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 - RussSeaton

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 45
196
Gear Talk / Re: Salsa Marrakesh
« on: January 04, 2016, 01:40:18 pm »
I don't recall suggesting anyone use 11 speed cassettes on a loaded touring bike.  Did you suggest this?

You stated, "And 11 is the new norm now days." in saying Salsa Marrakesh's components, a touring bike, are behind the times.

Yes, 11 speed is used by Shimano Dura Ace, Ultegra, and 105.  SRAM Red, Force, Rival are 11 speed.  Campagnolo Super, Record, Chorus, Athena are 11 speed.  Shimano mountain XTR, XT, Saint are 11 speed.  Its been 3-4-5 years since 11 speed replaced 10 speed at the upper and middle level of bikes.  11 speed is the new norm for upper bikes.  But 10 speed is still common on bikes sold in shops and the internet.  Its still very easy to get 10 speed parts at all levels, high and low.

But the Salsa Marrakesh uses 9 speed parts.  Its been 10 years since 9 speed was the top.  9 speed is not the prior year model/last year's model.  9 speed is two models ago.  Its been replaced twice already.  It fits my definition of behind the times for bicycles.

Paddleboy17 does present a good reason for why touring bikes remain with 9 speed.  The incompatibility between mountain and road groups.  And the fact touring bikes take parts from both the road and mountain world and try to make them interact on a bike.

197
Gear Talk / Re: Salsa Marrakesh
« on: January 03, 2016, 09:53:13 pm »
Looks very similar to Trek 520, Surly Long Haul, REI Randonee.  Steel frame, fork, bar end shifters, triple crank, derailleurs, braze ons, etc.  Priced about the same at $1600.  Odd that Salsa chose 9 speed instead of 10 speed.  Don't see any good reason to go into the past for parts.  10 speed has been the normal for road and mountain bikes for a decade or more.  And 11 is the new norm now days.  Why intentionally choose parts that are 10-15 years past their prime?

I have not heard of any 11 speed bicycles designed for fully loaded touring. 10 speed has not been the normal for touring bicycles "for a decade or more". I have a 2014 Trek 520, 9 speed. Prefer 10 speeds for a  touring bike if you wish, but I would not say buying a 9 speed touring bike is choosing "parts that are 10-15 years past their prime". This organization's  magazine recently featured a custom touring bike that cost nearly $9000, 8 speed. I questioned that, did you? The editor didn't answer the question.

I don't recall suggesting anyone use 11 speed cassettes on a loaded touring bike.  Did you suggest this?  But all the top road and mountain bike groups use 11 speed cassettes now.  Dura Ace 10 speed was introduced in 2003-4, Ultegra 10 speed was 2005, Shimano 105 10 speed was 2007, Tiagra became 10 speed in 2012.  Not sure on the mountain bike groups but I would think they became 10 speed 1 or 2 years after the road groups.  So it has been a decade of 10 speed mountain bike groups from Shimano.  Guessing SRAM was very similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimano

The current Trek 520 still has 9 speed cassette.  Not sure why Trek is choosing to sell bikes with outdated parts.  I suppose a bike equipped with out of date parts appeals to the buyers of loaded touring bikes.  Trek's 720 and 920 sort of touring bikes have 11 and 10 speed cassettes.

I do not recall the bike offered by Adventure Cycling.  But if it had an 8 speed gearing system, I would wonder what cave the designers were living in for the past couple decades.

198
General Discussion / Re: Down Tube Shifters
« on: December 31, 2015, 01:55:34 pm »
I have a Surly LHT, that I converting to down tube shifters,  I raced and rode with the down tube shifters in the 70s and 80s, and felt I had a better connection with the whole shifting process.

Curious.  Have you ever used friction downtube shifters with a 9 speed cassette?  I'll assume you are using a 9 speed cassette since its sort of old and nostalgic.  Guessing you used downtube shifters in the 70s and 80s with 5 or even 6 speed freewheels.  6 speed was the big thing in the first half of the 80s.

199
General Discussion / Re: Down Tube Shifters
« on: December 31, 2015, 11:24:47 am »
In about 1991-1992 roughly, Campagnolo and Shimano came out with the shift lever/brake lever systems we use today.  Pros were the first to use them of course.  But the rest of the bicycle world picked them up fairly quickly.  The clipless pedal came on the scene a couple years before Ergo/STI.  Clipless pedals were also picked up by the rest of the cycling world pretty quickly.  I used clipless Time road pedals on a loaded tour of Europe in 1992.  Used bar end shifters back then.  Anyway, downtube shifters died out pretty quickly after the advent of Ergo/STI in the early 1990s.  It still existed but many or most new bikes sold, especially more expensive ones, had the Ergo/STI shifters.  Bike equipment makers are in business to make money.  If they invent a new way to do something, they want to sell it to everyone and make profits.  Staying with the old ways does not help them.

Are people still using downtube shifters?  Not really.  Every now and then you may see a bicyclist using them.  But he will probably be over 60 years old riding a bike that is 40 years old and has nostalgia for the past.  Its kind of like asking if someone drives a manually shifting car.  About 10-15-20 years ago they were sort of common.  But now days you have to specially order a manual transmission car.  Go to a car lot and ask to see a manual Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla, two small, efficient, light cars that usually had manuals a long time ago.  Not sure you will find any on lots now.

A detriment to downtube shifters is they were almost always friction.  You manually moved the levers so far to shift either the front or rear.  You had to know how much to move the lever for each shift.  Feeling your way.  Or get scraping and rattling of the gears.  Click shifting, indexed, downtube shifters were only around for a couple years before the advent of Ergo/STI brake-shift levers.  Click shifting on downtube shifters was fairly good.  You just moved the lever until you heard or felt the click.  Perfect shifting, sort of.  And in downtube shifter heyday, there were only 5 cogs on the freewheel on a 120mm spaced rear hub.  Easier to manually friction shift when there are only 5 cogs.  Big and little are easy to find since you just move the lever all the way forward or back.  It was just the middle three cogs you had to "find" with the lever.  Somewhat easy.  When you get 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 cogs then its even harder to find each cog manually.

Unless you want to build a retro, old style bike and relive the glory years of Eddy Merckx, its best to avoid them.  Or maybe if you want to salvage parts from bikes you find real cheap at yard sales and live in a flat part of the world.  Downtube shifters work OK if you rarely shift your bike.  I frequently go on 50-60 mile rides and might shift 5 times total.  Downtube shifters would work well for me.  I also ride a single speed bike on those same rides and never shift at all.  I might choose single speed over downtube.

I also think the old time racing bikes of the 50s-60s-70s look good with downtube shifters.  Better looking than almost all the current bikes.  But not better functioning.  The only bikes you will see with them are extremely cheap or extremely old bikes.

200
Gear Talk / Re: Drivetrain HELP
« on: December 30, 2015, 01:32:57 pm »
Your lbs has mislead you at best, outright lied to you at worst. Shimano square taper bb's are widely available and cheap, and remain the bb of choice for cycle tourists.
I agree that square taper is fine, but would question whether they are necessarily "the bb of choice for cycle tourists".  If I were building from scratch I would at least consider a more modern choice.  I wouldn't change cranks and BB to get away from a square taper though.

I will agree.  I rebuilt my touring bike about a decade ago with a new frame/fork.  And lots of other new parts too.  But I used the same original 1991 Deore DX square taper crankarms and wheels.  Using a square taper bottom bracket did have the advantage of allowing me to buy a length that made the crank as narrow as possible.  The modern two piece cranks would not allow that narrowing of the crank arms.  I still have square taper cranks on many of my bikes because that is what cranks used when I built the bikes.  Or I obtained a high quality Dura Ace or Record square taper crank cheaply later on and used it.

201
General Discussion / Re: Surly LHT/Disc Trucker
« on: December 30, 2015, 01:20:16 pm »
This is the crankset I found on Merlin Cycles.  Typed in "Shimano Deore M590 Crankset" to Google.
https://www.merlincycles.com/shimano-deore-m590-9-speed-chainset-44899.html?utm_campaign=googlebase-US&utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shopping&utm_term=Chainsets&gclid=CPXe352XhMoCFQEIaQodNSYKoA

Friends and I have ordered from Merlin and lots of other British and European internet websites.  Never a problem.  Always much lower prices than US sellers.

202
Gear Talk / Re: Salsa Marrakesh
« on: December 28, 2015, 10:15:42 pm »
Both Salsa and surly are owned by QBP.

Did not know that.

As for the comment that the Salsa has a better component spec, NO it does not.  If you look at the REI Randonee you will see it is only $1200 retail price and has better Shimano derailleurs and hubs and is 10 speed instead of 9 speed for the Salsa.  So Salsa/Surly/QBP is charging 33% more and giving you lesser Shimano parts.  Sounds pretty normal.  The wheels on the Salsa are $130 retail at Price Point for the pair.  $1470 retail for the other parts/frame on the Salsa seem kind of high.  The Surly Long Haul Trucker complete bike is $1400.  $200 less than the Salsa.  The Surly Long Haul frameset is only $470.  So $470 for the Surly/Salsa frameset, $130 for the wheels on the Salsa, and maybe another $600 to buy retail all the other parts on the bike.  About $1200 retail price, about the same as the REI bike.  Within sight maybe of the Surly bike price.  But hundreds less than the Salsa price of $1600.  Now I am all for spending lots of money on bikes.  Spend more, be happier, ride faster or further.  Yeah.  But to pay more for nothing more seems wasteful to me.  If you spend more and get more, then go for it if you want.  But to pay more and get the same is not wise.

203
Gear Talk / Re: Salsa Marrakesh
« on: December 28, 2015, 07:59:10 pm »
Looks very similar to Trek 520, Surly Long Haul, REI Randonee.  Steel frame, fork, bar end shifters, triple crank, derailleurs, braze ons, etc.  Priced about the same at $1600.  Odd that Salsa chose 9 speed instead of 10 speed.  Don't see any good reason to go into the past for parts.  10 speed has been the normal for road and mountain bikes for a decade or more.  And 11 is the new norm now days.  Why intentionally choose parts that are 10-15 years past their prime?

204
General Discussion / Re: Surly LHT/Disc Trucker
« on: December 28, 2015, 07:42:56 pm »
I am looking at the Shimano Deore M590 9Speed Crankset, 26-36-48.  Can this be considered a touring crankset?

This is a 9 speed crankset.  Around $62 from Merlin Cycles in 44-32-22 rings.  Why pick the odd 48-36-26 combination instead of the much better rings/crank I listed?  It costs $20-25 for a better 22 inner ring.  Yes it will work fine for touring.

205
General Discussion / Re: Cost of a cross country USA trip?
« on: December 23, 2015, 09:12:18 pm »
On my last long ride, Seattle to San Diego, the longest I went was 2 days without seeing a town. During those two days I ate a few Cup O' Noodles, a package of beef jerky and two cups of oatmeal.

[/quote]$10 was more than I ever spent for food in an entire day for myself in any of the previous 4 tours. I was averaging around $8/day for food.[/quote]

We must live in different worlds and galaxies.  Your two day menu would not get me from breakfast to lunch if I laid on the couch, let alone riding a bike all day.  I would have to be very frugal and cook all my own food all day long to make it on $10.  I eat a lot of processed, ready to eat foods while biking.  Usually bought at a convenience store.  So $10 might get me between breakfast and supper.  Plus another $10 for food cooked by me for breakfast and supper.

206
General Discussion / Re: Cost of a cross country USA trip?
« on: December 23, 2015, 04:02:25 pm »
Considering summits cost upwards of $40K I wish I'd taken that chance.

I don't think you should regret passing up the opportunity to climb Everest.  Yes it would be a memory that would last forever.  You could legitimately compare yourself with a straight face to Sir Edmund Hillary or Tenzing Norgay.  But the real risk of death is too great for Himalayan climbing.  I don't know the official death rate of climbers in the Himalayas but I would guess it is 2-3% or so.  Maybe more.  Imagine if riding your bike was that dangerous.  I ride 100+ rides each year of various lengths.  I would die twice every year if bike riding was as dangerous as Himalayan mountain climbing.  I would not ride a bike.

Now seeing Everest and the Himalayas and safely hiking around the area, I would do that with glee.  That would give me plenty of memories.  Let others get the climbing Everest memory.

207
General Discussion / Re: Cost of a cross country USA trip?
« on: December 22, 2015, 08:30:42 pm »
"Males ages 20 to 29 are the group most often being rescued in the national parks, according to park service data."
talked with her friend, the NPS ranger about rescues.
She confirmed the above data in spades. Just FYI.

Yes.  Nothing mysterious or unknown about that statement.  That group is the most carefree, reckless, unencumbered, risky.  And add to that the fact they have not lived or experienced enough of life to appreciate or recognize the dangers involved.  Its also pretty cheap and easy to get to national parks so poor young kids can do adventures there.  In contrast I would guess its mostly 40s and 50s who get in trouble at Mt. Everest because it takes a whole lot of money to climb Everest.  Older folks have more money than younger folks.

208
General Discussion / Re: bike vs. bike
« on: December 19, 2015, 10:23:04 pm »
Amongst my nine current bikes, they all ride well.  Stable, able to ride in a straight line with minimal input or attention from me.  Yet they are not sluggish or boring either.  They all ride right.  Even the touring bike when its fully loaded or unloaded.  I had a bike that was very twitchy, dangerous because it could not be ridden in a straight line.  Riding no hands was impossible.  It was a horrible handling bike.  I'd suggest test riding numerous bikes, not just touring but racing bikes as well.  Figure out what good handling is and most important, what awful handling is.  Then you can ride the touring bikes again and figure out which is best.

209
Gear Talk / Re: Thoughts on "fat-tired" touring bikes?
« on: December 13, 2015, 05:10:27 pm »
I believe it's ~358 miles are unpaved. As in ~174 is dirt like and ~184 gravel.

OK.  It looks like all of the gravel miles are the Katy trail in Missouri.  Which can be ridden with skinny road tires if dry.  Still recommend just avoiding all the unpaved sections if it is wet.  Find paved roads nearby if it is wet.

210
Gear Talk / Re: Drivetrain HELP
« on: December 12, 2015, 07:32:08 pm »
for a touring bike what's the perceived benefit for going with XT instead of mid line Shimano?

Perceived benefit.  Easy.  The top groups, XTR for mountain, Dura Ace for road, are better because they are lighter, higher quality, more expensive, prettier, nicer, etc.  Maybe, maybe it lasts longer too.  Maybe.  Higher groups may use bearings instead of bushings.  Maybe the higher groups have more advanced, newer features.  Maybe.  Higher groups may use more exotic material, titanium and carbon instead of aluminum or steel.  Within the Shimano lineup, they all work very well, last a long time, cost different.  Buy whichever you want.  They all work the same.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 45