What is the point of tubeless tires?

AMuzi wrote:
:On 1/15/2019 1:07 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
: Joy Beeson wrote:
:
: ne plates with an alloy -- brass melts too high to "hot dip" as one
: :does with zinc -- and it just now occurs to me to wonder how one goes
: :about brass plating something as cheap as a safety pin.
:
: Electroplating. You put the parts into a bath containing stuff
: (cyanaide compounds historically, often less toxic stuff these days), use a
: brass anode, and apply a current. Details vary, but that's used for
: all sorts of thin coatings.
:

:I wondere4d about that too.

pins simply aren't that sharp. even a fine silk pin's point is pretty
big compared to a thin coating of copper and zinc.

:We learn about classic elemental electroplating which seems
:straightforward. But then with brass how do they get both
:the copper and the zinc evenly distributed/deposited?

Magic, as far as I can tell. For cyanide systems, they use a bath
that has both copper and zinc cyanides, plus stuff to regulate the pH
of the bath, and careful control of the current.



--
sig 122

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 01:49:17 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 23:40:20 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:23:53 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:52:48 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:34:51 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
Snipped
Gads! $329.99?! Wow! No thanks. I'll stay with the FAR LESS expensive retro offerings.

Cheers

But you also get Earn 1649 Reward Points :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Right, reward points. VBG ;) However I could get 5 pairs of the $60.00 MKS pedals shown in the other link and still have money left over. Are those $329.99 pedals THAT much better?

Cheers

Come on Man! They are new.

They have a "classically inspired profile combined with modern
materials and design is ideally suited for the urban cyclist. These
pedals provide the perfect platform for whatever shoes you decide to
ride in." And! They are made in the USA! None of that cheap foreign
made stuff.

They are available in both silver and black anodized finishes and the
bronze acorn nuts add a touch of class

I'm surprised that everyone isn't buying at least two :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Hi John. It seems to me that a lot of the newer stuff for bicycles isn't so much about function or even looks but how high the cost for it can be. LOL Is that the new criteria for bicycle stuff = high cost?

I wanted to buy a long cage rear derailleur for a touring/gravel bicycle I was building up for a friend. Just outside of town there's a guy who sells used bicycles in decent riding shape for $40 to $60. Seeing as a decent new long cage rear derailleur at any of the shops here in town cost at least $50 I decided to buy the $40 to $60 bike because then I got all those extra spare parts if I needed them for something else. A lot of the frames on the bicycles he sells are also decent cro-moly alloy ones or aluminium ones. Heck, I got one MTB from him for $20.00 that had all Shimano DEORE on it even if the groupset was an older one. I love the thumb-shifters on it because they can be set to friction as well as index and they are completely separate from the brake levers. The bike was in great shape but he hadn't checked it over yet which is why I got it for so little.

Ditto with wheels. If I or someone I know needs a new wheel I often go to the out of town guy and either get a decent wheel for $10 or so or buy an entire bike for $40.00.

Cheers

I built a couple of bike that way. There are at least two dealers here
that buy used bikes from Japan, I believe by the container load, and
re-sell them. I bought what is probably a classic, except I can't
identify the maker. The frame and forks weighed a few grams more than
a frame that I had built out of Columbus SL tubes which is one of
their lighter tubes.

The guy also had some bare unpainted road bike aluminum frames,
sloping top tube, very modern looking stuff, that he was selling cheap
but at the time I wasn't interested in aluminum so I passed on them.


Cheers,
John B.

The guy I deal with also had an older Cannondale MTB with rear dropouts that extended beyond the frame. Interesting. I figured that under really hard riding that they'd be prone to breaking off.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

I found a picture of a Cannondale, what looked like a road bike frame,
with the same kind of rear drop outs. With picture it is kind of hard
to see details but it looks almost like they made the drop outs by
mashing the tube flat and then cutting the axle slot. Not an inspiring
way to make a quality bike :-)


I wonder if Andrew could tells us if that happened enough that it's why we don't see that style anymore? I built that bike up with drop handlebars and old school external brake cable brake levers. Actually, they were suicide style brake levers but I took off the suicide levers, modified the pin that sticks out from the side and installed shift levers there.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

Cheers


Cheers,
John B.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 06:54:55 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 1:49:19 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 3:41:00 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 23:40:20 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:23:53 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:52:48 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:34:51 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
Snipped
Gads! $329.99?! Wow! No thanks. I'll stay with the FAR LESS expensive retro offerings.

Cheers

But you also get Earn 1649 Reward Points :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Right, reward points. VBG ;) However I could get 5 pairs of the $60.00 MKS pedals shown in the other link and still have money left over. Are those $329.99 pedals THAT much better?

Cheers

Come on Man! They are new.

They have a "classically inspired profile combined with modern
materials and design is ideally suited for the urban cyclist. These
pedals provide the perfect platform for whatever shoes you decide to
ride in." And! They are made in the USA! None of that cheap foreign
made stuff.

They are available in both silver and black anodized finishes and the
bronze acorn nuts add a touch of class

I'm surprised that everyone isn't buying at least two :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Hi John. It seems to me that a lot of the newer stuff for bicycles isn't so much about function or even looks but how high the cost for it can be. LOL Is that the new criteria for bicycle stuff = high cost?

I wanted to buy a long cage rear derailleur for a touring/gravel bicycle I was building up for a friend. Just outside of town there's a guy who sells used bicycles in decent riding shape for $40 to $60. Seeing as a decent new long cage rear derailleur at any of the shops here in town cost at least $50 I decided to buy the $40 to $60 bike because then I got all those extra spare parts if I needed them for something else. A lot of the frames on the bicycles he sells are also decent cro-moly alloy ones or aluminium ones. Heck, I got one MTB from him for $20.00 that had all Shimano DEORE on it even if the groupset was an older one. I love the thumb-shifters on it because they can be set to friction as well as index and they are completely separate from the brake levers. The bike was in great shape but he hadn't checked it over yet which is why I got it for so little.

Ditto with wheels. If I or someone I know needs a new wheel I often go to the out of town guy and either get a decent wheel for $10 or so or buy an entire bike for $40.00.

Cheers

I built a couple of bike that way. There are at least two dealers here
that buy used bikes from Japan, I believe by the container load, and
re-sell them. I bought what is probably a classic, except I can't
identify the maker. The frame and forks weighed a few grams more than
a frame that I had built out of Columbus SL tubes which is one of
their lighter tubes.

The guy also had some bare unpainted road bike aluminum frames,
sloping top tube, very modern looking stuff, that he was selling cheap
but at the time I wasn't interested in aluminum so I passed on them.


Cheers,
John B.

The guy I deal with also had an older Cannondale MTB with rear dropouts that extended beyond the frame. Interesting. I figured that under really hard riding that they'd be prone to breaking off.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

I wonder if Andrew could tells us if that happened enough that it's why we don't see that style anymore? I built that bike up with drop handlebars and old school external brake cable brake levers. Actually, they were suicide style brake levers but I took off the suicide levers, modified the pin that sticks out from the side and installed shift levers there.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/738325...7669609219192/

I broke two of the road frames, both at the junction where the seat stay met the cantilevered drop-out. The end of the stay was thinned, squashed and welded, and the cantilevered drop out probably created some bending moment. I'm no engineer and don't know, and the failures could be explained by the way the stay-ends were designed rather than the dropouts.

Harking back to the marketing thing, this is another example of the odd way bicycles are marketed. That is, a lot of claimed improvements are foisted on consumers and not chosen. I didn't choose the cantilever stay thing, but I did chose the Cannondale 2.8 because I was somewhat brand loyal, and the bike was a very good value. The components were well thought out, and it was a good riding bike for a big rider. I didn't choose BB30 or full internal headsets either. Those things were dropped on me when I got a later replacement frame from Cannondale. I don't think anyone bought a Cervelo because it has BBright or that anyone goes into a bike shop and says, "say, show me the BB86 bikes." I've never thumbed through Velo News, lusting after the the latest BB30A. I might like the look of the matching (required) crank, but I'm cringing at the thought of getting yet another BB format.

-- Jay Beattie

I suspect that the real reason for the 1-1/8" head sets and the press
in BB's is largely to make it cheaper to build the frames. Certainly
the machine and fitting to make the old style head set cost more then
just slapping in an extra spacer or two, and boring and threading the
BB involves one more step in manufacturing.

While this doesn't sound like much, and of course the volume is
different, but I remember an engineer who had worked for Ford telling
me that he once got a cash reward for demonstrating a method of
eliminating two sheet metal screws from the firewall and this saving
several pennies in cost per car manufactured.


Cheers,
John B.

On 1/14/2019 4:52 PM, news18 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:51:00 -0800, Mark J. wrote:


Also, I've found that velcro straps work better for all but heavy-duty
stowage:
https://kgear.eogear.com/collections...eogear-medium-
d-ring-strap

What life do you get out of them?
I find velcro is a good fluff, hair, seeds, etc collector and eventuall
fails.

Truth be told, I don't use 'em that often, so the velcro stays "closed"
and has little opportunity to collect crap (dog hair in my house). But
my sense is that these (and similar straps w/o D-ring from the same
sourse) haven't picked up too much lint in the 3-5 years I've had them.

Thing is, they're so light and roll up so small, you forget they're
there until you need 'em. Contrast (IMHO) toestraps that take up a fair
amount of room in a seat bag

Mark J.

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades.
(My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.Â* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.Â* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.Â* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.Â* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff.Â* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.Â* But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.Â* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).Â* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too.Â* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.Â* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.Â* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.Â* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.Â* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.Â* I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.Â* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.Â* I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.Â* Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.Â* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years),
and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene
with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.Â* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that
most
of us are glad about.Â* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went
back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay onÂ* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold aÂ* cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.

On 1/14/2019 2:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On 1/11/2019 9:11 PM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

Well, if I'm reading the reviews correctly (and notwithstanding Joerg's experience), they do offer excellent flat resistance with appropriate sealant. TK seems to be the only person who has used them, AFAIK, and the rest of us are just re-posting reviews. I think this one sums it up, and its from a reputable source: https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...eless-clincher I think for racing, I'd go with a latex tube or sew-ups, but for a winter commuter, tubeless with sealant might be a great way to go -- although I'm in no hurry to change. I don't get that many flats -- usually.

[snip]

"Odd notes: unfortunately the tires are not tubeless ready. Odd, especially since Michelin pioneered tubeless tech in the mountain bike side of things. When pressed for the reason why, we were told that although they have “a solution�, they “are just waiting for market demand to grow.� Although they spoke of increased performance with their latex tubes, Michelin does not import the inner tubes in America."

Not many flats here either, and I wonder if the sealant loses any
effectiveness in low temperatures. Truth be told, fear of an ugly mess
(even if due to operator error) makes me uninterested in trying.

I was going to correct you (or whoever you were quoting) about Michelin
latex tubes sold in the US, and then I see that neither
BikeTiresDirect.com nor Universal Cycles stocks Micheline latex anymore.
Is that a recent change?

Mark J.

On 1/14/2019 11:40 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 2:23:53 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 21:52:48 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 12:42:07 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:34:51 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:
Snipped
Gads! $329.99?! Wow! No thanks. I'll stay with the FAR LESS expensive retro offerings.

Cheers

But you also get Earn 1649 Reward Points :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Right, reward points. VBG ;) However I could get 5 pairs of the $60.00 MKS pedals shown in the other link and still have money left over. Are those $329.99 pedals THAT much better?

Cheers

Come on Man! They are new.

They have a "classically inspired profile combined with modern
materials and design is ideally suited for the urban cyclist. These
pedals provide the perfect platform for whatever shoes you decide to
ride in." And! They are made in the USA! None of that cheap foreign
made stuff.

They are available in both silver and black anodized finishes and the
bronze acorn nuts add a touch of class

I'm surprised that everyone isn't buying at least two :-)


Cheers,
John B.

Hi John. It seems to me that a lot of the newer stuff for bicycles isn't so much about function or even looks but how high the cost for it can be. LOL Is that the new criteria for bicycle stuff = high cost?

It is for the manufacturer. /2.

Mark J.

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:33:24 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades.
(My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff.* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.* But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too.* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.* I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.* I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.* Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years),
and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene
with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that
most
of us are glad about.* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went
back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a* cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.


Re Bicycle Magazines. It seems to me that "way back when" bike
magazines used to have articles that actually told one something. The
first time I was actually told the best way to set up a road bike,
i.e. how far back and how high to set the seat for best results, was
in a magazine.

I remember one of their recommendations was to always to wear a tee
shirt under your jersey. This allowed the jersey to slide on your tee
shirt rather than on your skin and would help to prevent road rash :-)
Now, they seem to be a series of product evaluations thinly masked as
"tests" that always seem to glorify the product being tested.


Cheers,
John B.

On 1/15/2019 7:40 PM, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On 1/11/2019 9:11 PM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What
problem do they solve and is it worth the extra
maintenance hassles for non-racing riders?

Well, if I'm reading the reviews correctly (and
notwithstanding Joerg's experience), they do offer
excellent flat resistance with appropriate sealant. TK
seems to be the only person who has used them, AFAIK, and
the rest of us are just re-posting reviews. I think this
one sums it up, and its from a reputable source:
https://www.bicyclerollingresistance...eless-clincher
I think for racing, I'd go with a latex tube or sew-ups,
but for a winter commuter, tubeless with sealant might be
a great way to go -- although I'm in no hurry to change. I
don't get that many flats -- usually.

[snip]

"Odd notes: unfortunately the tires are not tubeless
ready. Odd, especially since Michelin pioneered tubeless
tech in the mountain bike side of things. When pressed for
the reason why, we were told that although they have
“a solution�, they “are just waiting for market
demand to grow.� Although they spoke of increased
performance with their latex tubes, Michelin does not
import the inner tubes in America."

Not many flats here either, and I wonder if the sealant
loses any effectiveness in low temperatures. Truth be told,
fear of an ugly mess (even if due to operator error) makes
me uninterested in trying.

I was going to correct you (or whoever you were quoting)
about Michelin latex tubes sold in the US, and then I see
that neither BikeTiresDirect.com nor Universal Cycles stocks
Micheline latex anymore. Is that a recent change?

Mark J.

Michelin distribution in USA is abysmal after 2015. Used to
be huge selection, prompt and competitive from several
houses. Now not so much.

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

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:33:24 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 1/14/2019 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/14/2019 9:28 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:22:03 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-5, Mark J. wrote:
On 1/13/2019 4:35 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 1/12/19 6:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/12/2019 12:11 AM, wrote:
Seriously, what is the point of these things? What problem do they
solve and is it worth the extra maintenance hassles for non-racing
riders?

Part of the point is "churning." Bikes and bike parts are a
super-mature industry, and bikes and their products last decades.
(My
favorite bike is from 1986.) So the industry tries to come up
with new
ideas every year, just to entice you to buy _something_.

Going back to the 1970s, it was "Ten speeds!" then "Touring bikes!"
then "Aluminum!" then "Mountain bikes!" ... and on and on, with
front
suspension, full suspension, 6 speeds, 7 speeds, 8 & 9 & 10 & 11
speeds, carbon fiber, electronic shifting etc. It goes on forever.

Currently it's disc brakes, tubeless tires and "gravel bikes." For
almost everyone who rides a bicycle, the improvements (if any) are
almost undetectable. We are deeply into diminishing returns, no
matter
what miracles the supposed connoisseurs claim.

I take issue.* Indexed ergo shifters vs downtube friction
shifters, LED
LiPo lights vs dodgy glow worms, and this is going to cause trouble,
yes, hydraulic discs vs cable rim brakes.


I think Tosspot has nailed it here, though Frank's not wrong
either, in
large part.

Yes, those of us who have watched cycling's new products for a while
(~40 years for me) know that there's a lot of useless junk that shows
up.* There are also some great improvements, and some wonders.
While we
will disagree about some (many) of them, let's admit that available
products today include a lot of great innovations.

But here's the thing - at first it was hard to tell which area of
"improvement" would really work.* I think most of the categories of
improvements we enjoy today had early failures - hilariously so in
some
cases, and they were surrounded by other "categorical failures", ideas
that really turned out to be entirely useless.

Here's a partial list (according to me) of big improvements I've seen
that weren't obvious in their first appearance:

Low-cost aluminum... cranks, derailleurs, etc.
I worked episodically in a Raleigh shop in the later 70's, assembling
new bikes.* Right about then Raleigh shifted from lots of steel (or
plastic) Nervar, Simplex, Huret stuff to aluminum Sugino, SunTour, and
SR stuff.* The latter was vastly easier to set up well.* But there was
junk (plenty of it?) in the cheap aluminum component category.* I
remember a cottered aluminum crank (!).* In the earlier 70s, I
doubt we
would have thought that low-cost aluminum parts could ever be good.

Quality clincher tires (first decent ones, then great ones).
When I started riding, no clincher came close to the quality, rolling
resistance, weight of sewups, pain-in-the-ass though they are.
Then SBI
(Specialized Bicycle Imports, later shortened), IRC, and then Michelin
started selling very nice clinchers, and Schwinn's outsourced "LeTour"
tires were good too.* Today I can get "handmade" non-vulcanized
tires by
Challenge, Veloflex, or major brands like Vittoria that come pretty
close to duplicating sewup feel, rolling resistance, and (almost)
weight.* Or I can get midweight vulcanized tires that are only
slightly
heavier.
But some of the earlier attempts at "clincher reform" were, IIRC,
pretty
crappy.* One could easily have thought that "quality clincher" was a
pipe dream that would never take root.

Clipless pedals
This one is huge for me.* When I had toestraps tightened enough to
work
- and I kept 'em pretty loose - I still had killer problems with cold
feet in winter.* With clipless, I have lots of room for shoe covers,
etc., not to mention other advantages.* I know we don't all agree, but
the overwhelming adoption of clipless can't /just/ be marketing.
BUT OMG were there a bunch of poor, crappy, and even
disastrous/dangerous clipless designs early on.* Sampson comes to
mind,
or especially the Cinelli M71 pedal.* I've forgotten the names of most
of the others, but they certainly gave the impression that clipless
pedals were crazy.

Indexed shifting
Again, we don't all agree, but the overwhelming majority of cyclists
seem to think that index shifting is a pretty neat idea.* Despite some
real turkeys early on (Positron and Positron II, anyone?), turkeys
that
"clearly" signaled that index shifting was an answer to a question
nobody asked, it turns out you *can* make a quality indexed shifter.
Who knew?

I could go on.* Brifters, LED/LiPo lights, aluminum and carbon frames,
bicycle computers, nylon saddles (that's reaching back many years),
and
yes, disc brakes, etc. - and all those advances coming on the scene
with
many poor early designs, and surrounded by junk we still laugh about
that never amounted to anything.* But if we could tell which
inventions
would blossom when we first saw them, we'd all have invested in Intel
and Microsoft in the 70's and be rich now.

So even though I agree with Frank about "churn" in large part, that
churn turns out a few not-immediately-recognizable innovations that
most
of us are glad about.* A sort of Darwinian evolution, if you will.
While the industry may be super-mature, it ain't done yet.

Mark J.

I can remember when BIYCLING magazine had an article about NOT
needing 15
gears on a bicycle. They stated in their article that 10 gears was
more than enough.

I've tried clipless pedals but had problems getting out of them at
times
and then falling over and getting scraped up a bit. Therefore I went
back
to toeclips. For most of my riding I don't even have to snug up the
straps let alone tighten them up yet my feet stay on* the pedals.
Besides, toestraps have LOTS of other uses. I've used one to keep a
dressing on a cut on a leg. I've used them to secure a jacket and
tights
to the underside of my saddle after the temperatures rose to from quite
chilly to quite warm. I've used a toestrap to secure an extra water
bottle under a saddle. I've looped a toestrap around my handlebar and
stem and used it as makeshift bottle holder to hold a* cup of coffee. I
used 2 toestraps joined together to hold something to the rear rack
on a
bicycle. Hard to do any of that if you have clipless pedals. LOL
VBEG ;)

I can remember too when downtube shifters sometimes would wear, or at
least the innards would, to the point where it was nearly impossible to
keep in the gear one wanted.

I think pneumatic clincher tires with separate tubes, decent
derailleurs
and decent index shifting are 3 of the major innovations that caused
bicycling to grow as much as it has in North America.

I like my Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters on my touring bike. The left
shifter is ratchet and thus it's dead simple to trim the front
derailleur. I find I shift more often on hills with a load with the
Ergos
t han I did even with bar-end shifters. However, I still like my
downtube
shifters that i have on some of my other bikes. I especially like my
top-center mounted Dura Ace AX shifters and my top-center downtube
mounted Suntour symetric shifters (?) because they can be shifted front
and rear with just one hand at the same time.

In winter I really like my Lyotard MB23 platform pedals*. They're
Frank's favourite pedals.

For me and for many others even 7 gears in t he rear with 2 or 3
chainrings is plenty. I like Shimano 9-speed clusters because I can set
them up with 7 cogs for most riding but with 2 larger cogs for bailout
gears. I use a Campy Ergo 9-speed shifters and rear derailler to
shift my
9-speed Shimano cassette on my touring bike.

Some folks who are really into fitness riding or fast-paced group
riding
probably love more gears because the increases in effort between gears
isn't as great as it is in 7, 6, or 5 speed cassettes.

Again a lot of bicycle innovations are different horses for
different courses.

At least now we have a lot of equipment choices that can be used to
give
us the customized bike we WANT or NEED for OUR style of riding.


That last sentence says it all.



--
duane

Something the 'dinosaurs' will never understand and claim everone is a
victim of marketing.

Of course, there are innovations and improvements. And of course, any
given improvement will matter to some people more than others. But I
think it's naive to pretend that all (or even most) changes are
significant improvements, or to pretend that marketing isn't a big part
of what drives purchases.

I also think it's naive to attach the label "dinosaur" to people who
realize all this. Do you mock people who don't have tattoos?

No mocking here, but a serious question. Do you see a lot of pretense
(beyond the marketing, e.g. Buycycling magazine) that all these changes
/are/ big improvements?

Maybe I'm too deeply mired in my own cynicism, but I always thought that
most folks knew to discount 99% of marketing. Sure, there's a sucker
born every minute, but are you meeting a lot of them?

Again, intended as a serious question.

Mark J.


Re Bicycle Magazines. It seems to me that "way back when" bike
magazines used to have articles that actually told one something. The
first time I was actually told the best way to set up a road bike,
i.e. how far back and how high to set the seat for best results, was
in a magazine.

I remember one of their recommendations was to always to wear a tee
shirt under your jersey. This allowed the jersey to slide on your tee
shirt rather than on your skin and would help to prevent road rash :-)
Now, they seem to be a series of product evaluations thinly masked as
"tests" that always seem to glorify the product being tested.


Cheers,
John B.

I would be much more likely to buy something advertised in those magazines
if at least one review per issue said "This product is crap. We can't in
good conscience advise that you buy it."

Alternatively, if "Every product is great!", then why do I need to read the
reviews in the magazine?