Predictions

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 12:10:15 +0000, Tosspot
wrote:

On 04/01/2020 00.33, John B. wrote:

snip

It really is a bit humorous, isn't it.

About a hundred years ago, give or take a decade or two, bicyclists
were whining and crying about how "they" should build smooth roads so
the cyclists wouldn't have to ride on those rough old dirt roads. Now,
after all the whining and crying, there are smooth roads and what do
the cyclists do? Why, they run out and buy a "gravel" bike which one
assumes is designed for riding on rough old dirt roads :-)

But as for "gravel" bikes? I can't remember seeing any mention of
gravel bikes, at least on this site, until perhaps a year or two ago.
Is this a new invention?

In my day they would have been called a CycloCross bike, which in my
world was a set of fenders short of a decent commuter. Mate just
spunked 2 grand on a "gravel" bike and it's nothing more than a
commuter. Has all the braze-ons you could want, isn't especially light,
but to be fair to him, has outboard bearings (1 year of real world
riding tops) and integrated headset bearings, we'll see how well they last.

Given the numbers of bicycle types that appear to be necessary to
outfit the complete cyclist I think that Frank was correct and the
complexity of bicycle fads is equal in complexity to the style
choices in women's shoes.

There other comparisons I'm tempted to draw, but I think I'll stop right
here :-)

I really don't know what a "commuter" is. If I commuted, which I never
have, I'd probably just use one of my "regular" bikes. I hesitate to
call them a "road" bike as two of the three are very old frames that I
bought 2nd hand and refurbished and I'm not sure what they were
originally called, but I don't believe that they were called "road
bikes". I once had a LeMond steel frame that I bought new and, for
sure, it didn't have a label like "road bike" on it anywhere :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 06:57:23 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, 4 January 2020 00:07:51 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51:40 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:52:52 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 6:09 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:09:53 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 6:36:48 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, January 3, 2020 at 8:56:56 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2020 8:33 AM, wrote:

Frank let me explain how the market (any) works. The industry tries to divide cycling in as many categories as possible (do you know how many ATB categories there are?) and develop bikes specific/optimized for each category.

I agree with that. I just don't agree that one category should be "bikes
intended for recreational riding that can't accept a 28mm tire." Nobody
has yet explained any logic in that.

Well, in the olde tyme world before discs, the answer was better braking with short reach single or dual pivot brakes, lighter weight, short wheelbases for quicker handling -- basically a racier bike that was incompatible with fenders because of tight clearances and toe overlap. The standard sport racing tire was sub-23mm, so there was no need for standard or long reach brakes. The idea was to be fast -- not versatile.

Right. All that applies to bikes to be used for racing. But as
recently as three years ago, my friend had trouble finding a bike with
decent clearance for just fun riding. That's nuts.

If you wanted a more versatile bike, you got a touring bike or a less aggressive sport touring bike with standard drop side-pulls. All of those kinds of bikes have been around forever.

Right. But we've just come through a period where they were rare, at
least if you wanted top quality components.

Back in 1976 or 1977, one of my good friends (an elderly marathoner -
he was in his 40s!) bought one of these Raleighs
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/retrora...er-tourer.html but his came with drop bars and no springs on
the saddle. On his first "event" ride (100 miles Saturday, sleep
overnight in an auditorium, 100 miles back on Sunday) he was the
first to finish, despite his lack of experience - not to mention the
hideous clearance for gasp! fenders! (I loved the Jubilee derailleur).

Again, the main point is that the tight clearances that were
fashionable had no benefit. You can talk about higher mechanical
advantage of shorter reach brakes, but there were other ways to
achieve that while maintaining good clearance, and it didn't take
disc brakes.


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


It is more possible now than ever to have a uni-bike. You could road race on my gravel bike.

Exactly! It's clearance for wide tires doesn't hamper it!
--
cheers,

John B.

Even Frank upthread confirmed, with the story of his friend buying bike, that choices were and are out there for those who want a bicycle that could/can take wide tire and fenders. Plus the bicycle she bought was not a custom built one thereby showing that the choices are there.

Cheers

Of course they are there. Frank's argument is, basically, that his
local dealer didn't stock any of the wide tire models and he had to
drive 60 miles to a dealer that did stock them.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/4/2020 7:54 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 12:10:15 +0000, Tosspot
wrote:

On 04/01/2020 00.33, John B. wrote:

snip

It really is a bit humorous, isn't it.

About a hundred years ago, give or take a decade or two, bicyclists
were whining and crying about how "they" should build smooth roads so
the cyclists wouldn't have to ride on those rough old dirt roads. Now,
after all the whining and crying, there are smooth roads and what do
the cyclists do? Why, they run out and buy a "gravel" bike which one
assumes is designed for riding on rough old dirt roads :-)

But as for "gravel" bikes? I can't remember seeing any mention of
gravel bikes, at least on this site, until perhaps a year or two ago.
Is this a new invention?

In my day they would have been called a CycloCross bike, which in my
world was a set of fenders short of a decent commuter. Mate just
spunked 2 grand on a "gravel" bike and it's nothing more than a
commuter. Has all the braze-ons you could want, isn't especially light,
but to be fair to him, has outboard bearings (1 year of real world
riding tops) and integrated headset bearings, we'll see how well they last.

Given the numbers of bicycle types that appear to be necessary to
outfit the complete cyclist I think that Frank was correct and the
complexity of bicycle fads is equal in complexity to the style
choices in women's shoes.

There other comparisons I'm tempted to draw, but I think I'll stop right
here :-)

I really don't know what a "commuter" is. If I commuted, which I never
have, I'd probably just use one of my "regular" bikes.

I'd say the design of a "commuter" bike varies with the commute and with
the rider.

If my job was within two miles of my house (like a few friends I know)
I'd probably use my three speed bike with upright bars. That's because I
specifically designed it so absolutely no clothing change was needed to
ride it - not even clipping my pants cuffs.

OTOH, I've heard of guys who commuted fairly long distances over quite
hilly territory. For that, I can see that a light bike with a good range
of gears would be valuable.

For a couple years early in my career, my commute was a bit less than
three miles. My only bike worked fine, once I fitted a rear rack for my
briefcase, plus lights. I didn't even need fenders in those days. I
drove the car if it rained in the morning, and usually waited out the
rain if it happened at quitting time. Getting a bit wet on the way home
was no big deal. We had a washing machine.

But my commute eventually became over seven miles, and I got another
bike. That allowed me to put fenders on full time, plus generator
lights, which back then I didn't keep on my "fun" bike. Other features
were Lyotard Mod. 23 pedals (very easy to get into) with loose toe
straps, so riding in dress shoes was easy. Of course, it had a big
handlebar bag to carry changes in outer clothes as I rode, since I
usually got a bit sweaty by the ride's end, even in winter. I chose
tires with puncture resistance at least a bit in mind, and stayed away
from lightweight tubes. A mud flap was ready in the handlebar bag. I had
another battery blinky on the rear, for redundancy.

All this on a 1970s "sport touring bike" worked fine for me. It still
works, with that bike now consigned to grocery and other shopping duty,
plus most of my night recreation rides. (It has the best dynamo and lights.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/4/2020 11:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/4/2020 9:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want
wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google
"touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/


Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that
could not accept 28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider
to ride at a moderate pace on bumpy country roads? Is that
really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

And it wasn't a simple mistake by that dealer. He was
stocking what his biggest supplier was promoting as a
moderately upscale bike for _all_ women. Searching for a
bike with wider tires, we had to visit at least five bike
shops in a wide area. My friend ended up buying her bike
from a shop about 60 miles away, and we had driven probably
120 miles that day to find it.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted
components above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that
_required_ tires 25mm or narrower.

You can put narrow tires on a bike that has clearance for
wide ones. I've done it. But you can't put wide tires on a
bike that has clearance for only 25mm.

Except for pro-level racing, I think there's no practical
reason for pushing that style bike. They're the bike
equivalent of a woman's stiletto heeled shoes.



"... why? ..."

Because people like what they like.Â* When asked what, of all the things
on earth, would make an ideal bicycle, some riders say fat tires with
mudguards and some don't.

Certainly, tastes differ. But saying "People like what they like" is an
oversimplification. Many, many people "like" exactly what they are
_told_ to like, or purposely induced to like. If that were not the case,
advertising would not exist.

Another current example, which is of local importance: As I've
mentioned, the local GM assembly plant closed and was sold by GM. It's
where the Chevy Cruze was made, a car that earned quite high marks and
sold well. But its sales started dropping.

GM's tale was "Well, people just don't want to buy small cars any more."
But certain industry analysts looked at the advertising history, and
said a huge reason people don't want small car is because they were
trained to want massive pickup trucks and SUVs. GM essentially stopped
advertising smaller cars and poured everything into advertising for
those big vehicles. Why? Because the profit margin was so much higher on
the big ones. Some of the ads on TV are blatant - "Don't look at that
sedan, that's old fashioned. Look at that huge SUV over there!"

So suburban couples with two kids buy vehicles that can haul 1500 pounds
and seat six, cost about twice as much, and get half the fuel economy.

And everyday riders get bikes that can take only tires racers should use.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/4/2020 11:36 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 7:18:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/

Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that could not accept
28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider to ride at a moderate pace
on bumpy country roads? Is that really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

It's the bike they had to sell, and the shop sucked? Who knows -- and who knows why this is so perplexing to you. I go to merchants all over the place with limited stock who try to sell
me whatever they have.

What's perplexing to me is why a frame limited to 25mm was ever deemed a
logical choice! Again, it has _zero_ advantages even to racers. It's not
like STI vs. indexed bar ends (put up with some mechanical complexity to
get a bit of convenience) or cantis vs. calipers (put up with trickier
setup to get more clearance). It was "Put up with greatly restricted
tire choice to... um... pretend you're like a racer." It was a fashion
move all along.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted components
above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that _required_ tires 25mm or
narrower.

Maybe on planet Frank -- but nowhere else in the known universe. My neighborhood bike shop is about 500 square feet of mostly olde tyme bikes, but even it has a Jamis with fat-ish tires. https://www.burlingamebikes.com/ The industry, even five years ago, was trending towards fat tires and disc brakes, although your friend managed to buy one of the last cantilever bikes -- and found a shop with skinny-tire bikes. If it was a Trek shop, they would have had a 520, Boone and Crockett as I mentioned. Now they have the Checkpoint, too.

OK, I apologize. I said Trek, but the shop sells Giant instead. It was a
Giant Liv ladies bike that we were looking at. (And if a Trek 520 were
available, she would have bought it immediately.)

And a detail that I may not have previously mentioned: Since she lives
an hour away, I had previously stopped in the shop to check out that
model bike without her. They didn't have any in stock. The owner (a nice
guy) said they kept selling out of them.

Does that mean there are lots of women who _need_ a bike that can take
_only_ narrow tires? Not to me. It means there are a lot of women who
were convinced that they should buy such a bike.

(Yes, I understand a 25mm tire for a 140 pound woman is similar to a
28mm tire for a heavier guy. That still doesn't justify a purposeful
limitation with no corresponding benefit but style.)

And yet many women like stiletto heeled shoes -- or in bike terms, fast bikes with tight clearances, etc., etc.

Of course, the implication has been "tight clearances" make "fast
bikes." It's an advertising lie.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 22:16:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/4/2020 11:36 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 4, 2020 at 7:18:32 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/4/2020 12:07 AM, John B. wrote:


It is a matter of "horses for courses".

If you buy a "road bike" you get narrow tires. If you want wide tires
simply buy a bike that is built that-a-way. Google "touring bicycle",
most of them will take up to 2 inch tires.
see:
https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear...touring-bikes/

Let me try again.

"Horses for courses"? Why were they selling a bike that could not accept
28mm tires for a non-competitive lady rider to ride at a moderate pace
on bumpy country roads? Is that really the proper "horse" for that "course"?

It's the bike they had to sell, and the shop sucked? Who knows -- and who knows why this is so perplexing to you. I go to merchants all over the place with limited stock who try to sell
me whatever they have.

What's perplexing to me is why a frame limited to 25mm was ever deemed a
logical choice! Again, it has _zero_ advantages even to racers. It's not
like STI vs. indexed bar ends (put up with some mechanical complexity to
get a bit of convenience) or cantis vs. calipers (put up with trickier
setup to get more clearance). It was "Put up with greatly restricted
tire choice to... um... pretend you're like a racer." It was a fashion
move all along.

It seemed the industry had decided that any woman who wanted components
above Tiagra level also wanted a bike that _required_ tires 25mm or
narrower.

Maybe on planet Frank -- but nowhere else in the known universe. My neighborhood bike shop is about 500 square feet of mostly olde tyme bikes, but even it has a Jamis with fat-ish tires. https://www.burlingamebikes.com/ The industry, even five years ago, was trending towards fat tires and disc brakes, although your friend managed to buy one of the last cantilever bikes -- and found a shop with skinny-tire bikes. If it was a Trek shop, they would have had a 520, Boone and Crockett as I mentioned. Now they have the Checkpoint, too.

OK, I apologize. I said Trek, but the shop sells Giant instead. It was a
Giant Liv ladies bike that we were looking at. (And if a Trek 520 were
available, she would have bought it immediately.)

And a detail that I may not have previously mentioned: Since she lives
an hour away, I had previously stopped in the shop to check out that
model bike without her. They didn't have any in stock. The owner (a nice
guy) said they kept selling out of them.

Does that mean there are lots of women who _need_ a bike that can take
_only_ narrow tires? Not to me. It means there are a lot of women who
were convinced that they should buy such a bike.

(Yes, I understand a 25mm tire for a 140 pound woman is similar to a
28mm tire for a heavier guy. That still doesn't justify a purposeful
limitation with no corresponding benefit but style.)

And yet many women like stiletto heeled shoes -- or in bike terms, fast bikes with tight clearances, etc., etc.

Of course, the implication has been "tight clearances" make "fast
bikes." It's an advertising lie.

Well, have it your own way and whine to your heart's content.... but,
as you reported, simply going to another shop solved your problems.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, 4 January 2020 21:32:47 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
Other features
were Lyotard Mod. 23 pedals (very easy to get into) with loose toe
straps, so riding in dress shoes was easy.Snipped
--
- Frank Krygowski

I really like my Lyotard 23 pedals. As you say they are very easy to get into. They have enough of a platform that you don't 'have to have' hard-soled shoes to use them over log distances either.

Cheers

On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 19:14:54 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

Up here beyond civilization, where we actually pay to have
salt spread all over hell, it's obscene to sacrifice a
perfectly good and beautiful machine to salt water. Hence
two machines at minimum.

When I lived near Albany New York, where a car was more likely to skid
on the salt than the ice, I had only one bike and hosed it off with
hot water in my water bottles before bringing it inside to drip on a
kitchen runner I kept in the back entry for that purpose. I used the
first squirt from each filling to get under the fenders.



One such skid was spectacular. A driver tried to slow for the
intersection at the bottom of New Salem hill, slid into the Saab
dealer, missed the gas pump by inches, and took out a whole row of
newly-repaired Saabs. Not too long afterward, the dealership moved to
the top of a hill on New Scotland Road, with the lot reached by way of
a long up-sloping drive.

Each time a car passed me, it stirred up a choking cloud of powdered
salt. I never had that problem here; they use coarser salt, only
enough, and sometimes spray the road with molasses instead.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:18:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

They're the bike equivalent of a woman's
stiletto heeled shoes.

There's your answer. It's received wisdom among all kinds of
manufacturers that you adapt a design for women by raising the price,
making it flimsy and impractical, eliminating or sabotaging pockets,
and painting it pink.

--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGESEW/
The above message is a Usenet post.

On Sun, 05 Jan 2020 00:56:53 -0500, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 10:18:28 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

They're the bike equivalent of a woman's
stiletto heeled shoes.

There's your answer. It's received wisdom among all kinds of
manufacturers that you adapt a design for women by raising the price,
making it flimsy and impractical, eliminating or sabotaging pockets,
and painting it pink.

And they buy it!
--
cheers,

John B.