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 - DaveB

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 105
So, should the benchmark of what tour reports go into Adventure Cyclist be whether or not a "normal" person can do it? And how would we define normal?
I knew the moment I wrote that that someone would jump on the term "normal"  No, I'm not against articles on exotic and unusual touring destinations but there has been a preponderance of them lately.  Perhaps more accessible locations have all been written about?

Nowadays, Adventure Cycling seems to reflect the schizophrenia within ACA itself.  I expect to read "Biking with Brown Bears" any issue now.  It'll be right after an announcement that some paved ACA route has moved off a four-lane road, recently paved, with daily traffic of 500 vehicles, because a parallel rail-trail opened up surfaced with leftover riprap, all because someone wrote an impassioned blog post on how uncomfortable they were riding on a road without a shoulder and sent a link to AC.  O'Grady's "reviews" are cute, but they're like "Buycycling for Touring Bikes;" slap a "touring" label on a kid's tricycle and he'll find two pages of lovely things to say about it.

Whew.  Makes me question why I'm still a member?
I still enjoy reading AC but I agree that some of the articles are getting pretty far afield from rides "normal" people can even think of doing.   I further agree with your take on O'Grady's bike reviews.  His definition of "Touring Bike" seems to be rather wide and includes some pretty unsuited bikes.  How can you recommend a touring bike that has a 52x11 high gear and a 39x25 low gear?

I keep the past year's worth of issues as those are the ones I'm likely to refer back too.  After that they go into the recycle bin.  Unless you have every issue ever printed from Volume 1 Number 1 onward I can't see the collection has any value. 

Gear Talk / Re: Fixing panniers
« on: August 17, 2016, 03:11:49 pm »
Assuming the panniers are nylon (or some marketing name that still means nylon) an iron-on patch is likely to require enough heat to melt the base fabric too.  You can probably find an adhesive backed fabric such as that sold to repair tents and air mattresses that will stick over the hole, preferably on both sides of the pannier's cloth.   You can be sew around it for reenforcement.  Seam sealer can be used to restore water tightness.   

General Discussion / Re: SPD Cleats-SH51 Versus SH56?
« on: August 06, 2016, 07:25:55 pm »
I've used SH 51 single release for decades and tht's the only one I've used.
I ride mainly on the road with some single track. I want to know exactly how my
shoe will release. I do not want my foot to release when I pull up or move in any direction other
than heel out. No issues with SH 51 but,  I have never tried the multi release and don't intend to.
+1 My experience and feelings exactly.

Gear Talk / Re: The Newer Cro-Mo Steel Frames
« on: July 31, 2016, 11:00:03 pm »
A touring frame can be made that will survive the loads from steel that is not as good as real Cr-Mo but it will be heavier.  Who is to say that is not what is going on?  Actually I do believe Surly and Trek are deceiving.  They claim its Cro-Mo steel but it has not been verified to be Cro-Mo steel.  It meets no specifications that are accepted by the industry.  If you want to believe it's Cro-Mo steel that's up to you.  Think about it.  If you are a manufacturer of Cro-Mo steel tubing wouldn't you have it certified by to some standard to prove it?
This sounds more like a conspiracy theory than any fact-based claim.  If you really think the manufacturers are lying about the steel they use you could buy a couple of their frames and have the metal analyzed for composition and physical properties.  If you are correct, the resulting class action suit should get you a decent amount of settlement money.

As  Pat Lamb noted, "Cr-Mo" is indeed a commodity item and there is no reason to make a more specific claim than that.

Not so, if your bike is set up right.  I can get to the bar-ends on my bike from the bar tops or the hoods by swinging my arm down.  They're a lot more convenient that down tube shifters, at least for me.  I also ride in the drops when I'm climbing because I engage more muscles (into my lower back) there, which gives the quads and hamstrings a break.

You may say I'm an outlier, that They Say you should be in the tops while climbing, and Everybody does it that way.  Except for me, I suppose.  Doesn't that emphasize that the choice of where to put the shifters is a personal choice?
Barends are far more convenient than downtube shifters, no argument there. However, I still maintain that for the majority of riders barends are awkward at best to reach from anywhere but the drops and that most riders do not climb any significant grade in the drops. 

I expect you are indeed an outlier and of course you do have the choice of where to have your shifters.  That said, I still consider barends to be an awkward shifter location compared to brake lever mounted shifters for most riders. 

Gear Talk / Re: The Newer Cro-Mo Steel Frames
« on: July 31, 2016, 11:31:54 am »
You may be correct but newer "Cr-Mo" frames can be weighed to see if they are noticeably heavier than earlier ones made of "name brand" tubing and, since i haven't heard of a rash of broken current Cr-Mo frames I don't think durability has suffered. 

In today's market, steel frames make up the very high end (individual custom made frames) and the low end (entry level) bikes with a few in the middle like Surly and Trek's 510.  I'm pretty sure Surly and Trek aren't deceiving us.

You can shift bar ends without taking your hands off the bars, assuming you are in the drops.
That's a big assumption.  Most riders don't climb with their hands in the drops and that's the only hand position that barends are accessible from.

But really, I enjoy my bar-end shifter bike as much as my Ergo shifter bike, and which shifters I use makes approximately zero difference in how well I climb.
My personal objection to barends (and yes, I have them on one of my bikes) is not functionality but accessibility.  The work well but I find them very difficult to get to if I discover I need a lower gear in the middle of a climb.  If you can anticipate your shifts and shift while seated, fine.  If you are surprised by the grade and need to shift while standing, they are awkward at best.

STI/Ergo and "Retroshift" brifters can be shifted any time with minimal hand movement so being in the wrong gear can be corrected immediately.

Gear Talk / Re: Crankset Options
« on: July 05, 2016, 08:04:51 am »
All downtube (and barend) shifters are friction for front shifting so your Dura Ace downtube levers can be used with nearly any crank. 

The 10-speed Dura ace crank is a poor choice for a touring bike.  The 52T big chainring is indeed too large when paired with the common 11xXX 10-speed wide range cassette and the granny chainring is bolted to the middle chainring, not a separate bolt circle, so the 30T granny ring is the smallest that will fit.  You need a smaller granny ring in the range of 22T or 24T and that requires a crank with a 74 mm or smaller granny chainring bolt circle.

Shimano makes both MTB and "Trekking" cranks that are far more suitable and your downtube shifters will work with any of them. 

General Discussion / Re: Mississippi River barge ride
« on: July 01, 2016, 05:48:41 pm »
After reading some of their log, it appears things have changed a lot.  Thanks for sending that.  What gutsy girls.  It was another age, simple and relaxed.
Uhh, I don't think 1943 was a "simple and relaxed" age. 

Gear Talk / Re: LHT 26" wheels
« on: June 21, 2016, 01:18:28 pm »
Had some Mavic Open Pro rims that cracked at the eyelets.  So I don't like Mavic rims.
The earliest rim failure I ever had was with a Mavic Open 4CD which cracked at 11,000 miles but I've also had marvelous service from two sets of Mavic CXP-33 rims which are still going strong at over 35,000 miles each so you really can't generalize.

General Discussion / Re: Is this considered bikepacking?
« on: June 16, 2016, 06:27:13 pm »
Actually I think that's a subset of Bike Touring.  I'd call it "Credit Card Touring" since you aren't carrying a tent, sleeping gear or cooking gear.

Hmmm.  About 25 years ago when I did that in Europe I don't think I even had a credit card.  Paid cash for everything.  Was I "Cash Touring"?  And the real tourists who camp and cook, are they not allowed to use cash or credit cards at stores when buying supplies?  Do they have to barter for goods?
Cute.  "Credit card touring" is, of course, a modern term for touring while staying in hotels/motels and eating in restaurants or buying prepared food no matter how it is (or was) really paid for.   Then again, 25 years ago was 1991 and credit cards most certainly were in use but maybe no one trusted you to have one.   :P

General Discussion / Re: Is this considered bikepacking?
« on: June 16, 2016, 12:17:47 pm »
Actually I think that's a subset of Bike Touring.  I'd call it "Credit Card Touring" since you aren't carrying a tent, sleeping gear or cooking gear. 

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 105