Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Gear Talk / Re: Disc Trucker + Schwalbe Marathon Deluxe.. rim?
« Last post by RussSeaton on Today at 05:58:17 pm »
I'll repeat what everyone else has said.  Use the tires that came on the bike.  On my touring bike I have some 35mm wide Specialized tires I think.  They are wide, thick, heavy.  Just what I want on a touring bike.  Not sure I have ever flatted them.  I think 35mm is a great width for a touring bike.  38 or 32 is also good.  Doubt it makes any difference which width you pick.  For flats I do think wide, thick, heavy is the way to go for the least.

I am a fan of Brooks saddles and do advocate getting one.  Not the one with built in springs though.  I have one of those in a box in the basement.  Never used it.  On the many bikes I have a B17, Swift, Team Pro copper, and Team Pro classic.  There are two Team Pro saddles.  One with hand hammered rivets and one with machine stamped rivets.  The machine stamped rivets one is best because the hand hammered rivets eventually stick up and cut your shorts.  The machine stamped rivets are smoothed over so they don't cut your shorts.

As for rim, use what came on the bike.  Heavy, wide rims with lots of spokes are great.  36 spokes is best.  I suppose 32 will work if you have to use it.  But 36 is best.  Heavy rims are best for touring.  For touring you do not want light.  Heavy!
Gear Talk / Re: Disc Trucker + Schwalbe Marathon Deluxe.. rim?
« Last post by PeteJack on Today at 02:51:21 pm »
as everyone has said... use the ones that came with the bike. they're decent tyres. i find it useful to swap over the front and back after a while to get more even wear out of them.
Sheldon differs on this. You want the tire that is least likely to blow out (i.e. the least worn) on the front. 'Rotating' by moving the front tire to the back and putting a new one on the front is acceptable
Anyone had any 1st hand tour experience traveling from along The Silver Comet Trail (GA) / Chief Ladiga Trail (AL) south to anywhere along the Gulf Coast, safely....meaning some hope for shoulders and/or low traffic with avoidance of larger towns (e.g., Columbus, Auburn, Montgomery, etc.). 
'Total dream fulfillment' :- ) would be to find a route to Apalachicola, FL vicinity, however, I'd be elated to learn how to just get my toes in the sand/surf anywhere along the Gulf, as requested.
GPS Discussion / Re: New Garmin Edge Touring
« Last post by mdxix on April 18, 2014, 05:01:00 pm »
I got mine.  You should get yours.  I have 5 garmin devices and this one is by far the best for touring.  The battery is an issue, but my hub dynamo remedies that.
Are any of your other devices in the Edge series? Why do you think the Touring is "by far the best for touring"?

I have found the Edge series works best for me across all my activities. While I do agree with your statement, I am curious what you found appealing in this device.
GPS Discussion / Re: New Garmin Edge Touring
« Last post by recumbentted on April 18, 2014, 03:38:09 pm »
I got mine.  You should get yours.  I have 5 garmin devices and this one is by far the best for touring.  The battery is an issue, but my hub dynamo remedies that.
Gear Talk / Re: 11-32 vs 11-34
« Last post by John Nelson on April 18, 2014, 01:26:35 pm »
Slopes of  8 degrees is about the maximum you will see on the TransAm.
I think you'll find a lot of people who would dispute that.
Gear Talk / Re: 11-32 vs 11-34
« Last post by mathieu on April 18, 2014, 12:11:09 pm »
If you have to ask this question, the best advice is: take 11-34.
As others have said, the difference between 32 and 34 is about half a gear change or -6% in speed at the same cadence. This doesn't sound much, but feels big in the lowest gear.

If you ride at 20 mph, the kinetic energy of your bike and body is about a factor of 20 higher than the energy input from one pedal rotation. If you stop pedalling for a moment the kinetic energy keeps you moving, speed drops slowly and as air resistance drops with the third power of speed, the speed drop is much less than linear with time.
But if you ride uphill with 3 mph, kinetic energy is only about half the energy input from each stroke and gravity weighs linear with speed (at constant gradient). Each pedal stroke has a sense of urgency and speed gets a sawtooth profile because the energy input is only substantial when the crank arms are near horizontal. This 'do-or-die' pounding of the pedals doesn't feel comfortable and doesn't look great.  The more rotations per minute, the smoother and more efficient the pedalling and the less the strain on body (knees) and mind. 

So why doesn't everybody opt for 34t? Well, there is a small weight penalty and the greater efficiency with faster pedalling stops at about 80 rpm. With a 22/32 combination and a 700-32c tires, at 80 rpm you advance about 2.0 m/sec (4.5 mph). At a gradient of 8 degrees, the altitude gain is 0.28 m/sec, which for a weight of 80 kg for rider+bike takes 220W (proportionally more if you are heavier or carrying an additional load). There are not many recreational cyclists around who can produce 220W power in steady-state, say over 20 minutes. Many will reach their limit at 175W steady power output. But those who can produce more power, are lighter or cycle lesser gradients, don't need 34t.

Slopes of  8 degrees is about the maximum you will see on the TransAm. Not in the Appalachians, but in the Ozarks. The Rockies and the Cascades are also less steep.
I don't think this is on any of the Adventure Cycling routes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, I'd like to get it on the appropriate addenda.

General Discussion / Re: no progress with Amtrak for GAP / C&O
« Last post by jamawani on April 18, 2014, 11:37:33 am »
Dave -

Passenger rail financial losses are a long and detailed subject - one that I have been involved with for some time - but also, one far too complex to discuss on cycle touring blogs. Suffice it to say that if I had an easy answer, I'd be Secretary of Transportation.

Almost all passenger rail all over the world has some degree of subsidy - but other forms of transportation do, too. Airports constructed at public expense - gate fees are only a fraction of cost. Cruise ship terminals. Etc. Etc. Despite the Highway Trust Fund - automotive transportation gets lots of hidden subsidies, too. That's why so many of us get rankled when people tell us to get our bikes off the road because THEY paid for them.

The only Amtrak route that makes money is the Northeast Corridor. Other corridors - like Los Angeles to Santa Barbara, Eugene to Vancouver - come close.  But loge-distance, overnight trains that have only one train each way per day have very high overhead, lengthy schedules, frequent delays, and high overhead costs. Washington to Chicago takes almost 18 hours on Amtrak - a little over an hour by air. Amtrak's travel time is the same as Greyhound's. Round-trip cost - - train - $188, bus - $180, plane - $240.

So even if Amtrak raised its fares to $240, they would still be losing $50+ per passenger and probably more since they would shed fare-conscious passengers to Greyhound. There are no easy answers - and getting bicycle baggage service to Cumberland is not going to be one of their top priorities - especially if it costs money.
GPS Discussion / Re: NEWB with GPS Help on Etrex30 (TransAm, Western Express)
« Last post by mdxix on April 18, 2014, 10:09:22 am »
In terms of the issue with J07740_48 is this the U-Turn that you were describing? It's West towards Ead's Municipal Airport. My map doesn't show the airport but I believe I identified it as Map 78 on TA section 7.
My reference to the U-turn example was at the end of Route J08870_46.

However, just the same, in the example you post below with Route J07740_48, you notice the route on the paper map continues from 287 directly to 96. However, in BaseCamp, it shows that it travels on 287, W Lowell Avenue, then loops on CR40, before it continues on 96.

These will not got you lost. They may just be minor nuances along the way. Verify your route against the paper maps.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10