Do mountain bikes with road tyres exist?

[[email protected]]

Hi

I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
pedalling?

Cheers

B2003

[Nat]

On 23 Jul, 10:04, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003

A Hybrid??

[[email protected]]

On 23 Jul, 10:04, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003

You can buy 26 inch road tyres, I have a pair that work fine. They do
reduce rolling resistance and increase speed, I forget how much time
they saved me over standard tyres; I did work it out when I first got
them; possibly 20-25% I think.

Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)

Sniper8052

[Peter Clinch]

wrote:

> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?

Mountain bikes these days are rather highly evolved creatures that tend
to have elaborate long-travel suspension that isn't very relevant to the
road (a bit like the knobbly tyres) and adds considerably to the cost.
There is another category of bikes that try to be this but lacking the
cost also lack the quality engineering, and are even more hopeless on
the roads.

There is a whole other class of bike, usually called a hybrid, which
will probably be what you're actually after. They typically have rigid
frames, slightly higher gearing and road tyres as standard, so I'd
suggest that's what you look at. There's no shortage of models to
choose from, and something of a continuous spectrum between flimsy racer
but with flat bars to built-like-a-tank with all the extras you could
think of.

You can just get slicks for a mountain bike: any bike shop should be
able to sell you a set, but a mountain bike with slicks that also has
long travel suspension will cost more, be a bit more awkward with a high
bottom bracket for extra ground clearance and eat more energy than a
hybrid. All else being equal it'll be a bit heavier too, again thanks
to the suspension.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[[email protected]]

On Jul 23, 10:26 am, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> There is a whole other class of bike, usually called a hybrid, which
> will probably be what you're actually after. They typically have rigid
> frames, slightly higher gearing and road tyres as standard, so I'd

To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)

B2003

[[email protected]]

On Jul 23, 10:17 am, " >
wrote:
> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)

They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and width
as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes and drain
covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)

B2003

[Peter Clinch]

wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:17 am, " >
> wrote:
>> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
>
> They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and width
> as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes and drain
> covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)

Schwalbe Big Apples, if you want wide but smooth.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[[email protected]]

On 23 Jul, 10:47, wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:26 am, Peter Clinch > wrote:
>
> > There is a whole other class of bike, usually called a hybrid, which
> > will probably be what you're actually after. They typically have rigid
> > frames, slightly higher gearing and road tyres as standard, so I'd
>
> To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
> mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)
>
> B2003

Best suspension is avoidance in the first place. IME suspension is a
'pain in the backside' on the road. My small road bike weighs 19lb my
mountain bike double that. Opinion not worth the effort unless I am
cycling up a BIG hill. Also the gears are wrong for most road work,
if you have got a MB then you can get all sorts of tyres to fit. If
you haven't got a MB but are going to buy a cheap bike and then fir
tyres then the tyres and tubes could cost as much as the bike at the
very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the revolution
http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&f%5FFullProductVersion=1&f%5FSupersetQRY=C107&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002912
I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
great service from the guys.

Sniper8052

[Peter Clinch]

wrote:

> To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
> mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)

Many hybrids come with suspension forks, though to be honest most of
them are a waste of time/money IMHO. Some suspension is designed
specifically for road use, for example the leading-link forks on
Moultons and some of Cannondale's stuff. That sort of thing is very
nice, but has an unpleasant price tag associated with it... Mostly it's
just a cheapy elastomer off-road shock put on because people assume it
will make the bike better.
Easier to smooth a pothole out by jumping the front wheel over it,
rather than throwing engineering at it. Something like a pair of Big
Apples should give you most of the cushioning you need.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[himself]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
>> mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)
>
> Many hybrids come with suspension forks, though to be honest most of
> them are a waste of time/money IMHO. Some suspension is designed
> specifically for road use, for example the leading-link forks on
> Moultons and some of Cannondale's stuff. That sort of thing is very
> nice, but has an unpleasant price tag associated with it... Mostly it's
> just a cheapy elastomer off-road shock put on because people assume it
> will make the bike better.
> Easier to smooth a pothole out by jumping the front wheel over it,
> rather than throwing engineering at it. Something like a pair of Big
> Apples should give you most of the cushioning you need.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Something tells me you are flogging a dead horse, but an interesting read
nevertheless
Rog

[[email protected]]

On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
wrote:
> very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
> is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
> I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
> great service from the guys.

Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.

B2003

[Colin Blackburn[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
> wrote:
>> very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
>> is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
>> I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
>> great service from the guys.
>
> Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
> me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.

In that case take a look at the Revolution Trailfinder or Courier series
from the same company.

Colin

[[email protected]]

On 23 Jul, 11:19, wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
> > is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
> > I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
> > great service from the guys.
>
> Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
> me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.
>
> B2003

http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=0&f%5FWebLinkID=2910&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002910

But seriously, unless you have a specific back problem, drop bars will
be more comfortable in the end as they allow you to shift your
position around the bars and alter your relative body position, ask
the guys at the Edinburgh Bike Shop about getting the right size bike
and setting it up. Most problems are caused by the wrong size bike or
poor setting up. Trust me with a B17 and a decent road bike you'll
wonder why you bothered looking at a mountain bike.

Sniper8052

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003

I've got a Ridgeback Nemesis - a few years old now but this is the latest
version
http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/index.php?bikeID=31&seriesID=42&show_bike=TRUE

I've added mudguards and a rack. My version has platform pedals without
the clips shown in the photo. The Nexus hub is quick and easy to use and,
so far, has required no maintenance. It's comfortable on road, reasonably
quick and useable on well maintained tracks. The lack of suspension isn't
an issue here in rural Somerset where the roads can be very variable. The
riding position is a little aggressive (at least the way I have it set up)
but I think this is the type of bike you probably need.

[Dave]

> wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003

Yes - you can get less knobbly tyres and thinner ones too for a mountain
bike.

You may however be better off with a hybrid bike though if you have no
intention of doing rough stuff.

Mine is quite capable of doing towpaths and forest tracks with hardcore. If
has larger wheels than a mountain bike and is to me very comfy.

It is definitely not suitable for rock hopping though.

Dave

[Peter Clinch]

wrote:

> But seriously, unless you have a specific back problem, drop bars will
> be more comfortable in the end as they allow you to shift your
> position around the bars and alter your relative body position

Up to a point...
The point about the different hand positions is they're only
particularly relevant if you're crouching forwards to get out of the
wind and putting the weight on your arms as a result.
If you sit more upright there's less weight on your arms and hands so
not much need to vary position: note how Dutch roadsters are remarkably
comfortable without multiple hand positions, though the downside is you
do catch the wind more. Whether that is an issue depends how far and
fast you want to go, but if it's not too far or too fast then a crouch
position is miles less comfy than bolt upright. That's why NL is full
of people getting about on bolt-upright roadsters for basic transport.
Many will swap them for their drop bar racers for a fast hack, but for
actual transport the roadster is the main machine as it's practical and
comfortable.

> Trust me with a B17

Another "up to a point" point. Brooks saddles need to be the right
basic shape relative to the arse perched on them to be comfy. They work
for me (B17 on the MTB, B66 on the freighter, Brooks Brompton on the,
um, Brompton) but that's not the same as working for everyone: Roos
doesn't like them at all, for example.

> and a decent road bike you'll
> wonder why you bothered looking at a mountain bike.

Up to... well, I think you have the idea. It's all about the
application. If all you want to do is trundle about the locality in a
fair degree of comfort then there's little to gain from a road bike.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
> > mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)
>
> Many hybrids come with suspension forks, though to be honest most of
> them are a waste of time/money IMHO. Some suspension is designed
> specifically for road use, for example the leading-link forks on
> Moultons and some of Cannondale's stuff. That sort of thing is very
> nice, but has an unpleasant price tag associated with it... Mostly it's
> just a cheapy elastomer off-road shock put on because people assume it
> will make the bike better.
> Easier to smooth a pothole out by jumping the front wheel over it,
> rather than throwing engineering at it. Something like a pair of Big
> Apples should give you most of the cushioning you need.
>
> Pete.

this all said i've been fairly impressed by my partners new giant town
bike, it seems to soak up most of the road surface lumps and bumps. not
a speedy bike but then does it have to be?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Duncan Smith]

On Jul 23, 10:51*am, wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:17 am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
>
> They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and width
> as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes and drain
> covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)
>
> B2003

Take a look at the Michelin XCR slicks -
http://two-wheels.michelin.com/2w/front/affich.jsp?codeRubrique=2092004115810&codePage=2092004115810_28022005183349&lang=EN

same width, just smooth and fast. Alternatively you might want
something a little more puncture proof (the trade off being slightly
less comfort and speed) which would be Schwalbe Marathon/Marathon+

Regards,

Duncan

[wafflycat[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jul, 11:19, wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
>> > is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the
>> > revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
>> > I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
>> > great service from the guys.
>>
>> Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
>> me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.
>>
>> B2003
>
> http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=0&f%5FWebLinkID=2910&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002910
>
> But seriously, unless you have a specific back problem, drop bars will
> be more comfortable in the end as they allow you to shift your
> position around the bars and alter your relative body position, ask
> the guys at the Edinburgh Bike Shop about getting the right size bike
> and setting it up. Most problems are caused by the wrong size bike or
> poor setting up. Trust me with a B17 and a decent road bike you'll
> wonder why you bothered looking at a mountain bike.
>
> Sniper8052

Agreed. After going to drop bars, I simply don't ride my hybrid anymore.
Nothing wrong with it - it's a nice bike in seriously good nick due to the
ministrations of my personal bike mechanic, just that drops are so much more
comfortable over long distance - due to a greater number of places/ways to
rest the hands. I think those who don't use drop handle bars may somehow
think that if you've got drops, you always ride on the drops - which is far
from true.

As far as cruddy roads requiring a bike with suspension - well, even round
Norfolks most broken up, rough surfaced, pot-holed, gravel & flint strewn
weed infested roads go, I've never yet felt the need to have suspension to
be comfortable cycling many a mile.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:25 +0100
Peter Clinch > wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 10:17 am, "
> > > wrote:
> >> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
> >
> > They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and
> > width as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes
> > and drain covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)
>
> Schwalbe Big Apples, if you want wide but smooth.
>
Seconded - nice fat light tyres that roll well.

[Paul Boyd[_5_]]

said the following on 23/07/2008 10:04:

> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?

Yes, but you probably need to change the tyres yourself. I have a pair
Schwalbe Smart Sam tyres on my P7 at the moment, and they also have some
degree of puncture protection (SmartGuard, I think it's called.)

As for saddles that chop your nuts in half, buy another! Saddles are
obviously a very personal fit and what is fitted to the bike in the shop
isn't necessarily what fits you. A decent bike shop should be able to
let you try out various saddles and advise on how to make them fit. You
shouldn't use an ill-fitting saddle any more than you would wear
ill-fitting shoes.

Perhaps I shouldn't ask why you're sitting on your nuts in the first
place :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Paul Boyd[_5_]]

said the following on 23/07/2008 11:05:

> Best suspension is avoidance in the first place. IME suspension is a
> 'pain in the backside' on the road.

Lock it out and forget it's there - until you have to drag the weight up
a hill :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Colin Blackburn[_2_]]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> said the following on 23/07/2008 10:04:
>
>> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
>> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
>> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
>> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
>> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
>> pedalling?
....
> Perhaps I shouldn't ask why you're sitting on your nuts in the first
> place :-)

Providing a little cushioning in the absence of suspension!

Colin

[Peter Clinch]

wrote:

> Do the dutch roadsters not have the old bars, curved round at the outer end
> to be parallel with each other rather than straight bars.

Often but not always. The trick is being straight enough that there's
very little weight leaned onto your arms/wrists. While "moustache" bars
often help with that they're not necessary for it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Colin McKenzie]

wrote:
>
> After years with drop handlebars I got a hybrid (well it was got for my sons
> who went on to expensive mountain bikes), and started to have trouble with my
> little fingers going numb, /and/ shoulder problems, due to only having one
> hand position, and that being with the hands rotated to some extent,
> internally.

But the typical hybrid is still a somewhat bent-over riding position,
with bars and saddle aproximately level.

> Do the dutch roadsters not have the old bars, curved round at the outer end
> to be parallel with each other rather than straight bars.

The handlebars are considerably above the saddle. But it seems to me
that bent back grips require arms to be twisted 90 degrees. I think
straight bars would be better, with brake levers adjusted for straight
wrists.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Peter Clinch]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> Agreed. After going to drop bars, I simply don't ride my hybrid anymore.
> Nothing wrong with it - it's a nice bike in seriously good nick due to
> the ministrations of my personal bike mechanic, just that drops are so
> much more comfortable over long distance

There's the caveat: long distances.

For short distances, at least those where aerodynamics is not an issue,
you can render multiple grip positions completely superfluous by simply
not leaning any weight on to your arms and wrists. Or at least you can
if your bike has bars that allow you to sit up straight.

> I think those who don't use drop handle
> bars may somehow think that if you've got drops, you always ride on the
> drops - which is far from true.

I used drops for years, though primarily on the hoods rather than the
drops. But sat as upright as possible, using the flats, still meant
enough lean forwards to put weight onto my wrists. Even with the
multiple positions I found my distance limit of a day was set by arm and
wrist comfort. It would have been worse with plain bars and a similarly
aerodynamic posture, but I solved the problem by taking the weight off
my upper body for long distances on the recumbent, which sidesteps the
aero issues of sitting bolt upright.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

Colin McKenzie wrote:

>> Do the dutch roadsters not have the old bars, curved round at the
>> outer end
>> to be parallel with each other rather than straight bars.
>
> The handlebars are considerably above the saddle.

Often, but not always.

> But it seems to me
> that bent back grips require arms to be twisted 90 degrees.

Arms do that remarkably easily! Do you have trouble gripping a stair
rail because it's beside you, rather than in front of you? Have trouble
taking the lids off jam jars?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Light of Aria[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003



Or comfy seats. (Got a nice comfortable Gel Viscount.)

Or suitable sized from crank. (I replaced my broken 42T with a 48T and now
it goes much faster!).

For tyres, I've got some DMX hybrid tyres on mine. They last 4 times longer
than the "knobbly" crap and they seem to resist the wretched punctures
better too.

[Pete Biggs]

wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:17 am, " >
> wrote:
>> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
>
> They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and width
> as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes and drain
> covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)

There are bigger road tyres as well, but, as long as you don't pump them up
rock hard, you will find 26 x 1.5" big enough to give you a pretty
comfortable ride on poorly surfaced roads and paths.

~PB

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:06:02 +0100
Colin McKenzie > wrote:

> But it seems to me
> that bent back grips require arms to be twisted 90 degrees.

How would you normally hold a walking stick, a briefcase ... ?

[wafflycat[_2_]]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> wafflycat wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. After going to drop bars, I simply don't ride my hybrid anymore.
>> Nothing wrong with it - it's a nice bike in seriously good nick due to
>> the ministrations of my personal bike mechanic, just that drops are so
>> much more comfortable over long distance
>
> There's the caveat: long distances.

I'll add in I don't use my hybrid *at all* whatever the distance, as I find
using my bikes with drops more comfortable.

>
> For short distances, at least those where aerodynamics is not an issue,
> you can render multiple grip positions completely superfluous by simply
> not leaning any weight on to your arms and wrists. Or at least you can
> if your bike has bars that allow you to sit up straight.

For that, I use the mobile deckhair ;-)

[Martin[_2_]]

wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> wafflycat wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed. After going to drop bars, I simply don't ride my hybrid anymore.
>>> Nothing wrong with it - it's a nice bike in seriously good nick due to
>>> the ministrations of my personal bike mechanic, just that drops are so
>>> much more comfortable over long distance
>>
>> There's the caveat: long distances.
>
> I'll add in I don't use my hybrid *at all* whatever the distance, as I
> find using my bikes with drops more comfortable.

I have never really used drops. I would like to try them, but it would
mean buying another bike (to do a long term test).

>>
>> For short distances, at least those where aerodynamics is not an issue,
>> you can render multiple grip positions completely superfluous by simply
>> not leaning any weight on to your arms and wrists. Or at least you can
>> if your bike has bars that allow you to sit up straight.
>
> For that, I use the mobile deckhair ;-)

I really hope that was a typo ;-)
(and by usenet law I have also made a massive typo).

[Geoff Lane[_2_]]

wrote in news:451e705f-b229-4b9f-b311-
:

>> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
>
> They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and width
> as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes and drain
> covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)

FWIW, both my wife and I are running on Contintal Travel Contacts. Her MTB
is shod with 26 x 1.75" while my hybrid is shod with 700C x 35. We find
these excellent tyres, quiet on tarmac with knobbly shoulders to give some
grip on towpaths etc. They're a lot quicker than the knobblies that came
standard on her bike, and a little quicker than the standard tyres that
came with mine. They're also p*nct*re resistant. However, they are more
designed for the road and do not offer the same grip as knobblies on mud or
loose surfaces.

http://tinyurl.com/5saybj

[Paul Boyd[_4_]]

Whoops - did I say Smart Sam? I meant Speed Cruiser :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:47:47 -0700, thagor2008 wrote:

> To be honest , given the state of the roads where I live I wouldn't
> mind a bit of suspension even if it does weight a bit more. :o)

I've got front suspension only. It takes the edge off going up/down kerbs
- but you still get a bit of a bump as you would expect. It helps a bit
when you hit unexpected potholes/sunken bits but you still feel them.

I was looking the other day as I was riding around on the road with knobbly
MTB tyres and the suspension hardly seemed to move going over the potholes
and sunken manholes (but I did avoid the worst ones). If you let go of the
handlebars for a split second when you go over and put a little more
weight on the pedals rather than the saddle, you hardly notice the bump.

I don't usually get any noticeable bounce while pedalling either but I do
pedal quite smoothly compared to some people. If I'm out of the seat then
there is a bit of bounce but nothing that causes a problem.

I think the front suspension does do some work while riding around
Llandegla forest, but despite padded gloves I still end up with aching
hands so it's by no means a holy grail!

I've not got space to have seperate bikes so what I have is a nice balance
and I can easily swap the tyres over depending on where I'm riding. A
wide gear range also helps unless you fancy changing chainrings/cassettes
as well.

peter

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"wafflycat" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 23 Jul, 11:19, wrote:
>>> On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
>>> > is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the
>>> > revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
>>> > I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
>>> > great service from the guys.
>>>
>>> Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
>>> me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.
>>>
>>> B2003
>>
>> http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=0&f%5FWebLinkID=2910&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002910
>>
>> But seriously, unless you have a specific back problem, drop bars will
>> be more comfortable in the end as they allow you to shift your
>> position around the bars and alter your relative body position, ask
>> the guys at the Edinburgh Bike Shop about getting the right size bike
>> and setting it up. Most problems are caused by the wrong size bike or
>> poor setting up. Trust me with a B17 and a decent road bike you'll
>> wonder why you bothered looking at a mountain bike.
>>
>> Sniper8052
>
> Agreed. After going to drop bars, I simply don't ride my hybrid anymore.
> Nothing wrong with it - it's a nice bike in seriously good nick due to the
> ministrations of my personal bike mechanic, just that drops are so much more
> comfortable over long distance - due to a greater number of places/ways to
> rest the hands. I think those who don't use drop handle bars may somehow
> think that if you've got drops, you always ride on the drops - which is far
> from true.
>
> As far as cruddy roads requiring a bike with suspension - well, even round
> Norfolks most broken up, rough surfaced, pot-holed, gravel & flint strewn
> weed infested roads go, I've never yet felt the need to have suspension to
> be comfortable cycling many a mile.

I changed my hybrid's straight handlebars to "butterfly" bars over two years
ago and have never regretted it. On long daily trips,on tour, under load, I
find myself using the "drop position" ( dot as low a full drop) most of the
time but get immense relief from being able to shift my hands around the
"butterfly", even for a short time and I mostly do that one hand at a time to
ease my fingers. My left hand is always the first to be denied proper blood
flow when I am working uphill and is always the first to be removed to an
upper part of the bar. -- but that's because of my age and heart
condition -- but the bars help!

When I asked SJS Cycles to fit butterfly bars to my Thorne Raven Tour they
disapproved but they have served me very well.

"Saddles" is a big unknown factor with me. On all my recent bikes I have gone
with the basic one provided. I have been tempted to invest in a Brooks but to
be honest I have never been uncomfortable on any of my bikes due to saddles.
Mind you, those who know me are aware that I am hardly a speed freak but in
several thousands of kilometres ( kms always sounds a lot further) over the
last 5 years I have never been saddle sore or had friction rashes in my groin
area -- I probably don't pedal fast enough!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Neil Williams[_2_]]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
>not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
>problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
>road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
>replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
>pedalling?

Halfords Carrera Subway - or just replace the tyres yourself.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:

> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer

Racers aren't flimsy. If you get one that fits you properly and set it
up right it shouldn't be uncomfortable either, but they are really
just designed for going fast. If you want to travel in comfort on the
road you want a touring bike, unless you're only doing short distances
in which case a comfort bike might be a better choice.

> with a seat that chops my nuts in half.

You can put a good saddle on just about any bike (once you've figured
out what sort of saddle suits you). A wide soft saddle usually isn't
the best for comfort, unless you only use the bike occasionally for
short trips.

> Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
There's a variety of road tyres available for 26" (i.e. standard
mountain bike) wheels, ranging from very narrow to very wide, totally
slick to deeply grooved, lightweight to almost bombproof. Most shops
will swap the original tyres on a new bike to others of your choice at
the time of sale, sometimes for little or no extra cost depending on
your choice of tyre.

[NewRiderPS]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>Hi
>
>I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
>not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only

You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?

Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.

Seriously though, 28-35 slicks are just fine. I've ridden in sand,
dirt, loose gravel, grass, and even take a lap around a soccer field
in the unmown grass. People think they'll be slippery, but it's more
bike handling (and the air pressure in the tire - not too much) than
some shlub-ish tire. I'd think a really wide tire would be less
'agile'. Good to hear you're on your bike! :)

[NewRiderPS]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:19:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>On Jul 23, 11:05 am, " >
>wrote:
>> very lower range of the bike market. As pete says the best purchase
>> is a hybrid or a touring road bike such as the revolutionhttp://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7897&...
>> I have a cheap revolution road/race for messing with good quality and
>> great service from the guys.
>
>Hmm , looks ok except its got drop bars. Leaning over that much gives
>me backache , I prefer the straight across type so I can sit up more.
>
>B2003

Leaning over? Who said you had to ride in the drops? Hold the top of
the bar, or the hoods. I 'lean over' and ride the drops about 3% of
the time.

Good luck!

[judith]

Martin wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
<snip>



> I have never really used drops. I would like to try them, but it would
> mean buying another bike (to do a long term test).


I think you must be Martin Danndy in disguise.

You use exactly the same version of software that he uses : Thunderbird
via motzarella.


Daft ****.

[[email protected]]

On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.

If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....

B2003

[Colin Blackburn[_2_]]

wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>
> If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
> front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....

If you pick the pothole and you may go over the bars and fall in front
of that theoretical truck. Cycle properly and the truck won't be a problem.

Colin

[Pete Biggs]

wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>
> If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
> front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....

Look where you're going and you should see the pothole in plenty of time to
do something about it before anything else is a problem - be that swerve,
stop or hop. You should even have time to signal.

Of course you will miss the odd hole or bump, but it will have to be really
bad for any damage to happen if your wheels are built OK and the tyres are
pumped up properly - even with 23mm tyres.

~PB

[Pete Biggs]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "NewRiderPS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
>>> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
>>
>> You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?
>>
>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>>
>
> That is like saying the solution to road casualties is don't have
> accidents.

Well, it's a good one. Take more care and you will have fewer accidents.
Have more protection and you will take less care. It balances out. Fat
tyres don't make the bike and yourself immune from damage. They just mean
the pothole needs to be larger to cause damage. Because you're taking less
care, you're more likely to run into larger potholes than you would if you
had skinny tyres.

> Even looking where you are going there is always a chance
> you will catch a pothole, particularly at night where they can be
> practically invisible.

You should be riding slowly enough, or with a light bright enough, to see
the surface properly.

~PB

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"NewRiderPS" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
>>not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
>
> You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?
>
> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>

That is like saying the solution to road casualties is don't have accidents.
Even looking where you are going there is always a chance you will catch a
pothole, particularly at night where they can be practically invisible.

[CJ[_2_]]

On 23 Jul, 10:04, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> problem is that all mountain bikes seem to come with knobbly "off
> road" tyres. Is it possible to buy a mountain bike or even just
> replacement tyres that have a smoother road profile for easier
> pedalling?
>
> Cheers
>
> B2003

I was looking at a Gary Fisher Kaitai the other day. Seems to me
that's exactly what you're looking for. It's basically a 29er MTB that
comes with 700x38C street/touring tyres, but has all the clearance
you'd want for full size knobblies just in case you want to do that
sometime.

There's front suspension, but only 63mm travel and with really
effective lockout. It seemed pretty light anyway.

It also has eyes for attachment of a rear carrier and the rear disc
brake tucked inside the rear triangle where it won't get in the way of
panniers.

Looks like a real do anything (and do it pretty well too) kind of bike
- like mountain-bikes used to be when they were new! I don't often get
much excited by a new bike these days, but I've not seen anything
better for a long time, for a person who just wants one bike.

[Roger Merriman]

Colin Blackburn > wrote:

> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
> >> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> >> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
> >> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
> >
> > If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
> > front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....
>
> If you pick the pothole and you may go over the bars and fall in front
> of that theoretical truck. Cycle properly and the truck won't be a problem.
>
> Colin

coblers, i tend to ride though things on the town bike, as i tend to be
loaded up with stuff so don't want to swerve, i've plowed though many a
pot hole, biggest danger is pinch flats if you do that. 38mm marthon
pluses pumped up sort that out and pritty much steam roller any thing
one will meet on the road.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Colin Blackburn[_2_]]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Colin Blackburn > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
>>>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>>>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
>>>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>>> If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
>>> front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....
>> If you pick the pothole and you may go over the bars and fall in front
>> of that theoretical truck. Cycle properly and the truck won't be a problem.
>>
>> Colin
>
> coblers, i tend to ride though things on the town bike, as i tend to be
> loaded up with stuff so don't want to swerve, i've plowed though many a
> pot hole, biggest danger is pinch flats if you do that. 38mm marthon
> pluses pumped up sort that out and pritty much steam roller any thing
> one will meet on the road.

It really depends on the size of the pothole, doesn't it? I would still
suggest cycling clear of the potholes is a better strategy than
ploughing through them *or* swerving wildly. Like many potholed roads,
one I cycled on in the past had the bulk of its pots in the line that
would've been the secondary position. Solution? Cycle in the primary
position only pulling in when there was a long enough un-potholed
stretch. What's "coblers" about that?

Colin

[CJ[_2_]]

On 23 Jul, 13:06, Colin McKenzie > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> SNIP ... But it seems to me
> that bent back grips require arms to be twisted 90 degrees. I think
> straight bars would be better, with brake levers adjusted for straight
> wrists.
>
Straight, or straight-ish handlebars provide a handgrip optimised for
maximum leverage rather than comfort.

Leverage and a straight aggressive grip is exactly what you want for
wrestling your front wheel around obstacles and preventing a suddenly
encountered rock or tree root from knocking the handlebars out of your
hands, so it's most appropriate for actual mountain-biking, where
you'll not usually be riding in exactly the same position for very
long at a time anyway.

Most other sorts of cycling however, do not call for a whole lot of
leverage and do better to optimise comfort. To see what's the most
comfortable angle: make a straight-arm right fist and rotate that fist
as far anti-clock and clockwise as you can. If your right arm is
normal you'll easily twist it from about 6 o'clock to 4 o'clock. An
orientation midway between those extremes is most relaxed and
comfortable, whilst allowing the greatest and easiest scope for
turning the handlebars in either direction, i.e. 11 o'clock for the
right hand, 1 o'clock for the left. So you ideally want your handgrips
set at 30 degrees, but anything between straight ahead and 60 degrees
should be pretty relaxed. That's how handlebars evolved until bikes
became a victim of the fashion industry, and for good reason! Remember
how your driving instructor told you to hold the steering wheel?

The perpendicular, or nearly so, MTB orientation is well within the
available range of wrist rotation of course, but obviously a bit too
near the extremes for ideal comfort.

Unfortunately, most people don't know or care enough about bikes these
days to question such things. All they know is they don't want those
awkward and dangerous low-down curly racer things. So they get
something straight. In addition to the mass-production economies of
using the same parts on as many bikes as possible, it makes a town
bike much more sexy if it looks a bit like a mountain-bike!

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Pete Biggs > wrote:
>
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> "NewRiderPS" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain
>>>>> bike , not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in
>>>>> half. Only
>>>>
>>>> You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?
>>>>
>>>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>>>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes
>>>> like a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is like saying the solution to road casualties is don't have
>>> accidents.
>>
>> Well, it's a good one. Take more care and you will have fewer
>> accidents. Have more protection and you will take less care. It
>> balances out. Fat tyres don't make the bike and yourself immune
>> from damage. They just mean the pothole needs to be larger to cause
>> damage. Because you're taking less care, you're more likely to run
>> into larger potholes than you would if you had skinny tyres.
>>
> yes but this said if i do for what ever reason roll or rather rumble
> around on the MTB, it will handle any pothole i've seen in urban areas
> really does simply remove the problem.

Perhaps you ride either very slowly or in very posh urban areas.

> even with the big green hybrid with cheap nasty front suspention and
> 38mm M+'s you can just ride though said potholes etc, not nessarly
> terribly good for the wheels but they'll last a good while before the
> hub gives out.
>
>>> Even looking where you are going there is always a chance
>>> you will catch a pothole, particularly at night where they can be
>>> practically invisible.
>>
>> You should be riding slowly enough, or with a light bright enough,
>> to see the surface properly.
>>
> i pay more attention to traffic than to the road surface, as for most
> part unless i really do something dumb, the surface smoothness isn't
> really a issue.

It's not the "most part" you have to worry about. The road surface can be
just as dangerous as any traffic, so you should pay equal attention to it.

A hole doesn't have to be 12" deep to cause serious injury, even with the
largest bicycle tyres available.

Of course we all fail to spot holes and bumps sometimes, but that doesn't
mean you shouldn't *try* hard to look out for them. You cannot rely on your
tyres to always save you and your wheels. You will be caught out one day if
you think otherwise and end up in hospital.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Colin Blackburn > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Colin Blackburn > wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
> >>>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> >>>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
> >>>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
> >>> If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
> >>> front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....
> >> If you pick the pothole and you may go over the bars and fall in front
> >> of that theoretical truck. Cycle properly and the truck won't be a problem.
> >>
> >> Colin
> >
> > coblers, i tend to ride though things on the town bike, as i tend to be
> > loaded up with stuff so don't want to swerve, i've plowed though many a
> > pot hole, biggest danger is pinch flats if you do that. 38mm marthon
> > pluses pumped up sort that out and pritty much steam roller any thing
> > one will meet on the road.
>
> It really depends on the size of the pothole, doesn't it? I would still
> suggest cycling clear of the potholes is a better strategy than
> ploughing through them *or* swerving wildly. Like many potholed roads,
> one I cycled on in the past had the bulk of its pots in the line that
> would've been the secondary position. Solution? Cycle in the primary
> position only pulling in when there was a long enough un-potholed
> stretch. What's "coblers" about that?
>
> Colin

unless it's getting on for a foot deep, the big cheap bike will handle
it fine, bit of jolt maybe if i've not noticed it but nothing to worry
about, yes it's better to avoid but also sometimes i perfure to hold my
postion than avoid said pot holes, normallys so my intention is clear ie
where i'm going.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Adam Lea wrote:
> > "NewRiderPS" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain bike ,
> >>> not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in half. Only
> >>
> >> You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?
> >>
> >> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> >> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes like
> >> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
> >>
> >
> > That is like saying the solution to road casualties is don't have
> > accidents.
>
> Well, it's a good one. Take more care and you will have fewer accidents.
> Have more protection and you will take less care. It balances out. Fat
> tyres don't make the bike and yourself immune from damage. They just mean
> the pothole needs to be larger to cause damage. Because you're taking less
> care, you're more likely to run into larger potholes than you would if you
> had skinny tyres.
>
yes but this said if i do for what ever reason roll or rather rumble
around on the MTB, it will handle any pothole i've seen in urban areas
really does simply remove the problem.

even with the big green hybrid with cheap nasty front suspention and
38mm M+'s you can just ride though said potholes etc, not nessarly
terribly good for the wheels but they'll last a good while before the
hub gives out.

> > Even looking where you are going there is always a chance
> > you will catch a pothole, particularly at night where they can be
> > practically invisible.
>
> You should be riding slowly enough, or with a light bright enough, to see
> the surface properly.
>
i pay more attention to traffic than to the road surface, as for most
part unless i really do something dumb, the surface smoothness isn't
really a issue.

> ~PB

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[David Damerell]

Quoting Trevor A Panther >:
>"Saddles" is a big unknown factor with me. On all my recent bikes I have gone
>with the basic one provided. I have been tempted to invest in a Brooks but to
>be honest I have never been uncomfortable on any of my bikes due to saddles.

If it's not broke - don't fix it.

I use a Brooks B-17 Narrow on all my bikes, but given the way Brooksen are
heavy and need extra care, I'd never suggest one to someone who doesn't
have some definite problem with their existing saddle.
--
David Damerell > Distortion Field!
Today is First Olethros, July - a weekend.

[Rob Morley]

On 24 Jul 2008 17:25:06 +0100 (BST)
David Damerell > wrote:

> If it's not broke - don't fix it.
>
ITYM "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" :-)

[bornfree]

On 23 Jul, 12:44, Rob Morley > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:25 +0100
>
> Peter Clinch > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > On Jul 23, 10:17 am, "
> > > > wrote:
> > >> Try searching Continental 26" Ultra Gatorskin (Slick)
>
> > > They look a bit skinny. I want something with the same depth and
> > > width as normal mountain bike tyres that can soak up the potholes
> > > and drain covers, I just want them slick, not nobbly :)
>
> > Schwalbe Big Apples, if you want wide but smooth.
>
> Seconded - nice fat light tyres that roll well.

Not as fast as skinny ones though.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Pete Biggs" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Of course we all fail to spot holes and bumps sometimes,

Which is the point I was trying to make. No matter how hard you try and look
out for them you will miss one sooner or later so with that in mind it makes
sense to have some tyres that will be able to cope with the odd one you will
miss.

I don't buy the argument that you will take less care with more suitable
tyres. Potholes are uncomfortable to cycle over even with suitable tyres so
it still makes sense to avoid them if possible.

[Jeremy Parker]

> wrote in message
...
> On Jul 24, 6:32 am, NewRiderPS > wrote:
>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes
>> like
>> a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
>
> If its a choice between the pothole/deep drain cover or swerving in
> front of the 44 ton truck coming up behind ....

If you are riding over drain covers, you are riding too close to the
kerb. This is a seriously bad idea if there is a 44 ton truck behind
you..

To the truck driver you will appear to be hugging the gutter
abnormally closely, in order to make room for him to overtake. This
sends out two messages, as clearly as if you were giving an official
hand signal.

1. You **want** the truck driver to overtake **in your lane**

2. You therefore obviously figure that it is safe for him to do so.

Those are not messages that you want to send unless you really mean
to.

However, the drivers of 44 ton trucks are usually well enough trained
to steer
round six foot tall, two hundred pound objects in the road, rather
than absent mindedly running into them.

It is advisable to be far enough from the kerb so that if you see a
pothole that you wish to steer round, rather than into, you can
swerve away from the other traffic, rather than towards it.

Actually, even normal motorists can see and avoid large objects,
although no doubt your
neighbours (you know them better than I) would kill you, or any
random stranger, without a thought, if it wasn't for the paperwork
that would ensue, the scratching of their car's paint, and the loss
of their no claim bonus. That's what the English are like nowadays.
You are one of them You know.

Read "Cyclecraft" by John Franklin. Every cyclist should own a copy.

Jeremy Parker

[Pete Biggs]

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Pete Biggs" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>> Of course we all fail to spot holes and bumps sometimes,
>
> Which is the point I was trying to make. No matter how hard you try
> and look out for them you will miss one sooner or later so with that
> in mind it makes sense to have some tyres that will be able to cope
> with the odd one you will miss.

They won't cope with the worse ones you will miss. There are holes bad
enough to wreck any bicycle where road repairs have failed, etc. I suppose
an exception might be the super heavy-duty downhill bikes, but that's hardly
the sort of thing you'd normally ride on the road anyway.

> I don't buy the argument that you will take less care with more
> suitable tyres.

Then you dont believe in risk compensation - which is quite a fundamental
thing.

> Potholes are uncomfortable to cycle over even with
> suitable tyres so it still makes sense to avoid them if possible.

*Shallow* holes and bumps are not uncomfortable when you have large tyres,
so you don't bother to avoid them. I certainly ride a bike with 1.5" tyres
differently from how I ride 23mm tyres. With large tyres, I only bother to
try and dodge the larger holes and bumps. I just plough through the rest as
that takes less effort than avoiding them. Another poster also mentioned
that he doesn't bother to avoid most stuff.

So I think the argument is sound that the risks balance out. You take as
much care as you think you need in either case, and in either case you will
come a cropper if you don't allow enough margin for error.

I'm not suggesting that everyone uses the narrowest tyres possible, but it's
a shame to have tyres *much* heavier or slower than you need, or even a
different type of bike than you really want.

I suggest that 28mm to 1.5" is fat enough for poorly maintained tarmac, and
you only need bigger tyres for proper off-roading.

~PB

[Peter Clinch]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On 24 Jul 2008 17:25:06 +0100 (BST)
> David Damerell > wrote:
>
>> If it's not broke - don't fix it.
>>
> ITYM "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" :-)

c.f. the T-shirt motto of Leicester Uni Engineering Soc when I was there...

"If it works... we'll fix it!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Paul Boyd[_5_]]

Peter Clinch said the following on 25/07/2008 08:28:

> "If it works... we'll fix it!"

Hmmm..... sounds like our so-called IT support.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Peter Clinch]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Peter Clinch said the following on 25/07/2008 08:28:
>
>> "If it works... we'll fix it!"
>
> Hmmm..... sounds like our so-called IT support.

Here they have changed the name of their IT Help Desk to the IT Service
Desk. Bad service is still service, but unhelpful help is an oxymoron,
so I guess at least it's honest[1]...

Pete.

[1] to be fair, when they're good they're very very good. But also the
case that when they're bad they're horrid.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:38:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
> said in
>:

>Here they have changed the name of their IT Help Desk to the IT Service
>Desk. Bad service is still service, but unhelpful help is an oxymoron,
>so I guess at least it's honest[1]...

Sounds like they have contracted ITIL. This is a fatal disease
whereby IT departments stop doing anything with IT and spend all
their time working out which of a number of arbitrary categories a
given system or issue might be assigned to. I believe it is
considered incurable, but I have seen it treated by directomy
(surgical removal of the responsible director).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:38:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
> > said in
> >:
>
>> Here they have changed the name of their IT Help Desk to the IT Service
>> Desk. Bad service is still service, but unhelpful help is an oxymoron,
>> so I guess at least it's honest[1]...
>
> Sounds like they have contracted ITIL.

Ah... I believe that might have been one of the acronyms I stuck up my
hand and asked "what does that /actually mean/?" at a network admin
meeting earlier this year, so you could be right.
One of those where I was given an answer and came out knowing less than
before I'd asked the question :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:28:53 +0100
Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On 24 Jul 2008 17:25:06 +0100 (BST)
> > David Damerell > wrote:
> >
> >> If it's not broke - don't fix it.
> >>
> > ITYM "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" :-)
>
> c.f. the T-shirt motto of Leicester Uni Engineering Soc when I was
> there...
>
> "If it works... we'll fix it!"
>
I like that. :-)

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Pete Biggs > wrote:
> >
> >> Adam Lea wrote:
> >>> "NewRiderPS" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:04:29 -0700 (PDT),
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm thinking of buying a new bike and I want a comfy mountain
> >>>>> bike , not some flimsy racer with a seat that chops my nuts in
> >>>>> half. Only
> >>>>
> >>>> You might want to wear pants if that's happening. Are you Scottish?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tires are not the problem with potholes. Instead, you 'look' where
> >>>> you're going. Do you really expect to just plow through potholes
> >>>> like a sherman tank? If so you want a conveyance with treads.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That is like saying the solution to road casualties is don't have
> >>> accidents.
> >>
> >> Well, it's a good one. Take more care and you will have fewer
> >> accidents. Have more protection and you will take less care. It
> >> balances out. Fat tyres don't make the bike and yourself immune
> >> from damage. They just mean the pothole needs to be larger to cause
> >> damage. Because you're taking less care, you're more likely to run
> >> into larger potholes than you would if you had skinny tyres.
> >>
> > yes but this said if i do for what ever reason roll or rather rumble
> > around on the MTB, it will handle any pothole i've seen in urban areas
> > really does simply remove the problem.
>
> Perhaps you ride either very slowly or in very posh urban areas.

no.
>
> > even with the big green hybrid with cheap nasty front suspention and
> > 38mm M+'s you can just ride though said potholes etc, not nessarly
> > terribly good for the wheels but they'll last a good while before the
> > hub gives out.
> >
> >>> Even looking where you are going there is always a chance
> >>> you will catch a pothole, particularly at night where they can be
> >>> practically invisible.
> >>
> >> You should be riding slowly enough, or with a light bright enough,
> >> to see the surface properly.
> >>
> > i pay more attention to traffic than to the road surface, as for most
> > part unless i really do something dumb, the surface smoothness isn't
> > really a issue.
>
> It's not the "most part" you have to worry about. The road surface can be
> just as dangerous as any traffic, so you should pay equal attention to it.
>
a ton of metal could kill me, while on it's own even a deep sucken
pothole is unlikely to do that.

> A hole doesn't have to be 12" deep to cause serious injury, even with the
> largest bicycle tyres available.
>
> Of course we all fail to spot holes and bumps sometimes, but that doesn't
> mean you shouldn't *try* hard to look out for them. You cannot rely on your
> tyres to always save you and your wheels. You will be caught out one day if
> you think otherwise and end up in hospital.
>
most MTB's would cope with any thing the road can throw at them with out
much bother or they wouldn't get very far off road now would they?

with a big heavy hybrid and fairly big road tyres potholes and lumps are
largly not a issue, in terms of road danger, wet manhole covers etc are
much more of issue as they have much more possiblity of mishap than
potholes do.

> ~PB

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> most MTB's would cope with any thing the road can throw at them with
> out much bother or they wouldn't get very far off road now would they?

That is not true.

There are holes in the road large, deep and sharp-edged enough to throw you
off any bike if you unexpectedly hit them at speed, and cause serious
injury. They are different from aything you would tackle off-road at 20
mph.

If you don't want to get injured, pay as much attention to the road surface
as the traffic, no matter what tyres you have.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > most MTB's would cope with any thing the road can throw at them with
> > out much bother or they wouldn't get very far off road now would they?
>
> That is not true.
>
> There are holes in the road large, deep and sharp-edged enough to throw you
> off any bike if you unexpectedly hit them at speed, and cause serious
> injury. They are different from aything you would tackle off-road at 20
> mph.

no they can be exactly the same, old disused roads/tracks, for example
these can be taken at speed, no problems even on entry level MTB's
flater one's ablity terribly.
>
> If you don't want to get injured, pay as much attention to the road surface
> as the traffic, no matter what tyres you have.
>
attention yes but as the tires volume increases and or the frame is more
steady etc, it becomes much less of a issue.

> ~PB

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:
>> There are holes in the road large, deep and sharp-edged enough to
>> throw you off any bike if you unexpectedly hit them at speed, and
>> cause serious injury. They are different from aything you would
>> tackle off-road at 20 mph.
>
> no they can be exactly the same, old disused roads/tracks, for example
> these can be taken at speed, no problems even on entry level MTB's
> flater one's ablity terribly.

Of course some of them are the same. But some are worse than anything you
would
tackle off-road at 20 mph. If you think otherwise then you haven't cycled
in London very much while looking at the road surface. With the most evil
ones I've seen, you would be thrown off any normal mountain bike if you ran
into one at 20 mph (maybe 10 mph). These are where roadworks and manholes,
etc, have collapsed, leaving a deep hole with right-angled walls.

~PB

[Pete Biggs]

Rob Morley wrote:

/snip
>> These
>> are where roadworks and manholes, etc, have collapsed, leaving a deep
>> hole with right-angled walls.
>>
> In off-road mode you'd just go at it fast and hop slightly at the
> right moment, or slowly and ride it trials-style. In traffic you
> won't necessarily see it in time or be able to get the right speed or
> position to do this. So while it's pretty unlikely that you wouldn't
> be able to ride that sort of obstacle off-road, I think in a road
> situation I wouldn't like to have to juggle it with the other factors
> that entails.

Yes, hopping it does require seeing it first so you know what to hop. I've
been responding to the idea that, almost, if you have fat tyres, you don't
need to look where you're going and can just run into anything.

~PB

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:16:15 +0200
"Pete Biggs" > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> There are holes in the road large, deep and sharp-edged enough to
> >> throw you off any bike if you unexpectedly hit them at speed, and
> >> cause serious injury. They are different from aything you would
> >> tackle off-road at 20 mph.
> >
> > no they can be exactly the same, old disused roads/tracks, for
> > example these can be taken at speed, no problems even on entry
> > level MTB's flater one's ablity terribly.
>
> Of course some of them are the same. But some are worse than
> anything you would
> tackle off-road at 20 mph. If you think otherwise then you haven't
> cycled in London very much while looking at the road surface. With
> the most evil ones I've seen, you would be thrown off any normal
> mountain bike if you ran into one at 20 mph (maybe 10 mph). These
> are where roadworks and manholes, etc, have collapsed, leaving a deep
> hole with right-angled walls.
>
In off-road mode you'd just go at it fast and hop slightly at the right
moment, or slowly and ride it trials-style. In traffic you won't
necessarily see it in time or be able to get the right speed or
position to do this. So while it's pretty unlikely that you wouldn't
be able to ride that sort of obstacle off-road, I think in a road
situation I wouldn't like to have to juggle it with the other factors
that entails.

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:33:28 +0200
"Pete Biggs" > wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> /snip
> >> These
> >> are where roadworks and manholes, etc, have collapsed, leaving a
> >> deep hole with right-angled walls.
> >>
> > In off-road mode you'd just go at it fast and hop slightly at the
> > right moment, or slowly and ride it trials-style. In traffic you
> > won't necessarily see it in time or be able to get the right speed
> > or position to do this. So while it's pretty unlikely that you
> > wouldn't be able to ride that sort of obstacle off-road, I think in
> > a road situation I wouldn't like to have to juggle it with the
> > other factors that entails.
>
> Yes, hopping it does require seeing it first so you know what to
> hop. I've been responding to the idea that, almost, if you have fat
> tyres, you don't need to look where you're going and can just run
> into anything.
>
But what you said was "some are worse than anything you would
tackle off-road at 20 mph." I'd be comfortable tackling sunken-manhole
type obstacles at 20mph pretty much anywhere - that's fast enough to
just skim them. You then changed the scenario to "you would be thrown
off any normal mountain bike if you ran into one at 20 mph (maybe 10
mph)". It's my understanding that "running into one" is not the same
as "tackling one", and at 10mph you're more likely to have problems
than at 20mph - if I didn't see it coming I'd be content with a
relatively graceful dismount (no broken bones or ripped clothing) and
hopefully nothing but cosmetic damage to the bike. Do you ride
off-road?

[Pete Biggs]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:33:28 +0200
> "Pete Biggs" >
> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>> /snip
>>>> These
>>>> are where roadworks and manholes, etc, have collapsed, leaving a
>>>> deep hole with right-angled walls.
>>>>
>>> In off-road mode you'd just go at it fast and hop slightly at the
>>> right moment, or slowly and ride it trials-style. In traffic you
>>> won't necessarily see it in time or be able to get the right speed
>>> or position to do this. So while it's pretty unlikely that you
>>> wouldn't be able to ride that sort of obstacle off-road, I think in
>>> a road situation I wouldn't like to have to juggle it with the
>>> other factors that entails.
>>
>> Yes, hopping it does require seeing it first so you know what to
>> hop. I've been responding to the idea that, almost, if you have fat
>> tyres, you don't need to look where you're going and can just run
>> into anything.
>>
> But what you said.......

I made it clear what I meant in my last post. Nevermind that I used the
word "tackle" wrongly before that. I meant ride with full weight on the
bike, not hop or skim - like what you would do if you did not spot the hole
before you hit it. That is my point: that's it is not wise to not look
where you're going just because you've got fat tyres. Look back at what I
was responding to in the first place.

> Do you ride off-road?

I certainly look where I'm going when I do!

The finer skills of off-roading are irrelevant, because you won't be using
them if you're not looking where you are going.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> There are holes in the road large, deep and sharp-edged enough to
> >> throw you off any bike if you unexpectedly hit them at speed, and
> >> cause serious injury. They are different from aything you would
> >> tackle off-road at 20 mph.
> >
> > no they can be exactly the same, old disused roads/tracks, for example
> > these can be taken at speed, no problems even on entry level MTB's
> > flater one's ablity terribly.
>
> Of course some of them are the same. But some are worse than anything you
> would
> tackle off-road at 20 mph. If you think otherwise then you haven't cycled
> in London very much while looking at the road surface. With the most evil
> ones I've seen, you would be thrown off any normal mountain bike if you ran
> into one at 20 mph (maybe 10 mph). These are where roadworks and manholes,
> etc, have collapsed, leaving a deep hole with right-angled walls.
>
> ~PB

have you seen a half decent rock garden? on road stuff is by it's very
nature mild. ie they expect cars to be able to drive along it with out
problems.

as to manhole covers i've not seen any on travels around london that
can't be just plowed though with MTB, or the big heavy hybrid.

no one is suggesting you don't look at the road, but certinaly with a
big lump of a hybrid, manhole covers and such really are not a problem
to the bike, with the hybrids laid back weighting it takes a lot to
unsettle it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Naqerj]

Jeremy Parker wrote:

>
> If you are riding over drain covers, you are riding too close to the
> kerb.

Generally true... but I can think of one road locally where the road was
widened, leaving the drain covers about half a yard out in the carriageway.

--
Andrew

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> no one is suggesting you don't look at the road,

Good. It seemed like people were implying that it doesn't matter if you
don't look at the road surface because a bike with fat tyres will cope with
anything, even with your full weight on the bike.

> but certinaly with a
> big lump of a hybrid, manhole covers and such really are not a problem
> to the bike, with the hybrids laid back weighting it takes a lot to
> unsettle it.

I'm particularly thinking of roadworks that have gone wrong and left a
terribly deep and sharp-edged hole in the road.

It's the kind of thing that your front wheel will go down and not come out
of again, chucking you over the handlebars. It's true that it's less likely
to happen with a hybrid than a less laid-back bike, but still they are not
immune from that and other serious problems when running into such things.

~PB

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > no one is suggesting you don't look at the road,
>
> Good. It seemed like people were implying that it doesn't matter if you
> don't look at the road surface because a bike with fat tyres will cope with
> anything, even with your full weight on the bike.
>
well with a MTB i'm much more worried about traction than lumps and
bumps which are unlikely to be a problem that doesn't rule out the
possiblity but its very unlikely, with the hybrid less so but still rare
to find a pothole or lumps and bumbs that running though would be too
much of a problem, any thing big and it's likely to fairly easy to spot.

mostly i avoid potholes with considerations to rear wheel, and comfort.

> > but certinaly with a
> > big lump of a hybrid, manhole covers and such really are not a problem
> > to the bike, with the hybrids laid back weighting it takes a lot to
> > unsettle it.
>
note that there is quite a differance from 28mm tires to 38mm tires the
28mm tire on the back of the hybrid didn't cope with ridges and other
left over from road works, where as the big m+'s it's not a issue.

> I'm particularly thinking of roadworks that have gone wrong and left a
> terribly deep and sharp-edged hole in the road.
>
most i've seen are uncomftable but not nessarlly a danger, but as ever
milage varies.

> It's the kind of thing that your front wheel will go down and not come out
> of again, chucking you over the handlebars. It's true that it's less likely
> to happen with a hybrid than a less laid-back bike, but still they are not
> immune from that and other serious problems when running into such things.
>
> ~PB

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Pete Biggs]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> well with a MTB i'm much more worried about traction than lumps and
> bumps which are unlikely to be a problem that doesn't rule out the
> possiblity but its very unlikely, with the hybrid less so but still
> rare to find a pothole or lumps and bumbs that running though would
> be too much of a problem, any thing big and it's likely to fairly
> easy to spot.

Admittedly, I couldn't find a pothole that bad while deliberately looking
for one this weekend (hopefully this means the roads are getting better!) -
but it only takes one once in your life to be a real bugger. You can miss a
huge hole if you're concentrating entirely on the traffic instead of the
road surface, especially when riding fast or at night.

In the past in London I've seen and been down holes that I'm sure would have
stopped any bicycle, except maybe one with extremely good suspension as well
as 2 inch tyres.

~PB

[Jeremy Parker]

"Pete Biggs" >
wrote

[snip]

> I'm particularly thinking of roadworks that have gone wrong and
> left a terribly deep and sharp-edged hole in the road.
>
> It's the kind of thing that your front wheel will go down and not
> come out of again, chucking you over the handlebars.

[snip]

Well it's true that there are some remarkably horrible potholes
around and, although they are fairly rare, by sods law you will
eventually encounter one.

However, there's something worse than any pothole; that's the
longitudinal slot. The longitudinal slot is the classic cyclist
killer; tram tracks are the notorious example.

The problem with the slots is not the falling into them, but that
they turn your front wheel somewhat. In bike riding it's the turning
of your front wheel back and forth that keeps your bike upright.
Something that upsets this normal steering might not just make you
fall, but slam you violently to the ground.

Not many people know this, although the books explain about it. Thus
a good many people never try to avoid the hazard when it appears in
front of them.

Jeremy Parker

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:38 +0100
"Jeremy Parker" > wrote:

> The problem with the slots is not the falling into them, but that
> they turn your front wheel somewhat. In bike riding it's the turning
> of your front wheel back and forth that keeps your bike upright.
> Something that upsets this normal steering might not just make you
> fall, but slam you violently to the ground.
>
> Not many people know this,

You reckon?

[Roger Merriman]

Pete Biggs > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > well with a MTB i'm much more worried about traction than lumps and
> > bumps which are unlikely to be a problem that doesn't rule out the
> > possiblity but its very unlikely, with the hybrid less so but still
> > rare to find a pothole or lumps and bumbs that running though would
> > be too much of a problem, any thing big and it's likely to fairly
> > easy to spot.
>
> Admittedly, I couldn't find a pothole that bad while deliberately looking
> for one this weekend (hopefully this means the roads are getting better!) -
> but it only takes one once in your life to be a real bugger. You can miss a
> huge hole if you're concentrating entirely on the traffic instead of the
> road surface, especially when riding fast or at night.
>

it's summer tends to be sucken stuff, rather than new potholes.


> In the past in London I've seen and been down holes that I'm sure would have
> stopped any bicycle, except maybe one with extremely good suspension as well
> as 2 inch tyres.
>
most MTB will have half decent suspension and very few MTB tires are sub
2 inch, tires have got fatter to cope with what people are doing, thus
sub 2inchers tend to be fairly specialist one trick ponies.


> ~PB

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com