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 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50
706
General Discussion / Newbie
« on: January 05, 2009, 02:30:09 pm »
Quote
also I was wondering what the general specifications were for a tourng bike.  Does it have to be steel?  My current bike has carbon stays and fork.  Are there any cheaper alternatives than buying new? [slightly edited]

See the recent discussion about carbon at http://www.adventurecycling.org/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=6&Topic=2750

The touring bike needs to be stable under load, have heel clearance for panniers, and the means to attach racks, the means to attach fenders if there could be rain when and where you ride (although Rivendell has found ways to put fenders on bikes that weren't made for them), and you may want clearance for tires wider than what a lot of road bikes will accommodate.  If you use a trailer instead of panniers, then the racks and heel clearance issues are gone, but the consensus here seems to be that a trailer is usually overkill.

If you're going only lightly loaded and can get away with a huge seat bag (they come with up to nearly a cubic foot!) or a seat-post-clamping rack (which is not as heavy-duty) and a rack pack or smaller panniers that don't get in the way of your heels, you could probably use a standard road bike.  I got a Jandd Mountaineering Mountain Wedge III seat bag with 450 cubic inches of space last summer to use as my only baggage on a short credit-card tour, and was pleased with how well behaved it was.  It's shown below.  The biggest seat bags have almost four times that much room.  My bike has four 32-ounce Zefal Magnum water bottles on it, two on the frame and two more behind the seat, for a whole gallon of water/drink.




707
General Discussion / Question Regarding Wheel Strength
« on: December 17, 2008, 07:26:19 pm »
Especially if it's an MTB from '95, I doubt it has the wheel problems we experienced on our newer road bikes.  But I will say that in spite of the very short lives of our six Bontragers, they never went out of true, even when the rims were cracked.  They did feel wobbly when cracked though.

On the BioPace, make sure you give yourself plenty of time to evaluate them before going on tour with them.  They were a fad years ago, but their supposed value did not really materialize, so the industry went back to round.  What's good for the knees is to turn your cadence up, have your feet connected to the pedals, and pedal all the way around the circle, with special emphasis on pulling back through the bottom of the turn, something I expect would be harder to do with BioPace.


708
General Discussion / Question Regarding Wheel Strength
« on: December 17, 2008, 03:11:04 am »
Quote
The bike has 32-spoke wheels.  If the majority of my weight is on my trailer, are my wheels strong enough to handle the load?

There are a lot of factors to wheel strength besides the number of spokes.  In fact, Santana has some 16-spoke 700c's for tandems, and they have proven quite reliable.  The quality of the build is perhaps most important, followed by other things that don't immediately meet the eye.  700c tandem wheels are usually 32- or 36-spoke.  Ours are 48-spoke, but that does not seem to be very common.  All other factors being equal, 26" will be stronger than 700c because the spokes have a greater bracing angle.

I don't know about Bontrager's MTB wheels, but their road wheels have been quite poor.  I and our son had six, and not one of the six lasted more than a few thousand miles before the rims cracked.  We had other problems with them too, but that was the biggest one.  We only used them because they came on our Treks.  We haven't had problems with other brands, or with ones I built myself, so I know it's not us.  Our dealer quit selling Bontrager wheels by themselves because too many other customers were having the same problem.


709
General Discussion / route 66
« on: December 12, 2008, 03:00:31 pm »
Quote
I plan on going in the winter months something between october and march... can you tell me what to expect in the winter time in areas like arizona

Flagstaff, AZ and the area around it get deep snow in the winter.  Maybe fall would be better.


710
General Discussion / route 66
« on: December 08, 2008, 03:39:13 pm »
Check out this thread.


711
General Discussion / Touring Wired, Wireless, Etc.
« on: December 04, 2008, 02:50:40 pm »
I would just write it down in a tiny spiral-bound notebook, the next size down from 3x5", or take my microcassette recorder which is about the size of a PowerBar.  I used the recorder last year as I rode a route to make a very detailed route slip.  I kept it in my jersey pocket in a small re-sealable plastic bag to protect it from sweat, and used a small piece of packing tape to wrap the excess bag material snugly around the recorder, then stapled the top only partly closed with some open-cell foam over the microphone area so there wouldn't be buffeting wind noise on the recording.  At every turn or check point, I pulled the recorder out of my jersey pocket and spoke into it the exact mileage and what to do there, things to look out for, etc., all without slowing down.  (Just don't drop it!)  Since the actual running time was such a small percentage of the ride time, a single tape might last for weeks.


712
General Discussion / Touring on carbon
« on: December 07, 2008, 04:52:50 pm »
Quote
I have, however, heard from at least one person who's frame blew apart on a trans-continental tour, something I've never heard of with steel/aluminum--not that it couldn't happen.

I've cracked a steel frame, twice, without a load, or an  accident-- just fatigue.


713
General Discussion / Touring on carbon
« on: December 01, 2008, 01:57:37 pm »
I've met plenty of 350-pounders on the bike forums riding carbon, all without trouble; so I know the material is definitely up to the job.

The comments about tire clearance, fenders, rack-mount eyelets, and so on are a valid concern though.  Something else I was forgetting in my previous post is the seat-stay length, which may typically be too short to avoid having your heels hit the panniers.


714
General Discussion / Touring on carbon
« on: November 28, 2008, 09:16:56 pm »
Quote
One negative consideration: on the road it would probably be difficult to get a frame repaired.

None of the materials are easily repaired on the road.  One of our neighbors is a welder with NASA certifications and does aircraft stuff all the time, but when I told him how thin-walled the modern steel and aluminum frames are, he said he wouldn't touch them.


715
General Discussion / Touring on carbon
« on: November 24, 2008, 03:36:37 am »
My only beef with carbon is that they don't put the eyelets on it.  I guess it's because the racers wouldn't be caught dead with anything that looked even remotely like touring.  After doing my research, I got a carbon fiber bike for its durability and ride.  I didn't want to crack any more steel frames, and carbon does not fatigue and crack like the metals do when you ride them hard.  Calfee has no trouble repairing carbon if necessary after an accident, according to http://www.calfeedesign.com/howtosendrepair.htm .  They can also stiffen and strengthen an existing frame.

I sent my son's Trek Madone frame there for their battery of inspections and tests after he directly broadsided a car at 25mph that turned illegally across his path in August and he landed in the hospital.  Even the front hub shell and axle were deformed by the force of the impact, but the only thing Calfee said was damaged on the frame and fork was the aluminum dropouts.  It's my observation that very few crashes damage carbon frames.

I wish my best steel bike were still usable as a second bike after I cracked it (it had all the eyelets, too!), but a frame builder's effort to repair it was unsuccessful.


716
General Discussion / recumbant touring
« on: November 18, 2008, 08:16:59 pm »
If you have balance problems, how 'bout a recumbent tricycle?




717
General Discussion / LA cycle it or take a lft past it?
« on: November 14, 2008, 02:35:10 pm »
Living in L.A. County and having ridden the coast a lot in this area, I would partly echo what others have already said.  The ugly part is the Long Beach and Wilmington area of PCH, about 10 miles' worth, where you're passing refineries and railroad yards, and the roads are in terrible shape, ruined by heavy trucks and never repaired; yet they're not particularly dangerous.  There are places where you do have to take the whole lane, but with a mirror, you'll be fine.  If you're heading in the direction of San Diego, you'll have a nice tail wind through this area in the afternoon.  I recently tried going through there on the next major street north of PCH, and although that one was newly re-paved, it seemed more dangerous for a few different reasons.  I have never ridden PCH west of Vermont Ave to know how that might be, but if you go south a mile or two and take Palos Verdes Drive North through there, it's beautiful.

I've ridden from Buellton above Santa Barbara to L.A. a couple of times and enjoyed it immensely.  I've ridden from a few miles east of the Long Beach area mentioned above to San Diego probably 15 times, and I enjoy most of that a ton too.  There are plenty of places where you're not in town at all, but when you are, it's mostly an easy-going beach atmosphere with everyone enjoying being there whether they're in their convertible, on a bike, on a surfboard, or just walking out there to look and be looked at.


718
General Discussion / Sana Anna River Bike Path and more
« on: November 13, 2008, 06:20:10 pm »
I understand there are still some discontinuities in the Santa Ana River trail, where you have to get off and ride the streets for a mile or two and then get back on.  Can you tell us what they are?  I haven't found anyone yet who can.  I have only ridden it from Riverdale park (approximately where the trail turns south, in Fullerton or so) to the beach.  I'd like to be able to ride it clear out to Riverside and beyond.

There are various places around L.A. and Orange Counties where you can get away from civilization.  We live between you and downtown L.A., and we can go into the hills, and, less than five miles from home, be where you can't see any sign of civilization in any direction except the paved road you're on.

I have a very detailed route slip I got from a club and developed further, telling how to ride from the Santa Barbara train station to the L.A. train station.  We've ridden it twice and can tell you it is a wonderful ride (except the end after you get into L.A.).  I don't see any way to Email to forum members or PM them to get an Email address.  Maybe I'll have to try to put it on my son's website.  It's a .doc file.  (Most people would call it a Word file, and it is indeed Microsoft-Word-compatible; but I don't use any Microsoft software.)


719
General Discussion / What gear?
« on: October 21, 2008, 04:12:56 pm »

720
General Discussion / Bicycle Trip form Arizona to Alaska
« on: October 11, 2008, 02:33:17 pm »
Quote
Personally I don't like flat bars though.

staehpj1 is right.  Drop bars aren't necessarily any lower but they give you a lot more hand positions to avoid arm fatige on long rides.  I didn't mention it earlier partly because drop bars usually mean having the shifters integrated with the brake levers ("brifters" for short), and those cost at least a couple hundred more than the shifters on the bikes you've mentioned so far.  It's not the only way though, as you could go with bar-end shifters or even down-tube shifters which are inexpensive and work extremely well-- they're just not in such a convenient place.

You might not be able to simply change out the bar.  I don't think the diameter of the clamping area of the drop bars is the same as that of flat bars.  Maybe someone else here can elaborate.

The aluminum frame is ok.  Aluminum used to have a much harsher ride than the other materials, but it seems that the manufacturers have learned to partly remedy that.  It's certainly not any weaker than steel which in recent years has gotten frightfully thin in an effort to compete weightwise with the other materials.  In a frame breakage test report that was on a website for years but I can't find now, they simulated a hard, out-of-the saddle climbing effort to test frames.  The first ones to fatigue and crack were the steel ones.

As for the Windsor Touring, is that available anywhere other than bikesdirect.com?  That company is extremely irreputable.  The Better Business Bureau gives Bikes Direct an "Unsatisfactory" rating due to unanswered complaints.  Do yourself a favor.  If you're new to this game, do not buy a bike on the internet, especially from bikesdirect.com.  Although like virtually any company they do have some happy customers, you need to know that this particular company also has a disproportionately very large number of customers who are angry with them for all kinds of reasons from bad assembly job to nonexistent customer service to even false advertising and in at least one case I read about on another forum, a cracked frame right out of the box.  Their "Compare at $xxxx" statements are baloney too.  (In the case of the Windsor, looking over the spec.s I can say you definitely won't pay nearly $1200 that level anywhere like they claim.)  You also won't get the follow-up free support you'll get from a bike shop, something you'll need if you're kind of new to all this.  Buy parts online if you want to, but go to a real shop for whole bikes until you really know fitting and can do a lot of your own maintenance.  The real shop may appear more expensive on the surface, but you'll save yourself a lot of grief and be more likely to succeed in cycling.


Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50