Messages

31

General Discussion / Re: In the hunt for...a travel mug that fits in water bottle cage

« on: March 22, 2022, 11:09:36 pm »

The Stanley that Ty0604 mentions works. I have one as well.

The insulated mugs offered by Klean Kanteen and Hydro Flask also fit in bottle cages well. I also use them.

32

General Discussion / Re: Free Air

« on: February 28, 2022, 05:52:01 pm »

Yeah, me too.  If you have higher volume tires a higher pump is in order.  I have found it a little annoying to fully inflate my MTB tires from flat with my mini pump.  I most often have toured on fairly skinny tires though so the smaller pumps are usually fine.

I know that in Ye Olden Days of Touring, bike frame pumps were not that powerful, and the only way to increase the power was to increase the length of the pump. I'll admit there is something aesthetically pleasing about a frame pump tucked under the top tube, and they can come in handy during a dog attack.

But the mini foot pump with hose and pressure gauge is just so much better, and not that expensive--you can get a good one for $40 to $60. I'd rather have a pump that's not a chore to use instead of finding a gas station to keep my tires inflated.

That being said, some of the new mini pumps are actually really good. I have a Leyzene Pocket Drive that I got because I needed a small pump. I had to use it once, and I was amazed at how fast it inflated!

33

General Discussion / Re: Free Air

« on: February 28, 2022, 12:07:10 pm »

I haven't used "gas station air" in forever. I'm more of a fan of buying a decent portable bike pump. The "mini-floor" models can get you up to full inflation pretty quickly. Not as quick as a compressor, mind you, but pretty quick. And mine has a gauge on it so I know how much air I need.

If you do use the gas station air and have presta valves, remember to bring an adaptor!

34

General Discussion / Re: Does size matter?

« on: February 02, 2022, 05:38:54 pm »

Adventure,I know some about the various sizes.  It  was my understanding the big difference between the 650s was the rim (thus the tire probably) width.  I am/was currently running 700 on my Americano but the Thorn has 559 as does the Beckman.  One thing I did not like about the Co-Motion is that it could not take tires wider than 37mm.  When I was doing mixed surface tours on it, at times I really wished I could have gone wider on the gravel roads.

I know that there are more width choices in 700C/29" tires these days, but a lot of the bikes designed for 700C wheels can't handle bigger tires. I had a circa 2008 LHT with 700C wheels, and despite "Fatties Fit Fine", 35mm was about as wide as I could get. (This was mostly due to my front Jandd rack, so if I switched to a different rack I may have been able to increase width somewhat.) And for the longest time, 35mm on a 700C wheel was considered "fat". Bikes designed with 650B or 26" wheels were usually (though not always) designed for widths north of 35mm.

Sounds like you want wider tires. I'd go for the option where you can get the widest possible. I got my custom Bantam built around 26"/559 wheels that can take tires up to 2.4" wide and don't regret it one bit.

35

General Discussion / Re: Does size matter?

« on: February 02, 2022, 02:23:57 pm »

What size 650 wheel are we talking about? Getting pedantic, there are four different 650 wheel sizes--650, 650A, 650B, 650C. The outer diameter of the wheel is nominally supposed to be 650mm/65 cm, which in Imperial is just about 26 inches at 25.6". The idea was that the "higher" the letter designation, the smaller the rim diameter and the wider the tire. Straight 650 would have narrow tires and 650C the widest tire, but the outside wheel diameter would stay 650mm across the range. Over the years that idea got thrown out and we have really skinny 650C tires and super-wide 650B.

I'm guessing when you say "650" you mean "650B", which is the most common 650 size these days. The French have been using 650B for many decades. It got popularized here in the US in the last 15 years or so, and I don't think it's going away anytime soon, especially since mountain biking is getting into 27.5", which is essentially the same as 650B when it comes to rim fit.

What size wheels are you currently running, John? (And I'm guessing your 700 is 700C.) And what tire width do you normally run? 650B tires tend to be on the wider side. I feel that tire width does more to soften the bumps than bigger wheels, and smaller wheels tend to be stronger, an added benefit.

I wouldn't be scared with a new wheel size, but if it makes you feel uncomfortable, stick with what you know. And as Ray B points out, more wheel sizes means more tubes/tires/etc. All my bikes have different wheel sizes so I have to make sure I have several different spare tube sizes. And that can be a headache!

36

General Discussion / Re: Amtrak Bike Travel

« on: February 01, 2022, 12:25:02 pm »

That service is no longer offered.  I want to use a bike with 2.25 inch tires but Amtrak only allows 2 inch tires for its roll on service. 

I've used bikes with tires as wide as 2.35 inch (60mm) like Schwalbe Fat Franks on Amtrak's bike racks, and they fit fine. And if you are worried, you can deflate the tires a bit before loading.

I do wish that they would have hooks designed for tires wider than 2 inches, but the places that make these hooks/racks are slow to adapt. It's the same on public transit--here in Portland some of the older hooks for bikes on the MAX light rail can't fit those Fat Franks.

37

Pacific Northwest / Re: Lewis and Clarke vs Transam: oregon to Missoula

« on: January 31, 2022, 09:19:55 pm »

Jamawani, it doesn't look like your Crown Point pic uploaded.
Oh wait, it looks like it did. But I'll still share mine:




Also, that route from Clatskanie to St. Helens is definitely better than sticking to US 30. My preferred routing from Astoria to Portland would be 202-47-Banks/Vernonia Trail, but that stays far from the Columbia River.

38

General Discussion / Re: Amtrak Bike Travel

« on: January 31, 2022, 09:13:54 pm »

If I ran a business that had more demand than supply, I would raise the price to discourage demand (not the preferred option)  or increase the supply.

Amtrak isn't a private business, it's a perpetually underfunded (until just about right now) government agency. I'm sure they want to increase bike space and get the added revenue, but by design they don't move fast. There's also the issue with bike space on trains when it comes to seasonal demand--jammed in summer, almost empty in winter. So Amtrak might not want to increase bike space if it comes at the expense of less passenger room.

39

General Discussion / Re: Amtrak Bike Travel

« on: January 31, 2022, 09:09:23 pm »

I will be taking Amtrak in June but because of Covid they have made changes that make it more difficult to bring my bike.  I will be traveling through Portland, OR to get to Whitefish, MT.  The train to Whitefish from Portland no longer provides bike service so I will have to box my bike.

When you say "no longer provides bike service", do you mean roll-on (unboxed) bike service? If so, the Empire Builder from Portland to Spokane never offered this.

When Amtrak started to do roll-on service on the Empire Builder a few years back, they only did it for the Seattle segment. This is because how the the two sections of train split (or come together) at Spokane--the Seattle segment has the full baggage car, and that was upgraded with the bike racks. The Portland section only has the small baggage space sans hooks. When the train splits/comes apart at Spokane, the baggage from the small Portland baggage hold moves to the bigger Seattle baggage car, or vice versa. I'm guessing they didn't want to have to transfer unboxed bikes, so Portland bound bikes need to be boxed. I heard that this may change at some point, so I'm hopeful that boxing bikes in Portland won't forever be the status quo. But for now you have to do it.

40

Pacific Northwest / Re: Lewis and Clarke vs Transam: oregon to Missoula

« on: January 31, 2022, 08:55:30 pm »

What direction are you heading?

The Lewis and Clark (no "e") is generally easier than the TransAm through Oregon, as it's flatter. But this only applies if you are heading east. If you are heading west on the Lewis and Clark in the summer, expect a heavy headwind from the Columbia Gorge eastward. How strong? Strong enough that you'll need to pedal downhill.

And the Lewis and Clark also features a bit of riding Interstate 84 from Cascade Locks to Biggs Junction. You can avoid that by crossing to the Washington side at Cascade Locks. However, you'll miss some scenic highlights in Oregon, and while WA 14 isn't a freeway, it's a two lane highway with heavy traffic (especially truck traffic) and lots of section with no shoulder. And if you stay on WA 14 from Stevenson to Maryhill, you will miss Hood River as the bridge there does not allow bikes.

I don't recall any unpaved sections on the Lewis and Clark in Oregon, though there are sections with paved bike paths.

41

General Discussion / Re: Portland to Clarkston to Missoula

« on: January 31, 2022, 07:27:23 pm »

You are welcome.

For future reference, the overall map of routes is here:
https://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/adventure-cycling-route-network/interactive-network-map/
This will help you find what ACA routes go where.

42

General Discussion / Re: Portland to Clarkston to Missoula

« on: January 31, 2022, 02:04:21 pm »

Lewis and Clark.

43

General Discussion / Re: What "riding buddies" do you take on tour?

« on: January 18, 2022, 12:45:10 am »

And I don't really want to debate this, I want this thread to be fun! Rather than end on a sour note, here are some more photos of moosemoose.

Here's moosemoose with me in an Amtrak Roomette:


And moosemoose taking in the view from Rocky Butte:


Finally, moosemoose on the loose in Palouse (Washington):

44

General Discussion / Re: What "riding buddies" do you take on tour?

« on: January 18, 2022, 12:38:26 am »

. Because, what's the point?

The point is, in all sincereity, maybe someone can explain it to me.

The question was directed at you.

But I'll bite: if you are "sincerely" wondering why people do this vs "just asking questions", I can only speak for myself. Because it was silly. Because it was fun. Because it does no one any harm. Sometimes things don't have to have some grand meaning.

45

General Discussion / Re: What "riding buddies" do you take on tour?

« on: January 18, 2022, 12:36:30 am »

Really, in my defense, I think this is being a little too sensitive. I didn't mean to criticize anyone. I merely stated I don't get it. If it gives you pleasure, then by all means follow though. What I think really doesn't matter.  To lambast someone just because they have a different impression or don't see things the same way, is a bit over the top IMO. Ayway, if I offended anyone, my apologies. But then, maybe I'm being too sensitive, however it's not something I'm often accsued of.

Ah yes, the "your to sensitive" defense. I should have expected it, this is the internet in 2022.

For the record, no one is "lambasting" you. We (or at least I) am just asking you to consider the audience. This is a silly little thread, no need to bring negativity into it.