Commuting on a mountain bike - a few questions

[Travis]

As an alternative to mounting a rack on my roadie (something I'm still
trying to do anyway, but I want to try it both ways) I've just cleaned
the crud off a rather crappy (probably ex-Kmart) mountain bike which I
was given.

A few questions...

For commuting on roads and cycle paths, with no off-road use likely,
what is the correct tire pressure? (Additional info: I weigh 100kg and
will be carrying maybe another 7-15kg of gear... plus this is a rather
clunky steel tubed bike!)

The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
oriented slicks. Is the rolling resistance improvement significant
enough to warrant an immediate switch? (if it'll cut 10mins off my
20km journey each day, the answer is yes!)

I rode it around the block and found it a fair bit more tiring to ride
than the roadie. I felt soreness in parts of my legs which I don't
normally feel when riding the roadie. Presumably the sitting position
is different enough that I'm working out different muscles. For anyone
who has had to switch bikes and had this before, did it take you long
to get over that?

Travis

[terryc]

Travis wrote:

> The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
> these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
> immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
> oriented slicks.

Chunky equals noisy.
Slicks equals accidents ad injury. Great in theory, but the theory
doesn't cover dirt, gravel, etc.
The compromise is something with a centre ridge and moderate bumps on
the sides.
What size tyres will the rim accept? You certainly wouldn't need the
2.25" stuff or maybe even the 1.75"(yes, it is a while since I've
purchased new stuff).
As to pressure, pump em up to what feels nice. Almost the same as on
your roadie, unless you really are using the 2.25"(lot f air going out a
large sudden puncture).

[Travis]

On May 7, 2:50*pm, terryc > wrote:
> Travis wrote:
> > The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
> > these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
> > immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
> > oriented slicks.
>
> Chunky equals noisy.
> Slicks equals accidents ad injury. Great in theory, but the theory
> doesn't cover dirt, gravel, etc.
> The compromise is something with a centre ridge and moderate bumps on
> the sides.
> What size tyres will the rim accept? You certainly wouldn't need the
> 2.25" stuff or maybe even the 1.75"(yes, it is a while since I've
> purchased new stuff).

I haven't encountered anything which has been an issue for my roadie
to date, I would have thought that anything a roadie can handle on
slick roadie tires should be just as easily handled by a mountain bike
on slicks... no?

The current tires are 1.75". Never having ridden a mountain bike
before I couldn't tell you what range of thicknesses would work, in
fact that was something I was hoping aus.bicycles could tell me. I
just measured the rims with a ruler and they seem to be about 25mm.

That got me looking at http://www.torpedo7.com.au/products/INTYMNNPP/title/innova-mtb-slick-tyre---puncture-proof

Which indicates that a 1.25" tire with a maximum inflation pressure of
100PSI would work.

That's very roadie like, which I favour. I want something as similar
to my roadie as possible, but with the ability to haul all my gear to
uni!

> As to pressure, pump em up to what feels nice. Almost the same as on
> your roadie, unless you really are using the 2.25"(lot f air going out a
> large sudden puncture).

1.75", I'm seeing 65-70PSI with Google. Does that sound about right?

Travis

[Shirley Nott]

Travis wrote:
> On May 7, 2:50 pm, terryc > wrote:
>> Travis wrote:
>>> The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
>>> these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
>>> immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
>>> oriented slicks.
>>
>> Chunky equals noisy.

Agree. Unpleasant on the road.

>> Slicks equals accidents ad injury. Great in theory, but the theory
>> doesn't cover dirt, gravel, etc.
>> The compromise is something with a centre ridge and moderate bumps on
>> the sides.

Probably better to get the type with centre ridge and cut-in off centre, rather
than something with bumps off centre. If you're hardly ever off road, the
cut-in types means far less likely to slip and fall on corners.

Shirley Nott.

>> What size tyres will the rim accept? You certainly wouldn't need the
>> 2.25" stuff or maybe even the 1.75"(yes, it is a while since I've
>> purchased new stuff).

They are still called 1.75" and 2.25". Go 1.75"

> I haven't encountered anything which has been an issue for my roadie
> to date, I would have thought that anything a roadie can handle on
> slick roadie tires should be just as easily handled by a mountain bike
> on slicks... no?
>
> The current tires are 1.75". Never having ridden a mountain bike
> before I couldn't tell you what range of thicknesses would work, in
> fact that was something I was hoping aus.bicycles could tell me. I
> just measured the rims with a ruler and they seem to be about 25mm.
>
> That got me looking at
> http://www.torpedo7.com.au/products/INTYMNNPP/title/innova-mtb-slick-tyre---puncture-proof
>
> Which indicates that a 1.25" tire with a maximum inflation pressure of
> 100PSI would work.
>
> That's very roadie like, which I favour. I want something as similar
> to my roadie as possible, but with the ability to haul all my gear to
> uni!
>
>> As to pressure, pump em up to what feels nice. Almost the same as on
>> your roadie, unless you really are using the 2.25"(lot f air going out a
>> large sudden puncture).
>
> 1.75", I'm seeing 65-70PSI with Google. Does that sound about right?
>
> Travis

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 7 May 2011 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Travis > wrote:
> Which indicates that a 1.25" tire with a maximum inflation pressure of
> 100PSI would work.

that's what I used to use on the rear of the 'bent which has 26"
wheels. I now use slightly narrower Marathons.

The original tyres ran at 80psi, these run a 100 and I prefer them.

> 1.75", I'm seeing 65-70PSI with Google. Does that sound about right?
>

Probably. Get smaller high pressure ones, the difference is good.

Zebee

[terryc]

Travis wrote:

> Which indicates that a 1.25" tire with a maximum inflation pressure of
> 100PSI would work.

Give it a try. So long as it sits safely on the rims, there is no reason
why you shouldn't


> 1.75", I'm seeing 65-70PSI with Google. Does that sound about right?

Try it. The low MTB pressure is only to spread the load for soft
surfaces. Firm surfaces should be firmer, especially if you have speed.
My 2c. I've run them higher.

[John Henderson]

Travis wrote:

> For commuting on roads and cycle paths, with no off-road use likely,
> what is the correct tire pressure? (Additional info: I weigh 100kg and
> will be carrying maybe another 7-15kg of gear... plus this is a rather
> clunky steel tubed bike!)

The maximum pressure the tyre is rated for will be on the
sidewall. For most 26 x 1.75 tyres, that's 65 PSI. But some
quality brands allow higher pressure.

I'll mention that my wife once experienced a front tyre blowout
(sidewall failure) with a new cheap tyre pumped up to its rated
pressure.

I like to ride with my front tyre a little softer than the
maximum for the sake of comfort. The front carries much less
weight than the rear.

Unless a narrower tyre permits running a higher pressure (most
do), be aware that a wider tyre will have less rolling resistance
than a narrow one (at the same pressure). That's because the
contact patch (the area touching the road) will be exactly the
same size, giving the wide tyre a more efficient (shorter and
wider) contact patch. This results in less flexing losses
overall.

John

[Theo Bekkers[_2_]]

"John Henderson" wrote

> Unless a narrower tyre permits running a higher pressure (most
> do), be aware that a wider tyre will have less rolling resistance
> than a narrow one (at the same pressure). That's because the
> contact patch (the area touching the road) will be exactly the
> same size, giving the wide tyre a more efficient (shorter and
> wider) contact patch. This results in less flexing losses
> overall.

Hmm. Sheldon Brown says at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html

"A common debate among cyclists centers on the issue of whether a
wider tire has more or less rolling resistance at the same pressure.
The constant pressure is proposed because it appears more scientific
to eliminate this as a variable, but this is not realistic in
practice. The short answer to this question is that, yes, a wider tire
of similar construction will have lower rolling resistance than a
narrower one at the same pressure. This fact is, however, of no
practical value. If you are comparing two tires of similar
construction, with the same load, and the same pressure, either the
wider tire is overinflated, or the narrower tire is underinflated!"

He goes on to say
A 37mm (1.5") tyre with a 50kg wheel load should be inflated to 60lbs,
a 23mm tyre with the same load to 120lbs.

I can assure you, as does Sheldon, that the smaller tyre at 120lbs
will have far less rolling resistance.

Theo

[John Henderson]

Theo Bekkers wrote:


> Hmm. Sheldon Brown says at http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tires.html
>
> "A common debate among cyclists centers on the issue of whether a
> wider tire has more or less rolling resistance at the same pressure.
> The constant pressure is proposed because it appears more scientific
> to eliminate this as a variable, but this is not realistic in
> practice. The short answer to this question is that, yes, a wider tire
> of similar construction will have lower rolling resistance than a
> narrower one at the same pressure. This fact is, however, of no
> practical value. If you are comparing two tires of similar
> construction, with the same load, and the same pressure, either the
> wider tire is overinflated, or the narrower tire is underinflated!"
>
> He goes on to say
> A 37mm (1.5") tyre with a 50kg wheel load should be inflated to 60lbs,
> a 23mm tyre with the same load to 120lbs.
>
> I can assure you, as does Sheldon, that the smaller tyre at 120lbs
> will have far less rolling resistance.

I agree that a tyre at 120 PSI will roll easier than a wider one
at 65 PSI. However, 65 PSI is a common maximum pressure for
tyres in the width range around 1.75 to 2.25". In that case, and
assuming inflation to the same pressure, the wider tyre will have
the lower rolling resistance.

While I find it hard to disagree with Sheldon about most things,
his statement "either the wider tire is overinflated, or the
narrower tire is underinflated" is not strictly true as a
generalization

John

[terryc]

John Henderson wrote:

> While I find it hard to disagree with Sheldon about most things,
> his statement "either the wider tire is overinflated, or the
> narrower tire is underinflated" is not strictly true as a
> generalization

On what basis?
I think it is true. My 2c.
1. Lower pressures are generally used to cover softer ground, which
means the surface sinks more, so you are effectively riding steeper
grade and thus more resistance.
2. On the same surface,there is more tyre rubber to be deformed to meet
the surface, hence more resistance.
3. There is more centrepetal/centrifugal/centipedal(no idea which one)
resistance in bigger tyres from the greater air mass(plus bigger rim and
rubber).

[John Henderson]

terryc wrote:

> John Henderson wrote:
>
>> While I find it hard to disagree with Sheldon about most things,
>> his statement "either the wider tire is overinflated, or the
>> narrower tire is underinflated" is not strictly true as a
>> generalization
>
> On what basis?
> I think it is true. My 2c.

It's an oversimplification, is what I meant. Maximum rated
pressure usually goes up as width goes down. But not always, as
I pointed out.

I've had 26 x 1.75 tyres rated to 85 PSI (it was some Michelin
model) and seen 1.50 tyres rated to only 65 PSI.

> 1. Lower pressures are generally used to cover softer ground, which
> means the surface sinks more, so you are effectively riding steeper
> grade and thus more resistance.
> 2. On the same surface,there is more tyre rubber to be deformed to meet
> the surface, hence more resistance.
> 3. There is more centrepetal/centrifugal/centipedal(no idea which one)
> resistance in bigger tyres from the greater air mass(plus bigger rim and
> rubber).

For the same pressure, the contact patch area will be identical
regardless of tyre width. And the wider tyre will roll more
efficiently because its contact area is shorter and wider.

To quote Schwalbe: "The flattened area can be considered as a
counterweight to tire rotation. Because of the longer flattened
area of the narrow tire, the wheel loses more of its roundness
and produces more deformation during rotation. However, in the
wide tire, the radial length of the flattened area is shorter,
making the tire rounder and so it rolls better." -
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3suok2f

And there's another consideration. Many riders have a
comfortable inflation pressure they inflate to regardless of
the tyre width. As long as the pressure rating isn't exceeded,
it's at least as safe and it's more efficient to use a wider tyre
to take advantage of the lower rolling resistance.

In fact it may be safer to use a wider tyre. Hit a patch of
deep loose gravel, a wide tyre can mean the difference between
being able to control a bike and having the front wheel dig in
and being thrown off.

Wide tyres get a worse name for rolling resistance than they
deserve. I just want to set the record straight.

John

[terryc]

John Henderson wrote:


> And there's another consideration. Many riders have a
> comfortable inflation pressure they inflate to regardless of
> the tyre width.

Bing. Yumchas, so who worried about rated pressure.

[Theo Bekkers[_2_]]

"John Henderson" wrote
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> He goes on to say
>> A 37mm (1.5") tyre with a 50kg wheel load should be inflated to
>> 60lbs,
>> a 23mm tyre with the same load to 120lbs.
>
>> I can assure you, as does Sheldon, that the smaller tyre at 120lbs
>> will have far less rolling resistance.

> I agree that a tyre at 120 PSI will roll easier than a wider one
> at 65 PSI. However, 65 PSI is a common maximum pressure for
> tyres in the width range around 1.75 to 2.25". In that case, and
> assuming inflation to the same pressure, the wider tyre will have
> the lower rolling resistance.

I agree that there is far less difference between a 1.75 and a 2.25 as
far as recommended pressure for specific loads, and that you can run
both at 65lbs without noticeable performance difference and that the
2.25 will have less rolling resistance.

I still believe that at the same pressure one of the two will be
incorrectly inflated. The narrower tyre should run at higher pressure
for the same load and therefore will have less rolling resistance.

> While I find it hard to disagree with Sheldon about most things,
> his statement "either the wider tire is overinflated, or the
> narrower tire is underinflated" is not strictly true as a
> generalization

I believe he is quite correct.

Theo

[BT Humble[_3_]]

Travis wrote:
>
> As an alternative to mounting a rack on my roadie (something I'm still
> trying to do anyway, but I want to try it both ways) I've just cleaned
> the crud off a rather crappy (probably ex-Kmart) mountain bike which I
> was given.

They work OK for commuting. I'm still riding mine, up to around 7,000km
now:

http://www.humbletown.org/budgetbike/index.htm

> A few questions...
>
> For commuting on roads and cycle paths, with no off-road use likely,
> what is the correct tire pressure? (Additional info: I weigh 100kg and
> will be carrying maybe another 7-15kg of gear... plus this is a rather
> clunky steel tubed bike!)

I use 1.5" almost-slick (i.e. beach-cruiser grooved) tyres inflated to
65psi. I have a feeling that the wider tyre might be better for heavy
loads, but I've never done any testing to verify that - my main reason for
running relatively low-pressure tyres is that I almost never have
perfectly trued-up wheels.

> The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
> these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
> immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
> oriented slicks. Is the rolling resistance improvement significant
> enough to warrant an immediate switch? (if it'll cut 10mins off my
> 20km journey each day, the answer is yes!)

Yes, ditch them. The knobby ones on K-Mart bikes are usually only rated
at 45psi, and the constant droning on asphalt will annoy you very quickly.

> I rode it around the block and found it a fair bit more tiring to ride
> than the roadie. I felt soreness in parts of my legs which I don't
> normally feel when riding the roadie. Presumably the sitting position
> is different enough that I'm working out different muscles. For anyone
> who has had to switch bikes and had this before, did it take you long
> to get over that?

Not too long, but then drop-bar roadbikes are pretty nasty for my lower
back so it's not as though I have any nostalgia for them!

Look on the bright side - you'll be getting a much more thorough workout
on the heavy bike! :-)


BTH

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

[Travis]

On May 10, 11:42*am,
m.au (BT Humble)
wrote:
> Travis wrote:
>
> > As an alternative to mounting a rack on my roadie (something I'm still
> > trying to do anyway, but I want to try it both ways) I've just cleaned
> > the crud off a rather crappy (probably ex-Kmart) mountain bike which I
> > was given.
>
> They work OK for commuting. *I'm still riding mine, up to around 7,000km
> now:
>
> http://www.humbletown.org/budgetbike/index.htm
>
> > A few questions...
>
> > For commuting on roads and cycle paths, with no off-road use likely,
> > what is the correct tire pressure? (Additional info: I weigh 100kg and
> > will be carrying maybe another 7-15kg of gear... plus this is a rather
> > clunky steel tubed bike!)
>
> I use 1.5" almost-slick (i.e. beach-cruiser grooved) tyres inflated to
> 65psi. *I have a feeling that the wider tyre might be better for heavy
> loads, but I've never done any testing to verify that - my main reason for
> running relatively low-pressure tyres is that I almost never have
> perfectly trued-up wheels.
>
> > The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
> > these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
> > immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
> > oriented slicks. Is the rolling resistance improvement significant
> > enough to warrant an immediate switch? (if it'll cut 10mins off my
> > 20km journey each day, the answer is yes!)
>
> Yes, ditch them. *The knobby ones on K-Mart bikes are usually only rated
> at 45psi, and the constant droning on asphalt will annoy you very quickly..
>
> > I rode it around the block and found it a fair bit more tiring to ride
> > than the roadie. I felt soreness in parts of my legs which I don't
> > normally feel when riding the roadie. Presumably the sitting position
> > is different enough that I'm working out different muscles. For anyone
> > who has had to switch bikes and had this before, did it take you long
> > to get over that?
>
> Not too long, but then drop-bar roadbikes are pretty nasty for my lower
> back so it's not as though I have any nostalgia for them!
>
> Look on the bright side - you'll be getting a much more thorough workout
> on the heavy bike! :-)
>
> BTH
>
> --
> Posted atwww.usenet.com.au

I rode the MTB this morning for the second time (first time was
yesterday) and got a sidewall blowout on the rear tyre, forcing me to
walk/run my bike to the nearest train station, lock it up there and
then take the train to uni.

Rear tyre was only inflated to 65psi, admittedly though it wasn't in
especially good condition.

I ordered those 1.25" semi-slicks from Torpedo7 a few days ago so
they're on their way, but Torpedo7 didn't have any 1.25" tubes in
stock (in any quantity, in any brand!) and I have an aversion to
paying $12 "a pop" (heh) for tubes, so I'm just going to have to ride
the roadie for a bit longer until T7 or PBK or whoever get them in
stock again.

It's a shame, because although it was a little bit slower and I felt a
little tiny bit (but not very) goofy riding a p.o.s. MTB while being
passed by all those hooligans on their shiny road bikes, I did
actually arrive with a less sore lower back and bum. Partly it was the
seating position, mainly it was the fact that there was room to mount
my U-lock's hanger on the upper tube, so it hung off the frame rather
than my lumbar spine!

In addition to the conventional (non-cantilever) rack I ordered from
T7 for the MTB, for the roadie I've ordered one of the cantilevered
seat post mounted racks from eBay (for the princely sum of $25
shipped) and a convertible (i.e. unzip the sides and the panniers hang
down, otherwise it's just a rack-top bag) bag for the even more
Brobdingnagian sum of $34.they don't need to take vast volumes or
weight, as long as they'll carry a few of the more weighty and bulky
items (U-lock, lab coat, lunch and soon my more bulky winter change of
clothes too) that'll do. Better than carrying it on my back anyway!

Travis

[John Henderson]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> "John Henderson" wrote
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>> He goes on to say
>>> A 37mm (1.5") tyre with a 50kg wheel load should be inflated to
>>> 60lbs,
>>> a 23mm tyre with the same load to 120lbs.
>>
>>> I can assure you, as does Sheldon, that the smaller tyre at 120lbs
>>> will have far less rolling resistance.
>
>> I agree that a tyre at 120 PSI will roll easier than a wider one
>> at 65 PSI. However, 65 PSI is a common maximum pressure for
>> tyres in the width range around 1.75 to 2.25". In that case, and
>> assuming inflation to the same pressure, the wider tyre will have
>> the lower rolling resistance.
>
> I agree that there is far less difference between a 1.75 and a 2.25 as
> far as recommended pressure for specific loads, and that you can run
> both at 65lbs without noticeable performance difference and that the
> 2.25 will have less rolling resistance.
>
> I still believe that at the same pressure one of the two will be
> incorrectly inflated. The narrower tyre should run at higher pressure
> for the same load and therefore will have less rolling resistance.
>
>> While I find it hard to disagree with Sheldon about most things,
>> his statement "either the wider tire is overinflated, or the
>> narrower tire is underinflated" is not strictly true as a
>> generalization
>
> I believe he is quite correct.

When I first read Sheldon's article many years ago, it struck me
that he was encouraging people to ignore tyre manufacturers
maximim inflation recommendations.

If that's what he was doing, I still believe he's wrong to do so.

John

[Moike]

On 10/05/2011 3:42 PM, Travis wrote:
> On May 10, 11:42 am,
> m.au (BT Humble)
> wrote:
>> Travis wrote:
>>
>>> As an alternative to mounting a rack on my roadie (something I'm still
>>> trying to do anyway, but I want to try it both ways) I've just cleaned
>>> the crud off a rather crappy (probably ex-Kmart) mountain bike which I
>>> was given.
>>
>> They work OK for commuting. I'm still riding mine, up to around 7,000km
>> now:
>>
>> http://www.humbletown.org/budgetbike/index.htm
>>
>>> A few questions...
>>
>>> For commuting on roads and cycle paths, with no off-road use likely,
>>> what is the correct tire pressure? (Additional info: I weigh 100kg and
>>> will be carrying maybe another 7-15kg of gear... plus this is a rather
>>> clunky steel tubed bike!)
>>
>> I use 1.5" almost-slick (i.e. beach-cruiser grooved) tyres inflated to
>> 65psi. I have a feeling that the wider tyre might be better for heavy
>> loads, but I've never done any testing to verify that - my main reason for
>> running relatively low-pressure tyres is that I almost never have
>> perfectly trued-up wheels.
>>
>>> The tires at the moment are the usual knobbly ones people have on
>>> these bikes, but I'm wondering if it's worth chucking these
>>> immediately or waiting until they've worn out before buying ashpalt-
>>> oriented slicks. Is the rolling resistance improvement significant
>>> enough to warrant an immediate switch? (if it'll cut 10mins off my
>>> 20km journey each day, the answer is yes!)
>>
>> Yes, ditch them. The knobby ones on K-Mart bikes are usually only rated
>> at 45psi, and the constant droning on asphalt will annoy you very quickly.
>>
>>> I rode it around the block and found it a fair bit more tiring to ride
>>> than the roadie. I felt soreness in parts of my legs which I don't
>>> normally feel when riding the roadie. Presumably the sitting position
>>> is different enough that I'm working out different muscles. For anyone
>>> who has had to switch bikes and had this before, did it take you long
>>> to get over that?
>>
>> Not too long, but then drop-bar roadbikes are pretty nasty for my lower
>> back so it's not as though I have any nostalgia for them!
>>
>> Look on the bright side - you'll be getting a much more thorough workout
>> on the heavy bike! :-)
>>
>> BTH
>>
>> --
>> Posted atwww.usenet.com.au
>
> I rode the MTB this morning for the second time (first time was
> yesterday) and got a sidewall blowout on the rear tyre, forcing me to
> walk/run my bike to the nearest train station, lock it up there and
> then take the train to uni.
>
> Rear tyre was only inflated to 65psi, admittedly though it wasn't in
> especially good condition.
>
> I ordered those 1.25" semi-slicks from Torpedo7 a few days ago so
> they're on their way, but Torpedo7 didn't have any 1.25" tubes in
> stock (in any quantity, in any brand!) and I have an aversion to
> paying $12 "a pop" (heh) for tubes, so I'm just going to have to ride
> the roadie for a bit longer until T7 or PBK or whoever get them in
> stock again.
>
> It's a shame, because although it was a little bit slower and I felt a
> little tiny bit (but not very) goofy riding a p.o.s. MTB while being
> passed by all those hooligans on their shiny road bikes, I did
> actually arrive with a less sore lower back and bum. Partly it was the
> seating position, mainly it was the fact that there was room to mount
> my U-lock's hanger on the upper tube, so it hung off the frame rather
> than my lumbar spine!
>
> In addition to the conventional (non-cantilever) rack I ordered from
> T7 for the MTB, for the roadie I've ordered one of the cantilevered
> seat post mounted racks from eBay (for the princely sum of $25
> shipped) and a convertible (i.e. unzip the sides and the panniers hang
> down, otherwise it's just a rack-top bag) bag for the even more
> Brobdingnagian sum of $34.they don't need to take vast volumes or
> weight, as long as they'll carry a few of the more weighty and bulky
> items (U-lock, lab coat, lunch and soon my more bulky winter change of
> clothes too) that'll do. Better than carrying it on my back anyway!
>
> Travis
Aldi have 26" tubes for not much money this week.

Moike

[BT Humble[_3_]]

Travis wrote:
> It's a shame, because although it was a little bit slower and I felt a
> little tiny bit (but not very) goofy riding a p.o.s. MTB while being
> passed by all those hooligans on their shiny road bikes, I did
> actually arrive with a less sore lower back and bum. Partly it was the
> seating position, mainly it was the fact that there was room to mount
> my U-lock's hanger on the upper tube, so it hung off the frame rather
> than my lumbar spine!

I think you'll find that moving your luggage onto a pannier rack will
relieve your back pain more than the change in riding position.

I've also found that one of those thick slime-filled tubes fitted to the
rear tyre avoids a lot of broken-glass related punctures (breaking bottles
on the cycle path seems to be a favourite sport in my area).


BTH

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

[Travis]

On May 11, 5:53*am, Moike > wrote:

> Aldi have 26" tubes for not much money this week.
>
> Moike

It would be luverly if they would come to Perth!

I just bought a couple of tubes off eBay. $12, problem solved.

Travis

[Rob]

On 11/05/2011 6:35 PM, Travis wrote:
> On May 11, 5:53 am, > wrote:
>
>> Aldi have 26" tubes for not much money this week.
>>
>> Moike
>
> It would be luverly if they would come to Perth!
>
> I just bought a couple of tubes off eBay. $12, problem solved.
>
> Travis

Who were that mob in the ACT that were flogging off tubes in packs of 10
at a ridicules price?

[Travis]

On May 13, 7:32*pm, Rob > wrote:

> Who were that mob in the ACT that were flogging off tubes in packs of 10
> at a ridicules price?

Torpedo7 had them for $25 for a pack of ten, just not in the size I
needed. (sold out!)

If anyone does hear of some good bargains from any seller in or able
to ship to Perth, I'm all ears! I only ordered a pair of tubes, could
always use spares because I prefer to carry a tube in my bag than
worry about trying to do a field repair possibly in the rain and the
dark!

Travis