Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - staehpj1

Pages: 1 ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... 128
1666
Gear Talk / touring seat
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:09:43 am »
Wanderingwheel covered the details very nicely, but I will add a comment or two.  Whatever saddle is comfortable for riding around home should work on tour.  If you can do longish rides at home in reasonable comfort you should be OK on the trip.

I would only sweat the saddle thing if you have a problem with your current saddle.  I rode the TA with the stock saddle on my low priced touring bike (as did my two companions).  We all did fine and didn't have any saddle related complaints.

Do be sure to either have lots of base miles in before the trip or take it easy for the first week to 10 days.  In fact an easy pace for a week or so is a good idea in any case.  If you don't have a lot of miles in before the trip don't sweat that too much just don't push hard until you are in the groove a bit.


1667
Gear Talk / touring seat
« on: September 12, 2008, 09:25:06 am »
That is a nice thoughtful answer.  Far better than the drivel that usually follows this question.

This message was edited by staehpj1 on 9-12-08 @ 6:26 AM

1668
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 17, 2008, 12:32:39 pm »
I disagree about fleece balaclavas being overkill. In the 30's and below they are a great comfort and don't get soggy with sweat.

Different strokes...
Personally I can't stand them and wouldn't even consider one until it is in the low teens.  By the low teens I am usually not riding much and turn to running and indoor rowing.

I am not knocking balaclavas for those who like them, but...  If you are like me and don't care for balaclavas, I have found that a bit of Vaseline on the face (especially at the cheekbones) works well to prevent windburn and mild frostbite.


1669
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 12, 2008, 09:14:25 am »
"Not sure how this is possible assuming both panniers have accurate size descriptions.  Volume is simply a mathematical equation.  From recollection I'd say the Nashbar panniers are roughly 14" high, 10" wide, 8" deep.  That gets to 1120 cubic inches per pannier.  2240 for the pair.  They are more or less rectangular shaped with one main pocket so easily accomodate almost anything."[list=1]
  • Accurate size descriptions cannot always be assumed.
  • The state of the closure changes the volume greatly.  My recollection is that the mountain bike pannier had a drawstring closure on the top and the waterproof had a rolldown closure.  If they measure the one without cinching down the drawstring and the other with the top rolled down a couple rolls the difference would be quite significant.
  • The mountain bike panniers had a large pocket and a large top compartment in the flap if I remember correctly.  Pockets are best not stuffed full in my experience and usually hold a few items for quick access.  My experience has always been that for panniers or packs, if a significant portion of the volume was pockets, I could fit a lot less gear in them.

"As for being floppy, the more you stuff them, the more they hold their shape.  But they have a compression strap so you can easily squish them to keep them from being floppy."

I agree that IF they were stuffed full this would not have been a problem.  It this case they were not.  The things that stuffed well were mostly stuff they wanted to keep dry so they were in the other three waterproof panniers.

The items in these panniers were items that fluctuated in volume a lot like food and snacks.  There was also a water bladder in them (complete with hose and bite valve attached up on the bar).  The additional items were clothes taken off or expected to be needed later in the day.  The pockets contained thing that needed to be accessible like sunscreen and so on.

So in this case they might have been stuffed at times and fairly empty at others.  This was the source of the problem.

This message was edited by staehpj1 on 9-12-08 @ 6:16 AM

1670
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 11, 2008, 12:14:18 pm »
FWIW: Those Nashbar mountain panniers may be rated at 2200 cubic inches but in practice we found that they held WAY less that our 2310 cubic inch rear waterproofs.  It seemed like half as much fit in them and they seemed closer to our 1056 cubic inch front ones.

My two riding companions used 1 each (on one side in the front with a Nashbar waterproof on the other side).  They kept the stuff they wanted to get to quick in the mountain panniers.  They were kind of flimsy and flopped around.  After a while they tended to get into the spokes until I tywraped a stick to the rack to keep them from rubbing.

This message was edited by staehpj1 on 9-11-08 @ 9:14 AM

1671
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 11, 2008, 07:43:33 am »
The panniers we used were 2310 cubic inches for the rear and 1056 for the front.  I think they are quite adequate for any length tour.  My preference is to carry tent and maybe sleeping pad on top of the rear rack.

The tent gets folded along it's long axis so the bottom is on the outside with the fly rolled up with it, but in a way that the moisture is kept out of the tent. It doesn't get any wetter even if it gets rained on during the ride.  I never put the tent inside the panniers because the bottom and fly are often damp and sometimes wet.


1672
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 10, 2008, 12:31:39 pm »
On trailers vs panniers...

I think the extra weight of a trailer is a handicap.  That may vary though.  If you choose heavy panniers and racks it can be just as bad.  Some of the weight of a trailer is offset by a lighter bike if you use it with a road bike rather than a touring bike.

If you ride with others it is hard to draft behind a trailer.

It is a pain to fly with a bike and trailer.  If you ship it instead it is another thing to ship.

I like the compartmentalization of multiple panniers.

Trailers are awkward to park in some places where space is limited.

I have heard of folks having problems with trailer handling on high speed descents (I have not seen this myself)

OTOH...

Trailers are easy to pack and carry a lot.  

Trailers allow the use of a regular road bike (assuming low enough gearing).

Trailers seem to be preferred by many off road tourists.

Trailers can be quickly detatched to go ride unencumbered.


1673
Gear Talk / Equipment Qestions For A New Guy
« on: September 09, 2008, 12:27:29 pm »
I assume that you mean that you will ride the Western Express to the TA since the TA does not go through Utah.  If you go east from there you will be missing the best parts of the Trans America in my opinion.  If possible for an east bound TA I would start in Oregon.  Your call though.

No experience with the Jamis Auroras and Bianchi Volpes, but I was happy with my Windsor Touring ($599 including shipping) for the TA last summer.  The most popular touring bike right now has to be the Surly LHT complete and it is under $1000 including shipping.

I have tried both and prefer panniers to a trailer.  Some like the BOB trailer.

The Nashbar or Performance waterproof panniers are cheap, durable, often on sale, and we were well satisfied with them.  We liked the Blackburn EX-1 rack on the rear and performance or nashbar clones of the Blackburn Lowrider on the front.  All of that stuff is reasonably priced and it goes on sale often.  Ours was all still like new after 73 days on the Trans America.

For cold weather riding pile top with a shell over it and a pair of winter weight tights (maybe windproof in the front) work well.  Hands and feet are the hardest part of staying warm.  Shoes loose enough to wear thick wool socks help.  Tight shoes cut off circulation too much for cold weather riding.  Some kind of booties over them help too.  Down to 10F I am OK with some Cannondale long fingered gloves that I have.  Sorry don't know the model.

You might find our journal of the Trans America interesting and useful.  Also read other journals on cgoab.
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/staehling2007



1674
Gear Talk / Head & Seat Tube Angle affect on Frame Behavior
« on: August 28, 2008, 10:19:28 am »
From Sheldon Browns website:

Angles
    The usual angles that are referred to in frame design are the head-tube (or fork) angle and the seat-tube angle. These angles are usually measured with reference to the horizontal. The typical range is from 68 to 75 degrees.

    In general, bicycles with shallower, "slack", "relaxed" angles (lower numbers) tend to be more stable and comfortable. Bicycles with steeper, more upright angles (higher numbers) tend to be manuverable, but less comfortable on rough surfaces. Shallower frames tend to have longer wheel bases than more upright frames; bicycles with shallower head angles normally have more fork rake. All of these factors contribute to the riding characteristics cited.


1675
Gear Talk / Newbie Tire Question
« on: August 13, 2008, 07:52:01 pm »
Presta or Schrader valves?  I will guess Presta, if so...

First you did unscrew the little thingie on the valve stem right?

If so the next thing is that the valves have a tendancy to stick a bit.  Start by letting just a bit of air out to be sure it isn't stuck.  Then try again.


1676
Gear Talk / Clipless w/float and platform please
« on: August 16, 2008, 06:44:20 am »
Quality control seems like it might be poor on the Wellgos so maybe they are variable from one set to another, but the Wellgos on my daughter's bike seem to have a bit more float than the spds on my bike.  Both have lots of miles on them and hers feel kind of worn out so I suspect that the extra is from wear despite the fact that the spds have much more mileage on them.

That said I doubt your statement that the Wellgos have less float, at least in the case of the two pairs that I have experience with.  They were both purchased at the same time so perhaps a different batch might be different.

Edit: Forgot to mention...  There is no way that any of the SPDs in my stable have 4 degrees each way for a total of 8 degrees of float.

This message was edited by staehpj1 on 8-16-08 @ 3:57 AM

1677
Gear Talk / Clipless w/float and platform please
« on: August 14, 2008, 02:27:48 pm »
Also SPD's have always had 6° of float.

Do you have a link that says that?  I checked several listings and... They all said that SPD as 4 degrees and SPD-SL as 6 degrees.

Note that both real Shimano and Wellgo list 4° of float for non SL models which are a different product entirely.


1678
Gear Talk / Clipless w/float and platform please
« on: August 11, 2008, 07:48:48 am »
Good luck on the tour!


1679
Gear Talk / Clipless w/float and platform please
« on: August 08, 2008, 03:13:19 pm »
Thanks for jogging my brain on the one way float thing, but ...  The regular SPDs that I see listed are 4 degrees of float.  The SPD-SLs are listed as 6 degrees but they are a different animal entirely.

I agree on the float not being one way though.  Yes, if it is one way it is because you aren't in the middle.

If 2 degrees each way is adequate there is at least two shimano offerings that have spd on one side and a cage on the other.  There are also a couple that have the spd in a cage of sorts.  Look at the "All Mountain" models and the "Multi-Purpose" models on the Shimano web site.

My daughter used some Forte campus pedals on the TransAmerica (actually rebranded Wellgo spd compatible).  They were OK, but she said on hind sight she would use a two sided spd on tour.  She like the reversible option on campus though.

This message was edited by staehpj1 on 8-8-08 @ 11:14 AM

1680
Gear Talk / Clipless w/float and platform please
« on: August 08, 2008, 09:29:57 am »
Maybe a crazy idea, but if all else fails and you could possibly take a Dremel tool to a pair of SPD cleats and gain a bit of float.  You would have to figure out where exactly to remove material, but it probably wouldn't take much to get a couple degrees of float.

Then again you might just destroy a set of cleats.


Pages: 1 ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... 128