Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
HowardR wrote:
Am I right in remembering that handlebars with a ‘aerofoil’ top section provide a similar drop in drag to most deep section wheels (& the flattening doesn’t have to be massively pronounced)?
Nope
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
This is the emperor’s new clothes, marketing people are dreaming this stuff up to try and get more sales.Nah, plenty people are and have actually been asking for it from what we’ve heard. It’s not for you – fine, you don’t have to buy it – and it certainly doesn’t suit all circumstances (no-one is pretending it is) but they’re hardly compelling reasons to think it’s all hype. The real world says your opinion isn’t shared by a significant number of people, do you have anything to back it up ? This perpetual whining about every new choice in cycling, often as though those who appreciate it somehow need ‘saving’ from their stupidity, is getting extremely tedious.
Yeah – fucking choice – it’s
Yeah – fucking choice – it’s a bitch.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Basically punters see CF bikes as throw away objects and accept it as simply that that’s the way it isNo, not really.
5-10Nm for alloy bolts and 8
5-10Nm for alloy bolts and 8-12Nm for steel would seem pretty normal – Campag 11s is 8Nm dry apparently (bike.owner will correct if wrong), Shimano was 8-10Nm IIRC but just had a quick look some of the newer stuff seems really high, e.g. T30s on the Dura Ace cranks is 12-16Nm (presumably dry). The FSA K-Force L and Omegas from my Wilier are 12Nm wet, no idea about the others.
Can’t people just admit they chose an online-only manufacturer to save money, and the trade off is there is no face to face local customer support/ handover, which has value to most/ some consumers, especially when things go wrong. Rubbishing the LBS model in this case seems to be an attempt to justify, or spin, one’s own buying decisions.What’s wrong with saving money?
..they also have really nice bikes (IMO), that might be quite important to some people…
If you read the canyon manual that comes with the bike it even advises not to use a workstand clamp on the frame.That’s pretty common advice, not just from manufacturers. Carbon frame tubes can be pretty robust in clamping situations..
..but it’s easy to over-do it with the lever clamps.
Ah but the 9100 rear mech is an absolute dogs dinner, it’s the fucking ugliest rear mech since some of the 80s weird shit, no actually, it doesn’t come close, it’s hideous beyond imagination.I don’t mind the look of the cranks, I stuck with my FSA K-Force light’s instead of getting a 9000, 9100 overall is a bit meh, mechanically I know it’s fab but honestly that rear mech I just can’t get over how much of a munter it is! I’d rather slap the 33T ring on (I’m usually a 52 or 50 + 36 guy for my terrain) and stick with the 28 or 30 than lower myself to such ugliness.
The older 6700 SS RD was designed for 30T and would do 32T easily, can’t understand why Shimano took a backward step with the 6800/9000 stated capacity
Personally I really like them – much sleeker, tucked away, much more like the MTB mechs (which is unsurprising..) – especially the top, cage is a bit whatever. The old 6700 mechs were OK, in all black, apart from that God awful barrel adjuster and cable guide that looked like they’d forgotten about it and had the intern CAD guy hack it on at the last moment – hideous. That whole black and silver thing too – jeezus wept that looked cheap and not particular cheerful.
All IMO of course.
I do prefer the new Ultegra RX mechs to both of them though 🙂
(Oh, looking at the old Shimano tech docs it looks like the 6700 SS RD had a stated capacity of 33, max 28T, min 11T and 16T front chainring difference – same as the 6800 and 9000 SS RDs – so they’ve not really changed the public specs and they still keep on shifting bigger cogs and larger gaps just like they always did. No dramas, they’re just being safe, but no idea why they don’t acknowledge it more either.)
ktache wrote:
Let’s not forget that all of those vehicle occupants who unfortunately died in crashes with head injuries were not wearing driving helmets.
IIRC if the French figures about that are applicable elsewhere, then the majority of those were in cases where the occupants were not properly restrained (e.g. no seat belt) or where the crash was considered unsurvivable n any event.
Bryton and Mio probably worth
Bryton and Mio probably worth a look too. Off the top of my head the Bryton 330/530 or Mio 3×5/5×5 series might appeal, although there’s certainly newer models out now (Bryton 410/450 look good at first glance, very good pricing again from them)
Also is anyone else getting the privacy popup on the new version of the mobile site shout – I get it every time I visit the site, but not on the classic version. Bloody annoying.Yep, getting that – same as you, not on the classic version.
Do we know whether the smart
Do we know whether the smart-phone version is supposed to be considered release quality – rather than alpha/beta phase – yet ? I mean, it’s obviously not – but wondered if anyone had heard one way or another..
Increasing the wheel size is
Increasing the wheel size is sort of reversing the reason why people are interested in bikes capable of using more than one wheel size and in particular why using smaller rim diameters in nominally 700c road bikes is appealing. Reasons why this is perhaps a good call has been done to death recently, along with why 650b rather than other pre-established rim sizes might be slightly more convenient. That marketing has jumped on board should be a surprise to no-one, but it’s not the only thing driving this. Obviously none of this is new, it’s not a million miles away from what happened in the US and New Zealand that basically started the split of mountain bikes as a separate ‘thing’ in peoples minds in the first place, and larger tyres were more the norm until relatively recently anyway. Also none of this is absolutely necessary, I think that’s a given, but that’s not to say there isn’t any reason to consider it – at least conceptually.
I’ll not do things justice this late, so look elsewhere for more coherent reasoning, but here’s a couple of things to consider IMO.
Firstly, wider tyres can lead to more comfort (modulo pressure, casing structure, tubes etc) but as you go to wider tyres, wider rims also start to make more sense. This is more especially as you go more mixed use, on- and off-road, e.g. reducing rim roll-over / burping / pinch punctures (esp lower pressures), general bead/rim integrity, more tyre choice. Again, nothing essential, just potentially better behaviour – hell it can even make the tyre/combo more aero but that’s highly unlikely to be remotely an issue. This is a subject that could be discussed on it’s own forever seemingly… 🙂 That said, as you go wider on the rim, you get heavier so smaller diameter makes more sense – you also get more opportunity to build more robust wheels that might make sense in the places where they’re going to be used.
Secondly, the wider you go – the taller you go. Not a massive difference, but that’s one line that is being pushed. Would you notice if someone inflated your tyres by half an inch or an inch ? Probably/possibly. Is it critical ? No, of course not – although personally i’d prefer a bike that rode the same as much as possible. The thing is, it makes more sense for frame designers to design a frame and fork that copes with a slighty smaller range of possible wheel/tyre diameters and it’s ultimately easier, cheaper and ultimately more convenient to the consumer if you have something that copes with that choice if that’s what you think you might want. If not, there’s never going to be shortage of people to sell you a bike more suitable for your more specific requirements.
So, that’s what I think is partly the concept – the practical point is that 650b/27.5″ is massively popular in the mountain bike world, with the associated manufacturing and research resource, and it has no sign of disappearing soon. There is also a huge choice of tyres and rims regardless of what hubs they’re strapped to. That should have obvious appeal to manufacturers, OEM users, retailers and consumers. Are there other rim formats that could have been used ? Sure, but what benefit might they have over something which is already well-established, widely available, affordable, technically profficient and with recognition in the market..
Bottom line – if you want to ride properly varied surfaces and if you can get a frame with space for wide and high tyres, different hub specs then why not… and 650b/27.5″ isn’t going away anytime soon. Is it something you need to sell your soul for ? Probably not..
Tony – I know you guys must
Tony – I know you guys must have a lot happening on the site at the moment, but would there be any chance of some resource to spare for the search facility while that’s going on ? (…or any other time)
There used to be one on the
There used to be one on the right-hand side of the blue banner – but it appears to have gorn now. It’s not really much of a loss as that one (from the last site rewrite) was basically useless – Canyon48s suggestion is probably the closest way of getting anything slightly sane.
The road.cc search gave some matches in an apparently random order, missed many, and there was no way to filter, sort or otherwise do anything with the results. Multi-word queries were the search equivalent of a random number generation. I’ve honestly never come across a worse search facility, even back in the usenet / gopher days.