A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

not enough standards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 20th 18, 01:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default not enough standards

On 1/19/2018 3:45 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote:
On 1/19/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/



Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap wheels between two
different bicycles.


I SPIT on the whole 1x movement.



+1

I also spat on the 2x movement. My road bike has 2x (42/52) but because
it is 35 years old and back then that's all you could get. I suffer on
steep hills for that but as the drill sergeant always said, anything
that doesn't instantly kill you makes you tough.


In my area, if you want to ride up into the Santa Cruz mountains and
you're older than a millenial, it's really nice to have a triple on a
road bike. In the early 1980's, triples weren't that common then around
1983 most of the road bikes sold around hear suddenly were coming with
triples, like my Specialized Sirrus, which had a dual and a triple
option, with the triple at an extra $100. Touring bikes of course had
triples for a long time.

Last year I did a benefit ride, which I normally avoid but my little
group of troublemakers had a team, and those without a triple were
suffering.
Ads
  #12  
Old January 20th 18, 01:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default not enough standards

On 1/19/2018 5:45 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote:
On 1/19/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/



Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap
wheels between two
different bicycles.


I SPIT on the whole 1x movement.



+1

I also spat on the 2x movement. My road bike has 2x (42/52)
but because it is 35 years old and back then that's all you
could get. I suffer on steep hills for that but as the drill
sergeant always said, anything that doesn't instantly kill
you makes you tough.


... There is no way to get the
range that
was possible with 2x or 3x, even with a 10-42, and the
rear derailleur
has to take up a huge amount of chain between the high and
low cogs.

I guess if the mountain bike is transported to the
trail-head on a
vehicle, and never ridden on-road, that you can get by
without the high
gears.


Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph
because the biggest ring is only 42T. On the last 4-5 miles
home I sometimes wish it had 52T like my road bike. IOW 4x
would be even better. Or coarse steps, that would be the
optimum.


That said, the front shifter on my mountain bike stopped
going into high
last Saturday, and I had to buy a replacement set of Deore
shifters, $40
from REI. I opened up the old one but it was beyond my
ability to fix
it, so yesterday I changed the front shifter. Definitely
can see the
advantage of not having the extra complexity. But on the
trail I was on,
which was not steep except for a few short stretches, I
wanted those
high gears.



Could have used the redneck shifter: A somewhat straight
piece of a small branch with a 90 degree li'l branch (or a
nail) sticking out the side. When a buddy's chain pretzeled
and ripped off the front derailer that's how he shifted. It
worked so well that he forgot to order a new derailer for a
few months.



Easy; not even expensive:
http://www.abundantadventures.com/quads.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #13  
Old January 20th 18, 01:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default not enough standards

Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote:
On 1/19/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/


Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap wheels between two
different bicycles.


I SPIT on the whole 1x movement.



+1

I also spat on the 2x movement. My road bike has 2x (42/52) but because
it is 35 years old and back then that's all you could get. I suffer on
steep hills for that but as the drill sergeant always said, anything
that doesn't instantly kill you makes you tough.


... There is no way to get the range that
was possible with 2x or 3x, even with a 10-42, and the rear derailleur
has to take up a huge amount of chain between the high and low cogs.

I guess if the mountain bike is transported to the trail-head on a
vehicle, and never ridden on-road, that you can get by without the high
gears.


Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph because the
biggest ring is only 42T. On the last 4-5 miles home I sometimes wish it
had 52T like my road bike. IOW 4x would be even better. Or coarse steps,
that would be the optimum.

snip

A friend of mine had a 3x9 drivetrain on his recumbent trike and decided to
put a larger rear wheel on it, but didn't want to lose his lowest gear. The
easiest solution for him was to build up the new rear wheel with a SRAM 3
speed hub that also took a 9 speed cassette. Add that to the 3 front chain
rings and he had an 81 speed drivetrain. The gear range wasn't optimal and
there was a lot of overlap, but it covered all the bases.



  #14  
Old January 20th 18, 02:53 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default not enough standards

On 1/19/2018 7:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2018 5:45 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote:
On 1/19/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/




Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap
wheels between two
different bicycles.

I SPIT on the whole 1x movement.



+1

I also spat on the 2x movement. My road bike has 2x (42/52)
but because it is 35 years old and back then that's all you
could get. I suffer on steep hills for that but as the drill
sergeant always said, anything that doesn't instantly kill
you makes you tough.


Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ... There is no way to get the
range that
was possible with 2x or 3x, even with a 10-42, and the
rear derailleur
has to take up a huge amount of chain between the high and
low cogs.

I guess if the mountain bike is transported to the
trail-head on a
vehicle, and never ridden on-road, that you can get by
without the high
gears.


Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph
because the biggest ring is only 42T. On the last 4-5 miles
home I sometimes wish it had 52T like my road bike. IOW 4x
would be even better. Or coarse steps, that would be the
optimum.


That said, the front shifter on my mountain bike stopped
going into high
last Saturday, and I had to buy a replacement set of Deore
shifters, $40
from REI. I opened up the old one but it was beyond my
ability to fix
it, so yesterday I changed the front shifter. Definitely
can see the
advantage of not having the extra complexity. But on the
trail I was on,
which was not steep except for a few short stretches, I
wanted those
high gears.



Could have used the redneck shifter: A somewhat straight
piece of a small branch with a 90 degree li'l branch (or a
nail) sticking out the side. When a buddy's chain pretzeled
and ripped off the front derailer that's how he shifted. It
worked so well that he forgot to order a new derailer for a
few months.



Easy; not even expensive:
http://www.abundantadventures.com/quads.html


Joerg should note the Gorilla Headlock on that page.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #15  
Old January 20th 18, 04:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default not enough standards

An innovative Cy cling company may design unique in no way a 'standard'

done at risk of ruin

But the $$$ is not that large in small scale production. generally not so if yawl hungry.

Good for evolution

Good question where'the evo n why is it effective.

Or is all the devo evo toyish ?

Kinda looks toyish out here but there's the gravel bike geometry for the gravel crowd/market

Clay anyone ? Grass ?

Beach snow sawdust spiked tar gravel downhill uphill traverse talc various grades sand silicon Valley ... CHIP SEAL

Like universals tire wall morphed into
Spec bikes each

Combo ? One from A one from B ahhhhh like sports/ touring ? All surfaces taken.

There's a good evo devo channel. Pursued by JB no less right ?

Or all frames must fit rider

Tires will be seasonaly matched.

Twilight riders will equip with lights, white or yallow clothing..

Foop


  #16  
Old January 20th 18, 06:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default not enough standards

On 1/19/2018 4:48 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2018-01-19 14:55, sms wrote:
On 1/19/2018 8:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/


Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap wheels between two
different bicycles.

I SPIT on the whole 1x movement.



+1

I also spat on the 2x movement. My road bike has 2x (42/52) but because
it is 35 years old and back then that's all you could get. I suffer on
steep hills for that but as the drill sergeant always said, anything
that doesn't instantly kill you makes you tough.


... There is no way to get the range that
was possible with 2x or 3x, even with a 10-42, and the rear derailleur
has to take up a huge amount of chain between the high and low cogs.

I guess if the mountain bike is transported to the trail-head on a
vehicle, and never ridden on-road, that you can get by without the high
gears.


Even regular 3x MTBs like mine tucker out at 28-30mph because the
biggest ring is only 42T. On the last 4-5 miles home I sometimes wish it
had 52T like my road bike. IOW 4x would be even better. Or coarse steps,
that would be the optimum.

snip

A friend of mine had a 3x9 drivetrain on his recumbent trike and decided to
put a larger rear wheel on it, but didn't want to lose his lowest gear. The
easiest solution for him was to build up the new rear wheel with a SRAM 3
speed hub that also took a 9 speed cassette. Add that to the 3 front chain
rings and he had an 81 speed drivetrain. The gear range wasn't optimal and
there was a lot of overlap, but it covered all the bases.


Add a Schlumpf drive and go up to 162.
http://www.haberstock-mobility.com/index.php/products.html
  #17  
Old January 20th 18, 09:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default not enough standards

sms wrote:

I SPIT on the whole 1x movement. There is no
way to get the range that was possible with
2x or 3x, even with a 10-42, and the rear
derailleur has to take up a huge amount of
chain between the high and low cogs.


Well, not everyone uses their bikes to climb
mountains and valleys. Here is pretty flat so
I can definitely see the benefit with 1x and
just a couple of sprockets back.
Less complexity as you say and also less focus
on having the right gear all the time, instead
focus on riding the bike.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #18  
Old January 20th 18, 09:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default not enough standards

On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 5:24:15 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/

Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap wheels
between two different bicycles.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


The last 5-10 years they lost me with their ATB's. Can't think ever buying a new ATB. I'll stick to my 26 inch wheeled Rohloff equipped ATB and ride my Cross bike more and more for off road riding.

Lou
  #19  
Old January 20th 18, 09:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,035
Default not enough standards

lou.holtman wrote:

The last 5-10 years they lost me with their
ATB's. Can't think ever buying a new ATB.


ATB

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #20  
Old January 20th 18, 11:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default not enough standards

On 1/20/2018 12:31 AM, wrote:
On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 5:24:15 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/knolly-...axle-standard/

Hell, I can remember way back when a guy could swap wheels
between two different bicycles.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


The last 5-10 years they lost me with their ATB's. Can't think ever buying a new ATB. I'll stick to my 26 inch wheeled Rohloff equipped ATB and ride my Cross bike more and more for off road riding.


Bolshevik.

You should have bought a 29er, then when you realized that 29 was too
big bought a 27.5er. How will our capitalist economy function if yu
don't think of buying more stuff?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Standards; always room for one more! AMuzi Techniques 26 January 1st 18 06:30 PM
Japanese standards AMuzi Techniques 1 November 25th 14 09:56 PM
Australian Helmet standards Walrus Australia 33 September 20th 05 09:25 AM
h*lm*t standards where's the web site? Bryan UK 5 August 18th 05 09:52 AM
Driving standards Tom UK 20 February 11th 04 01:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.