Here’s how to build a 3.6kg road bike + Santini’s non-denim Denim jacket, the freakiest shifter position ever and new stuff from Cadex, Festka, Rouvy + more

adamrice wrote:

Those Tririg pedals are very similar to Aerolite pedals, which I had the dubious pleasure of riding on in the 1980s and which still seem to be in production.

Somewhere in the most ancient box of bike bits (or maybe in the woodworking shed) I still have a pair of those - the pedals, that is, not the shoe plates. I bought them with 90% off (or something like that) at Settle Cycles in the late 80s. No one else was daft enough to buy them so they'd been in there for years.

The pedals are well made of good stuff but the shoe plates were huge red plastic things with a slot only just wide enough to push the shoe plate on to the pedal axle. Pulling them off again could be an alarming experience, often completed only just in time to prevent a topple; and perhaps resulting in a pulled muscle (in the leg; or in the face, from the alarm-gurn that provided observers with a fine entertainment). 

The shoe plates were also lethal if one attempted a walk from bike to cafe door. They were immensely tall - one's shoes became like those daft lady high heels things only in reverse - highsoles. Teeter-totter.

I used them twice, in a foolish effort to reduce the weight of a bike used on a bumpy time trial course. After lots of near-topples and many teeters with even those brief uses, they went in a box to gather dust for the next 35 years.

The shoe plates got tossed but I hung on to the pedals in the vain hope I could find another use for them. So far, nothing - although they would probably make a good crank rotator for use when the bike's in the workstand and you're twirling the cranks to set up gears and the like ..... .

Unlike others, I have managed to ride Aerolites for close to 15 years. They are very satisfying if you are persistent or obsessive enough to sort them out. All the frustration is due to the clips (yes, clips), that require you to drill your shoe  soles like in the olden times. The SPD plate adapters are clunky and really only tolerable while you find your foot position. Then there is the little matter of clipping in and out: the clipping action is based on the inherent flexibility of the clip but is also affected by the exact degree of tightness of the screws (at least with rigid carbon soles - this probably wasn't as issue with the flexy cycling shoes of the eighties).
The amazing thing is that this rubegoldbergian contraption works amazingly well when set up right, lasting forever, requiring little to no maintenance, spinning freely, holding the foot securely and releasing quickly. They are, of course, ridiculously light: about 95g for the pedals, clips and screws.

NOtotheEU wrote:

Road cyclists have finally discovered what the rest of humanity already knew, Schrader valves are better than presta. 😉

How many obsessives will now be drilling out the valve hole of their presta rims so they can follow this latest mini-fad? How many will find unforseen consequences of trying to change their valves, from Schrader tubes with valves too short, to cracked rims from inept hole enlargements; and more SNAFUs?

"Better" is a word found all over the cycling gubbins adverts and articles. It always begs two questions:

* Better by what criteria; and tested for betterment how: against every criterion that matters or just one criterion obsessed over by someone?

* Why must all things be put into hierarchies-of-worth rather than just seen as just items with various aspects appealing to different aesthetic tastes or preferences?

One answer is that manufacturers like to use hierarchies of worth, and the movement of various gubbins up and down them, as a handy way to differentiate prices (with plenty of otherwise unjustifiable high prices for the top dogs) and to persuade we dafties to buy new! improved! at last! things we don't need and perhaps shouldn't want.

I've had two rims fail due to rim brake wear long before they reached the wear limit (being 17 stone probably didn't help) but never had a problem with the rims I've drilled to take Schrader and you can buy tubes with long Schrader valves.

Schrader are better in every way unless the 2mm difference in size matters. There must be a reason every other product in the world that needs air to be inserted uses Schrader valves.

I copied this because i'm too lazy to type that much;

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/this-is-why-its-time-to-stop-using-pr...

1. Presta valves are fragile

This is my biggest annoyance. Once a Presta valve stem is unscrewed it’s a whispy, delicate aluminum rod. Bending it, or snapping it clean off happens, and that can ruin a ride. That sucks.

Maxxis’ marketing guy Bobby Brown acknowledged this, saying: “Presta valves are great since the valve cores can easily be replaced without a proprietary tool, but the valves are more frequently replaced due to damage.” 

2. Presta valves need an adaptor or a special pump

I know the bike industry loves standards, and speciality tools, and ways of doing things, but does it have to extend to what should be the most simple task of all — adding air to tires? 

You probably know what’s on nearly every corner in every town. I’m going to clue you in, it’s not a bike shop. It’s a gas station, where more often than not they have an air hose. But if your bike tire is low and you have Presta valves that air hose is practically worthless without the little adaptor. 

Look at virtually every other pneumatic thing that requires air inflation: cars, airplanes, plumbing, even Dakar rally suspension, they all use Schrader valves. If Presta was the superior valve to be used, other industries would use them.

3. Presta valves involve more steps

It comes down to ease of use and Presta valves have the extra steps of unscrewing the valve to add air, then remembering to tighten the valve down. Both valves have little plastic tops, which aren’t necessary, but do offer a bit of protection and keep dirt out.

4. Air retention is the same

As far as air retention, it comes down to the tube or the tubeless set up more so than the valve. “Both (valves) test similarly on air retention assessments,” according to Maxxis’ Brown.

5. Presta is just another confusing bike thing

Like left hand threads, 15 bottom brackets standards, ridiculous wheel size naming (700c?, 650B?, 27.5in?), clipless pedals to clip into; the industry should help us cyclists on the valve thing.

Weirdly enough the bike industry, and unfortunately some bikers, can have an elitist air about them. But does that elitism have to extend to our air valves. Really?

6. Presta removable cores come unthreaded at the worst of times. 

Pump heads that screw onto the valve can unscrew the Presta core. This does happen and it’s a huge pain in the @*$

Thanks to tubeless tires, more and more Presta valves have removable cores for adding sealant. Because the core can be unthreaded, I’ve had a Presta valve core come unscrewed more than a few times when I was miles away from help. 

It happens with pump heads that screw on (like Lezyne), and it’s a severe let down to think you’re almost finished up fixing a flat only to have all the air you just pumped in come rushing out as you pull off the pump. 

7. Schrader drilled rims can use either valve

Backwards compatibility! Moving to Schrader valves can be done to most rims. I say most because I’m in no way recommending drilling carbon rims.

Plus, if your rims are drilled for larger Schrader valves, you’re in luck with either valve. If your rims are only Presta, not so much. And you don’t have to have a Presta valve for tubeless, tubeless Schrader valves do exist!

8. Schraders allow more air for tubeless set up

I'm happy with my fillmores.

East and West, some great bands on there.

That list of schrader valve advanatages you provide makes a persuasive case for them. There's only one significant drawback (the usual drawback in a million other such choices): the inertia of the extant.  There are so many wheels and tubes that are designed and made for Presta valves; and millions of them already out there working well enough. 

So, whilst its not impossible to change, the inertia of the extant would be a big drag-anchor on the launch of any such effort to change to schrader. And how significant would be the improvements of a valve change for most presta valve users? Very little, in my own case, as I find no difficulty with presta so wouldn't spend the time, money and effort to change to Schrader, even though the time, money and effort would be relatively small.

I suspect this will be the case for most Presta valve users, especially those with lots of them on different bikes and wheelsets.

Unfortunately I have to agree With you. I've hated presta since I got my first 10 speed and done everything I can to avoid them ever since. As long as I can buy my preferred tubes and have a sharp 8mm drill bit I'm happy.

Cugel wrote:

That list of schrader valve advanatages you provide makes a persuasive case for them. There's only one significant drawback (the usual drawback in a million other such choices): the inertia of the extant.  There are so many wheels and tubes that are designed and made for Presta valves; and millions of them already out there working well enough. 

So, whilst its not impossible to change, the inertia of the extant would be a big drag-anchor on the launch of any such effort to change to schrader. And how significant would be the improvements of a valve change for most presta valve users? Very little, in my own case, as I find no difficulty with presta so wouldn't spend the time, money and effort to change to Schrader, even though the time, money and effort would be relatively small.

I suspect this will be the case for most Presta valve users, especially those with lots of them on different bikes and wheelsets.

Presta valves are lighter though. I'll never get that 3-4g back, you know.

Well, if you're running a Jones Mountain Goat-ee (tm) you could try a good trim?