, although they may not belong to your bike club.
I'll admit that most such people just suck it up and ride the bus, but
it seems to take much longer than a bike would. American bus service
tends to be atrocious, especially for multi-leg trips.
I'd say that in my area, it's a low income person riding a BSO that he
bought used. The bike is absolutely nothing fancy or very desireable.
Yes, in the past couple years it might have disc brakes, but until
then it did not, yet those people rode.
Yes, I agree. I also think that brakes on BSOs has improved markedly
over the past few decades. I really don't know if disc brakes will
improve or degrade that.
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most dedicated
in the area. That title goes to a married couple living maybe two
miles from the university, where he was a professor until his
retirement. They always did almost all their utility transportation by
bike, and he biked to and from work about 99% of the
time. Conventional rim brakes, of course.
On 9/27/2024 2:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/26/2024 4:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
You have also told us that when it looked like rain you
just didn't
ride
to work. Nothing wrong with that -- Do what makes you
happy, but please
realize that you have eliminated the data points that
might have shown
improved braking to be useful.
As most people do. Which is my point.
Ah, so your pronouncements on braking don't apply to
people that
actually *have* to ride to work? I suppose there isn't
much to argue
about then.
:-) Can you describe the typical person in your area who
*has* to ride to work?
I'd say that in my area, it's a low income person riding a
BSO that he bought used. The bike is absolutely nothing
fancy or very desireable. Yes, in the past couple years it
might have disc brakes, but until then it did not, yet those
people rode.
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most
dedicated in the area. That title goes to a married couple
living maybe two miles from the university, where he was a
professor until his retirement. They always did almost all
their utility transportation by bike, and he biked to and
from work about 99% of the time. Conventional rim brakes, of
course.
On 9/27/2024 2:01 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
On 9/26/2024 4:19 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
You have also told us that when it looked like rain you just didn't
ride
to work. Nothing wrong with that -- Do what makes you happy, but please >>>> realize that you have eliminated the data points that might have shown >>>> improved braking to be useful.
As most people do. Which is my point.
Ah, so your pronouncements on braking don't apply to people that
actually *have* to ride to work? I suppose there isn't much to argue
about then.
:-) Can you describe the typical person in your area who *has* to ride
to work?
I'd say that in my area, it's a low income person riding a BSO that he
bought used. The bike is absolutely nothing fancy or very desireable.
Yes, in the past couple years it might have disc brakes, but until then
it did not, yet those people rode.
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most dedicated in
the area. That title goes to a married couple living maybe two miles
from the university, where he was a professor until his retirement. They >always did almost all their utility transportation by bike, and he biked
to and from work about 99% of the time. Conventional rim brakes, of course.
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I'd say that in my area, it's a low income person riding a BSO that he
bought used. The bike is absolutely nothing fancy or very desireable.
Yes, in the past couple years it might have disc brakes, but until
then it did not, yet those people rode.
Yes, I agree. I also think that brakes on BSOs has improved markedly
over the past few decades.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:34:03 -0400, Frank KrygowskiYou should! You're the guy who posted here that there was no way to
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most dedicated in
the area. That title goes to a married couple living maybe two miles
from the university, where he was a professor until his retirement. They
always did almost all their utility transportation by bike, and he biked
to and from work about 99% of the time. Conventional rim brakes, of course.
You're well known for riding your bicycle to the grocery store, you
say?
Well, just look at you.
On 9/27/2024 6:51 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:34:03 -0400, Frank KrygowskiYou should! You're the guy who posted here that there was no way to
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I'm well known for my utility riding, but I'm not the most dedicated inYou're well known for riding your bicycle to the grocery store, you
the area. That title goes to a married couple living maybe two miles >>>from the university, where he was a professor until his retirement. They
always did almost all their utility transportation by bike, and he biked >>> to and from work about 99% of the time. Conventional rim brakes, of course. >>
say?
Well, just look at you.
safely ride around automobiles. You could learn from me and from many
others here, if you'd develop an open mind.
On 9/28/2024 6:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/28/2024 11:08 AM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:25:26 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>:
First, I'm quite amazed you managed to break a downtube
shifter. I'm
very curious about details, both how it happened and what
specifically
broke.
I still own the bike out of nostalgia, but the broken
parts got into the
trash more than two decades ago.
AFAIR, some part of the internal mechanism broke during
riding in heavy
traffic, while switching, losing retention. Didn't notice it
immediately....
The only problem I ever encountered with downtube shifters
was the friction adjusting screw loosening, causing failure
to hold the derailleur in gear. ISTR trying to cure with
just a tiny drop of blue Loctite, but never getting it quite
right. My cure was to install Suntour "power" shifters, with
a fine toothed internal ratchet to help fight the
derailleur's return spring.
One of our best friends rides and loves her gorgeous 1984
(?) Trek touring bike. She complained about the same problem
I had with her downtube shifters. So for her birthday one
year (over her mild objections - she likes to be very
independent) I bought a NOS set of "power shifters" on Ebay
and installed them. She's been very happy with the since.
Classic non-ratcheting (or for Super LJ/ Doppler,
directional clutch) levers slowly begin slipping as the
mating parts become dry and crusty with grit.
A simple
cleaning and oil makes them like new almost always.
On 9/29/2024 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/29/2024 6:59 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 14:49:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
My computer is warning me not to got to Velobase. Something is not set >>>> up properly.
It's your web browser that's producing the warning. The Velobase web
server does not support the use of SSL encryption as in https. That
means that all the traffic between the Velobase server and your
computer can be sniffed by evil hackers for nefarious purposes.
<https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/ssl/what-is-an-ssl-certificate/>
It looks like they started to implement some security using something
called Fischer Frameworks and something went wrong. Jon Fischer is
the owner of Velobase.
<http://fischerframeworks.com>
It's probably safe to view the Velobase.com site but I can't guarantee
the safety of any transactions or passwords. Maybe contact the owner
and ask him why he doesn't have and use an SSL certificate:
<https://www.velobase.com/Help/ContactUs.aspx>
No transactions so little risk.
It's an excellent reference for vintage items, specs, images etc.
I thought I'd viewed things on the site many times before. I was
surprised I got that warning.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 116:54:01 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,396 |
| Messages: | 6,016,547 |
