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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51
my question was aimed at figuring out when the highs and lows within the day would be.

Lows happen one hour before sunrise up to sunrise.  4-5-6 AM depending on the month.  Highs happen mid to late afternoon.  2-3-4 PM all year long.  Except of course if a front or major weather change is blowing through.  Then the highs or lows could happen at any time of day.

I am planning a west-east TransAmerica tour between mid-June and mid-August. Have found a great deal of information on this forum including average temperatures (highs and lows).
However, I have not been able to figure out what kind of low temperatures I could expect in the late afternoons/evenings or in the early mornings, particularly in high altitudes.
I am not worried about the temperature during the night as I will carry camping equipment including an insulating sleeping mat and sleeping bag. However, I wonder what kind of clothing is needed for an early morning start and a late finish.

I think we have some confusion about when the low temperatures occur during a day.  Usually the low temperature will occur at about sunrise.  5-6-7 AM.  About the time you are getting up and starting the riding for the day.  The low temperature does not happen when you are sleeping if you are an early riser and rider.

The late afternoons and early evenings (5-6-7 PM) are close to the hottest part of the day.  High will be about 3 PM and then it will "cool" off a couple degrees a couple hours later.

These high and low time ranges happen all year long, summer or winter.  With the exception of fronts blowing through or big changes in weather patterns.  If a front is blowing through, you could have the high at midnight and the low at noon.

As for the actual temperatures, read what the others said.  Lows of around freezing if you camp at the top of mountains in the Sierras or Rockies and highs of around 100 in the middle of the afternoon in the Midwest.

Gear Talk / Re: Best brakes and wheels for S&S Coupled touring bike?
« on: January 07, 2018, 02:12:19 pm »
While we are talking about cable splicing take a look at SRAM red WiFli  e-tap.  Compact crank up front and 11-32 cassette in the rear.  No cables to splice and you can put blips wherever you want for shift points on your bars.

Maybe I am missing something or not following closely.  The SRAM wireless is for shifting.  No cables to splice for derailleurs.  Its wireless derailleur operation.  But that does not do anything for splicing BRAKE cables.  S&S coupled bikes would also need you to splice the rear brake cable.  Whether its a cable like for road rim brakes or cantilever brakes or a cable for your cable actuated hydraulic disc brakes you talk about.  I don't know if you can splice hydraulic fluid rear brake "cables".  SRAM, Shimano, Campagnolo wireless shifting units are only wireless for the front and rear derailleurs.  None of them change brake cables.

General Discussion / Re: Bike Computer
« on: January 07, 2018, 02:00:53 pm »
The wired Cat-Eyes I have do have two buttons.

You're living in the past.  The OLD Cateye computers had two buttons on the front.  But the newer ones, 5 or so years ago, have only one button.  You just hold it a longer time to erase things or toggle to the second level stuff.  Simple quick pushes toggle between the main level stuff.  I am excluding the tiny button on the back where you press with a pin to reset the whole computer.

Gear Talk / Re: Should bicycle helmets be retired after a certain age?
« on: January 01, 2018, 03:03:26 pm »
I replace my helmets every 5-10 years or so.  Almost always because the inside sizing system that fits around your head and is adjustable becomes unstuck from the helmet itself.  So the helmet stops fitting right.  I think the material helmets are made of, Styrofoam and plastic, are pretty much impervious to everything on earth and time too.  Its just the darn fitting, sizing systems tend to break after awhile.

Gear Talk / Re: Search for the perfect touring bike mirror
« on: December 30, 2017, 09:45:00 pm »
I have used the Blackburn mirror mounted over the hoods on my touring bike for a few years now.

Blackburn!  That's the one I had 25 years ago.  Steel bracket to go over the brake hood and a Velcro strap to wrap around it.  Mine never vibrated loose.  They probably changed it from 25 years ago.

Gear Talk / Re: Search for the perfect touring bike mirror
« on: December 30, 2017, 02:30:31 pm »
For the past 20 years I have used the Take A Look eyeglass mounted mirror.  Works perfectly on seeing eyeglasses and on sunglasses.  Just need a flat arm on the glasses frame to mount it.  25 years ago I used a mirror that mounted over the brake hood.  It was metal and tough.  Still have it in the parts boxes in the basement.  Had bar end shifters then.  Worked well but the eyeglass mirror works better since I can rotate my head and see anywhere behind me.  Brake hood mounted mirrors, or the ones stuck in the end of handlebars are fixed so can only see certain spots behind.  Don't like helmet mounted mirrors because I take my helmet on and off many times on a ride and its not always treated gently.  So the mirror would get moved every time.  And helmets do not sit in the exact same spot on my head every time I put them on.  Unlike eyeglasses which always hook over my ears and rest on my nose.  Same spot.  Or I push the helmet up and back occasionally when it slides too low.  So I can see always constantly adjusting where the mirror is pointing with helmet mounted mirrors.  Imagine driving a car where you adjusted the side and rear mirror ten times every time you drove the car.  You would get tired of that nonsense after one trip.

Routes / Re: Cross country in 8 weeks?
« on: December 26, 2017, 01:57:22 pm »
I'd recommend mid to late June for a start date and mid to late August for a finish date.  Plenty of daylight and no cold.  Go the Northern Tier since you live in New Hampshire.  You can ride home.  You don't have to stay on the official route the whole way.  Once you get to New York, make your own route and ride home.  No need to ride to the ocean either.  Start in Washington and ride the Canadian border to home.  4000 miles or so.  Easily doable in 7-8 weeks.  70 miles per day.  Tailwinds across the whole middle of the country because the winds blow out of the west.  No hot weather up on the Canadian border.  Not sure how many hotels are on the Northern Tier.  Towns may be far apart in the middle of the country.

General Discussion / Re: Across America 2018
« on: December 19, 2017, 03:35:10 pm »
That's 110 km per day, no days off, no margin for bad weather, bad stomach, bad bicycle.

We actually plan on riding 80 miles (130 km) each riding-day and take one day off every 7 days. :)

jamawani said:  110k per day, no rest days, is 770k per week.  68.75 miles per day.
SaemiVald said:  130k per day for six days, one rest day, is 780k per week.  69.64 miles per day.
Seems pretty close to me.
For me, 70 miles per day is not very difficult.  Its nice to have a 60 mile day every now and then, but 70 miles is not a hard day.  You need to be above 80 miles per day to start getting more difficult.

From Chicago west you can cut across Iowa - again, via historic routes.

Highway 92 is a scenic route across Nebraska - cutting south to Ogalalla.

Hwy 92 in Iowa is a busy road with lots of high speed traffic.  Not suitable for bicycling.  Maybe somehow Hwy 92 becomes a peaceful nice road to ride in Nebraska to the west.  I doubt it though.  I know several bicyclists who have ridden Hwy 92 across Iowa.  They did not like it but took it because it was the most direct route between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.  Unless you are trying to sprint across Iowa as fast as possible, stay off it.  As for Hwy 92 in Nebraska, I'm doubtful its pleasant to ride.

For crossing Iowa you want to stick with county roads.  Not main major state highways.  Stay off the state highways and stay on the county roads.

Early April in the northeast USA can and will be cool/cold and wet.  You will be in the Midwest in May.  It can be fine and dandy in the afternoon.  But cool in the morning.  And wet.  I'd suggest you postpone your start by one to two months.

General Discussion / Re: Bike from NYC to Las Vegas?
« on: December 01, 2017, 03:06:13 pm »
Google Maps says its about 2550 miles from New York City to Las Vegas.  Via the Interstate system.  Maybe a bit longer if you can't ride on the Interstate.  But maybe these electric battery bikes are more or less mopeds that can maintain a minimum of 45 mph.  I think 45 mph minimum is the speed needed to use the Interstate in the USA.  Since the company is providing all the expense of the trip, I assume they will also have several trucks for support along the way.  Trucks could easily carry a few dozen extra bikes and batteries to mitigate any decrease in charge.  And generators to recharge the batteries overnight.  And the company would also be able to provide a follower car with flashing lights to stay 10 feet behind the bikes/mopeds and provide cover from traffic.  Assuming all of the above, it sounds kind of fun.  Sort of.  Ride a moped across the USA!!!  Free!!!  Wearing a snow mobile suit, pac boots, motorcycle helmet, ski goggles and gloves.  Only bad part is the early January factor.  That is stupid, stupid, stupid.  You will likely have high temperatures of freezing or close to that from New York to Nevada.  Even in the daylight hours.  I know we are well into the global warming.  Its happening in my state in the middle of the country.  Its 55 degrees today on December 1.  But global warming does not mean its going to be 80 degrees in January in the north half of the USA.  It will be 30 to 40 degrees for highs, not 80.

Gear Talk / Re: Should I buy a road bike?
« on: November 27, 2017, 11:06:55 pm »
So, I guess my question is, would I see a noticeable difference in the level of effort it takes to ride at a given speed, say 15 mph, on a carbon fiber road bike vs doing that on my Trek 520 steel frame touring bike?

Good for you for buying a fine loaded touring bike.  I had a Trek 520 years ago and rode many thousands of miles on loaded tours.  Its a fine bike for loaded touring.  It will work fine on the Trans Am ride.

A loaded touring bike like your Trek  will be slower than a racing bike.  That's a fact.  Carbon fiber is meaningless.  Racing bikes can be made from carbon, titanium, aluminum, or steel.  The material is meaningless.  Your Trek 520 weighs about 28-30 pounds after you put both racks and fenders on it.  A racing bike with no racks or fenders will weigh about 15-20 pounds.  So about 10 pounds of difference just in bike weight.  Lighter is faster on bicycles.  We're not talking about twice as fast.  30 mph compared to 15 mph.  But maybe 1 or 2 mph maybe.  Probably the biggest reason for your slower speed compared to the racing bikes is your tires.  If you have the factory touring tires, then they are probably 32mm wide, heavy duty, roughish tread pattern.  They roll about like a boulder up a mountain.  The racing bikes you are riding with have smooth skinny tires that have much less rolling resistance.  Probably 1 or 2 mph difference in tires.

I'd recommend also getting a racing bike like the Trek Domane you mentioned.  Or any other racing type bike.  Ride it 99% of the time before the loaded tour.  It will be much more fun to ride and thus you will enjoy riding your bike more.  That is good.  But ride the Trek 520 on the Trans Am loaded tour.  I have a loaded touring bike.  It is only ridden on the loaded tour each year.  Otherwise it sits in the basement.  I have many other faster funner bikes to ride around town.  Touring bikes and racing bikes each have a purpose they are best suited for.  Use them for the purpose they are designed for.

Gear Talk / Re: Best brakes and wheels for S&S Coupled touring bike?
« on: November 20, 2017, 01:33:45 pm »
... It seems to me the much narrower cantilever brakes would eliminate this problem of fitting into the bike cases.

Thanks much, Russ!  Good suggestions!

Also remember those now obsolete and forgotten V brakes.  They used to be the only brakes on mountain bikes.  Now they have disappeared.  But the shorter V brakes work just fine with road brake levers.  And the long V brakes (the normal ones on mountain bikes) work fine on road brake levers with an adaptor.  V brakes stick straight up, they do not stick out to the side at all.  So they should be easier to get into a case than bulky calipers or cantilever brakes that stick out to the side.  Of course with cantilever brakes, they do swing in if you squeeze them so they won't stick out much at all.  When in operation they may stick straight out to the side 3 inches.  But with the wheel off, they will swing up and in and not stick out at all past the fork or frame.

Gear Talk / Re: Best brakes and wheels for S&S Coupled touring bike?
« on: November 17, 2017, 06:57:33 pm »
Maybe I should change by category of brakes.  Disc, Caliper, and Cantilever.  But on the concept of them sticking out too far and not fitting in a case, there are VERY different widths of cantilever brakes.

These are the traditional, wide, stick out to the side cantilever brakes.

And these are much narrower cantilever brakes.

It seems to me the much narrower cantilever brakes would eliminate this problem of fitting into the bike cases.

Gear Talk / Re: Best brakes and wheels for S&S Coupled touring bike?
« on: November 17, 2017, 02:36:52 pm »
I was thinking that caliper brakes would probably be the least bulky, but I've been told that they aren't dependably strong enough when, say, going downhill fast fully loaded.

I don't know who told you this, but its nonsense.  Until the last couple years, every touring bike used cantilever brakes.  Or in the olden days maybe they used center pull calipers.  Most of them made it down every mountain road in the world just fine.  I'm sure someone crashed on the way down, but I don't know if it was due to bad brakes or bad steering or some other reason.  Cantilever brakes wok just fine on a loaded touring bike in the Dolomites, Alps, and Rockies.  These are the only mountains I've ridden my cantilever braked loaded touring bike.  Hit 60 mph down the Rockies.

I think you may have misread what I wrote - I'm talking about calipers, but you're talking about how well cantilevers worked for you... were you saying that calipers worked great on fully loaded touring bikes, or cantilevers, or both, or...?

- Tim

I guess we have some confusion.  When I say caliper brakes I mean all brakes that are not disc brakes.  When you say caliper brakes you mean only side pull or center pull brakes.  OK.  Cantilever brakes are a form of caliper for me but for you they are their own category.  OK.  We agree disc are completely separate.  Long ago, back when Adventure Cycling started and did the 1976 Bike Centennial, your caliper brakes were the only brakes used by all the touring bikes that rode across the USA in 1976.  Cantilever brakes existed, but most or all brakes on touring bikes in the early years were center pull caliper brakes.  Google center pull caliper brakes to see a picture of them.  They are about the same as side pull caliper brakes except the cable attaches to the caliper arms in the center instead of off to the side like you see on all side pull racing bikes.  I have not read many stories of all the 1976 cross country riders dying while descending the mountains.  So apparently center pull caliper brakes work just fine for stopping loaded touring bikes going down mountains.  Caliper brakes are more than dependably strong to stop a loaded touring bike going down a mountain.  As for bulkiness, I've never given this much thought about brakes.  No brakes, caliper, cantilever, or disc are bulky.  But I suppose caliper brakes take up the most space and are the most bulky.  Although maybe disc are close with the discs and pads.  Cantilever are the least bulky.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 51