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 - whittierider

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 50
Gear Talk / Re: RX Cycling Sunglasses
« on: August 04, 2011, 09:01:21 pm »
I just got some new ones because my old ones that were perfect for cycling (although not sporty-looking) cracked and a lens fell out beside the road and I was not able to find it to fix them.  The new ones I got are sportier and have Transitions lenses but I am very, very unhappy with them.  #1: They do not darken up significantly unless the sun is shining directly on them.  Just being outdoors in bright, glaring light is not enough.  #2: The bows (temples) and the ends of the front part of the frame are kind of wide like in your picture, and it limits my peripheral vision.  I don't need correction way over there, but I ought to be able to see motion, but it's blocked.  #3: When I tried them on in the glasses store, they sat on my face a bit crooked and weren't very comfortable, but I figured the people there would shape the bows like they did in all the previous glasses I had, after the lenses were made.  When I picked these up, the woman was not acting like she was going to do that, so I asked about it.  She said, "No, you just put this strap around the back and you're all set."  They hurt my ears though, so I can't wear them for long periods.

I've had very large, actual-glass glasses back when bigger ones were in style, and the weight never was an issue.  It was never uncomfortable, and they stayed up just fine.  I have some lighter plastic ones that won't stay up for anything, and they're less comfortable.

Some of the glasses I looked at when shopping had soft rubber around the nose.  My concern with that is that skin oils are not friendly to rubber, so it might not last.

Make sure you get glasses that come up high enough and essentially go against your eyebrows so you're not looking over the top all the time in your low riding position.  Metal glasses don't qualify, because the nose pads are always held out by metal arms, so the glasses are held away from your face, always producing a big gap at the top.

Polarized is nice, but it will never lighten up much like you would want if you don't reach your destination by sunset.

Gear Talk / Re: Why internal hubs?
« on: August 03, 2011, 09:25:13 pm »
but with Rohloff I could shift up to 7 or 8 for a few revs then straight back to granny without any worries of losing the chain.
A little more foolproof I suppose, although with proper adjustment, losing the chain is not an issue with derailleurs either.  Unfortunately there are even a lot of bike-shop mechanics who don't get the front-derailleur adjustment right, and then they just say "it's the nature of the beast," which is not true.  And with bar-end shifters, you can go from one end of the cassette to the other all in one motion, unlike STI.  I frequently shift both front and rear at the same time, and never lose the chain.

If you don't have a rack on the fork, you could put water bottle cages on it with hoseclamps.  Put cloth handlebar tape underneath to protect the paint.

Incidentally, there's only one fork on a bike, and it's always in the front, so you don't have to specify.

General Discussion / Re: Cycle greeting etiquette mystery?
« on: July 31, 2011, 04:56:23 pm »
You guys do a good job though - I barely see any spam on this forum.
You're just not on at spam prime time.  I've reported hundreds of spammers here and the moderators clean things up in time for your pleasant visit.

Gear Talk / Re: 26 inch wheels and tires
« on: July 31, 2011, 12:51:50 am »
If you haven't already, see Sheldon Brown's tire-size page at .  There's a crazy load of ERTOs that were called 26"; but how narrow do you want to go?  26x1 is 650c (571mm ERTO) and I have a 571x19 tire in the garage for an itty-bitty triathlon bike our sons outgrew which has Velocity Aerohead rims.  Bike shops don't usually stock that size of tire, but they're easy to get by mail-order.  I get them from in Oregon.  There really isn't any point in going below 25mm since smaller ones give a harsh ride and more rolling resistance, and your speed would have to be at least near 30mph without panniers for the wind-resistance benefit of narrower tires to materialize.  Unfortunately the best-performing tires are not made in wider widths.

Gear Talk / Re: Why internal hubs?
« on: July 30, 2011, 04:20:56 pm »
If you're going to spend all that money, why stay with a chain?  I have heard a belt drive doesn't need to be lubricated, doesn't come off the sprocket, and in general is more reliable with less maintenance.

See what someone very knowledgeable wrote about that on the bicycling forum in his post.  He's the owner of a large bike shop, a cat-1 racer, a frame builder, somewhat of an industry guru, who puts on about 12,000 miles a year, and has led tours in Europe, and toured bike factories around the world.

General Discussion / Re: Cycle greeting etiquette mystery?
« on: July 26, 2011, 11:25:02 pm »
Rude cyclist is:
wannabe racer with delusions of grandeur, or
smitten by my womanly shapes, or
mistook bike path for a velodrome, or
never seen a woman on bike, or
should be forgiven if looks hot in lycra

When I'm going a lot faster than someone else ahead, I call ahead, "Passing!", then "Thankyou" as I go by after they got (or stayed) out of the way.  I say "hi" to cyclists I pass in either direction, or wave to those going the opposite direction.  If someone appears to have a flat, I call before I arrive, "Have everything you need?" and the answer is almost always, "Yes, thankyou!"  If I find someone riding approximately my speed when it's not one of my maximum-effort days, I like to meet them and talk to them.

The bike trail is a "bike-bahn" with no speed limits though, and it's not a sidewalk.  When the tailwind was strong, I've gone 35mph for 5 miles at a time.  Our local trails have the bike logo on them (they're technically not multi-use paths) and some have signs that say "bike only."  Pedestrians are welcome only as long as they stay to the side, out of the way.  I am not competition-minded, but I am very fitness-minded and I'm usually trying to raise my average speed a little further on my usual training routes and not let my heart rate below about 175.  I'll slow down if I have to, but I shouldn't have to.  Part of what I look forward to in light credit-card touring is having lots of energy and the fun of going fast for long periods.  I'm glad to see anyone out there who's doing what the trail was designed for, but I do like for them to stay on their side and be predictable.  I don't expect beginners to act like they have the experience and skill that they don't have yet.  I know it takes time.  And it's wonderful to see women out there doing something good for themselves instead of thinking that cycling is a man's sport so they lead a sedentary life and get fat and get their cancers and so on.  I would never want to discourage her from riding.

Gear Talk / Re: Handlebar bag for carbon bars??
« on: July 26, 2011, 03:30:06 pm »
I wouldn't have anything against putting a handlebar bag on carbon bars as long as it doesn't gouge them or clamp in a place they're not meant to be clamped.  It's the aluminum bars that you need to replace after any accident.  I've had an aluminum bar break with absolutely no warning and no visible signs, and a friend has broken three aluminum bars.  Carbon ones won't fatigue; so as long as you don't do any gouging or clamp them where they're not made to be clamped they will last indefinitely.  Just putting the weight on them with something like velcro straps won't hurt them a bit.

Frame bags don't have much room at all because they have to be so thin.  I don't like that the insides of my legs keep brushing the upper water bottle on the front of our tandem even though the water bottle doesn't sway or anything.  I considered frame bags for touring but they limited me to an itty bitty water bottle in the seat-tube cage, and I was not willing to give up my 32-ounce Zefal bottle.  I got a little bag that stands up at the front of the top tube just behind the fork steering tube to put food it to make it easier to eat on the go, but my knees hit it when I pedaled standing up, so I immediately took it off.

Routes / Re: Pacific Coast Route
« on: July 24, 2011, 11:23:47 am »
Go south.  When coming down the coast, I have found myselft climbing at 28mph because of the tailwind.  I can hardly imagine having to go the other direction.

In the book "Bicycling the Pacific Coast" by Kirkendall and Spring, the preface is entitled, "Why North to South?"  Here's some of it, telling about Kirkendal's first coast ride, going north.  (I think copyrights allow this since I'm giving credit to the book and it may increase sales of the book.  If the owners of the copyright don't like it, I'll edit this and remove the quote.)

"North of Santa Barbara, encoutered stiff headwinds that blew the fun right out of his adventure.  Scenery and the thrill of exploring became secondary to his daily battle with the wind.  The wind created an invisible, never-ending hill that had to be constantly climbed.  The wind beat dirt into his face, produced an annoying whistling through the vents in his helmet, while attempting to push him back to Mexico.  By San Francisco, riding had become a chore.  In Oregon, 80-mile-per-hour winds blew him to a stop while going down a steep hill.

"When describing that trip, Tom will pull out his trip journal.  The beginning of the journal is full of his thoughts and impressions; in the second half he wrote only of the wind.  His journal describes how he got up early in the morning to avoid the winds that blew strongest in the afternoon.  ...Nowhere in the second half of that book is there any mention of beautiful vista points, magnificent redwood forests, sea otters, sea lions, lighthouses, sand dunes, and fascinating old forts.  Nowhere is there any mention of the word fun.

"The following summer, Tom and I rode back down the coast to prove it can be fun.  It was an incredible trip.  The wind was still blowing but this time it was pushing us south.  Near the Sea Lion Caves in Oregon, I had to apply my brakes to stop on a steep uphill grade....We were surprised to note that the highway department expects cyclists to travel from north to south.  We frequently enjoyed a good shoulder on the southbound side while northbound cyclists had to dodge trucks and cars on a shoulderless roadway."

Gear Talk / Re: Fitting a Brooks Saddle
« on: July 22, 2011, 11:44:16 pm »
Bontrager single-bolt posts are infinitely adjustable for angle, unlike most single-bolt ones.  I had a Brooks for 10,000 miles or more and although I never had the problems you describe, it was always a bit painful but I kept thinking that another 500 miles would do it.  Finally the leather began tearing near the nose.  I had it re-leathered, and then it was worse!  What I'm riding now is the narrowest, lightest, thinest, and almost the cheapest seat I've ever had, and yet possibly the most comfortable, and it has lasted over 30,000 miles so far and it still appears new.  As you say, the Brooks may just not be the right one for you, even though others swear by it.

California / Re: Pacific Coast #3 San Francisco to ... Crater Lake
« on: July 19, 2011, 01:40:02 am »
1. I am in good shape and can bike 100 miles in a single day.
4. I will be traveling solo so I plan on riding between 7am to 5pm.
Since you will be going against a very strong wind, you will want to start when it's barely light so you can get all your miles in before the wind comes up.

Gear Talk / Re: Rear bike rack Trek1500
« on: July 16, 2011, 04:02:32 pm »
I'm not sure I have a good answer, but for others to start, the 1500 is a low- to mid-range aluminum road bike without eyelets.

Try these to start.  They provide ways to mount a rack on bikes with no eyelets.

Waterbottle cages are available all over the place.  He's looking for adapters to mount a cage where the bike does not have screw holes for it.

Gear Talk / Re: New bike too big?
« on: July 11, 2011, 01:21:17 pm »
(shorter stem = quicker steering)
and less stable, less responsive, and more squirrelly.  The handling gets worse in every way.

Gear Talk / Re: Build from Frame Up Information
« on: July 10, 2011, 11:22:48 pm »

That's a BIG qualifier.

+1.  I've run into several situations where there were problems of things working together quite right.  If you get a bike already built up, the manufacturer has already figured those out and given you a package that all works together.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 50