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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 51
61
Gear Talk / Re: Bike Choice for Bike Tour in Tibet
« on: August 22, 2017, 12:20:20 am »
I'd suggest getting YouTube videos, TV shows, news stories, etc. showing the roads in Tibet NOW.  Look for recent videos and shows to get sort of up to date views of the roads.  When watching the shows, look at the roads.  In your opening questions you mentioned lots of paved roads to and from Tibet and Everest.  In the shows I am talking about viewing, you may discover that these paved roads were built by the British in 1953 to get Hillary and Norgay to Everest.  And they have not seen one iota of care since.  In case you did not know, cold climates, like Tibet, are really hard on pavement because all of the freezing and thawing breaks up pavement very quickly.  In your opening question you talk about lots of "paved" roads.  I bet "paved" roads in North America and Europe are different than "paved" roads in Tibet.  I'm guessing "paved" roads in Tibet may not even be good enough to drive one of those huge tire BigFoot trucks on.  A mountain bike is probably the best choice.

62
Gear Talk / Re: Should have learnt the easy way.. some advice guys
« on: August 22, 2017, 12:02:00 am »
like your car mirrors have a small blind spot.  So a glance behind before you change your position is still called for.

No. Bike mirrors do not have a blind spot.  Why?  Because you can move your head in all directions and change your field of view in the bike mirror.  No blind spot with bike mirrors.  In contrast, car mirrors are fixed and you, the viewer, are also more or less fixed.  When using a car mirror you do not move around and look at the mirror from many different positions.  If you did, then you could eliminate the blind spot on a car too.  But usually you remain fixed in your car seat and just turn your head and look at the car mirror.  So it has a blind spot.  No blind spot on bike mirrors.  Your head moves in every direction when using the bike mirror and you can see everything behind you in every direction.  Up, down, left, right, close, far.  Just move your head to get whatever angle or direction you want.

Yes you should look manually by turning your head when making a position change on your bike.  Turning left, look in the mirror to see if any cars are coming up behind you, and then turn around and look with your eyes.

63
Gear Talk / Re: Advice for choosing components to reduce gear inches
« on: August 17, 2017, 02:00:02 pm »
I've seen 20 teeth specced as the range for a bunch of front derailleurs.

It might be the standard.  Don't know.  Its complete nonsense anyway.  My Campagnolo Veloce bike has a 52-42-24 crankset.  Shifts perfect.  28 tooth difference!!!  My touring bike has a 44-33-20 triple crank.  Shifts perfect.  24 tooth difference!!!  My old touring bike had 50-45-24 rings.  Shifted perfect.  26 tooth difference!!!  Used to be double front derailleurs had a 14 tooth difference.  Just enough to handle the common 53-39 crankset.  Then people started loving these compact cranks with 50-34 rings.  16 teeth difference!!!  Oh no!!!  Shimano, Campagnolo, SRAM did not change the front derailleur.  They magically said it was fine to shift 16 teeth with the front derailleur.  People even use a double front derailleur to shift a triple crankset.  But you say that's impossible?

64
Gear Talk / Re: Advice for choosing components to reduce gear inches
« on: August 16, 2017, 09:09:24 pm »
Question: If one can achieve the gear-inch target range of 18 - 110 by either changing the chainrings or the cassette (similar cost), is there a preferred option?

I can get to a gear-inch range of ~18 to ~110 by changing the crankset and chainrings (staying within the 20 tooth capacity for the front derailleur) OR changing the cassette cogs (rear derailleur will adjust to accommodate the largest cog). Cost and effort are about equal.

Depends on where you are starting from.  And what components you are starting with.  If you are starting with a triple crankset that allows 64 or 74mm bcd, then its real easy to just put a 22 or 24 tooth inner ring on the crank and you are done probably.  If you are starting with a 11-28 cassette and a crank that only allows 30 tooth inner ring, then its easiest to put a long cage rear derailleur and 11-36 cassette on the bike.  Generally its a hell of a lot easier to change derailleurs and cassettes than cranks and bottom brackets.

When setting up my loaded touring bike, I changed the chainrings AND the cassette.  Sort of.  It was really just the chainrings.  But I went from a seven speed 12-32 cassette to a ten speed 11-32 cassette.  And changed chainrings from a 48-45-24 to 44-33-20.  So my decrease on the low side came only from the chainrings.  High gear stayed exactly the same.  But I picked up a LOT more usable middle gears from the cassette change.

20 tooth capacity for a front derailleur?  That's a good one.  Is it April Fools Day?

65
Gear Talk / Re: front gears
« on: August 07, 2017, 02:03:16 pm »
That is my biggest concern whenever I think about a 1x. I abhor being geared too high or too low, especially since I have never been a "spinner."

Yes.  For fun I will put some math to the situation.  My touring bike is a 3x10.  44-33-20 crankset and 11-32 ten speed cassette.  My high gear is 108 gear inches.  My low gear is 17 gear inches.  Pretty darn good.  But I do have to deal with a triple crank and front derailleur and shifter.  Lets try to duplicate my setup with a 1x setup.  Lets use the SRAM cassettes I mentioned above.  SRAM makes an eleven speed 10-42 cassette and a twelve speed 10-50 cassette.  Lets use the twelve speed cassette.  To get a low gear equal to my low gear of 17 gear inches, you must use a 32 tooth single chainring with the 50 tooth cog.  Your high gear ends up as 86 gear inches.  Kind of a medium gear, not high at all.  Not high for paved road riding, maybe great for off road trail riding.  The 10-50 SRAM cassette has cogs of 10-12-14-16-18-21-24-28-32-36-42-50.  So your highest gears are 86, 72, 62, 54, 48 gear inches with the 32 ring you need to get my low gear.  I would be very unhappy riding with gears not too high and that far apart.  With the SRAM 1x system you can get higher overall gears by increasing the single chainring.  But then you have a higher low gear too.  And you still don't get closely spaced gears.  The cassettes made for 1x systems do not allow closely spaced gears because they have to cover such a large range.  10-42 or 10-50.  1x systems REQUIRE you to give up closely spaced gears AND one of the following, low gears OR high gears.  You can never have closely spaced gears and you must choose either low gears or high gears, never both.

Some day we may have 20 cog cassettes.  Then you can get closely spaced gears and high gears and low gears.  Everything with a single chainring.  No triple crankset needed.  And 20 cogs on the cassette.

66
Gear Talk / Re: front gears
« on: August 06, 2017, 03:09:14 pm »
Nothing wrong with a 1x system since we now have 10 to 14 gears in back.  If you look at a normal 2x or 3x crankset, you will discover that you really only have about 10 to 15 different gears.  All the others are duplicates of each other.  Rohloff is an internal gear hub system.  It was the most common way to go with 1x until recently.  Now a few different companies make wide ranging cassettes that can give you high and low gears on one cassette.  SRAM offers 10-42 and 10-50 cassettes.  With the right front chainring, you should get a low enough low gear and a high gear that is workable.  A minor, or major, problem is the jumps between gears may be large and you will wish for much closer gearing.  People forget that having a triple crankset allows you to have sort of closely spaced gears on the big and middle rings where you ride 99% of the time.  Closely spaced gears that are enjoyable to ride.  AND still have a little inner ring that allows you to get really low gears when needed for that 0.1% of the time.  Having a 10-42 or 10-50 cassette with a single ring means you have no close spaced gears and will always be wishing you had closer gearing.  Not something I want.  But others may be happy to ride in the wrong gear 90% of the time.

You mention not being a stickler and not using all your gears.  That may be true.  But think about which gears you use 90% of the time.  Are they 3 or 4 gears that are all close together?  With a 1x system you may discover that you now have only one gear to replace the 3-4 gears you used to use.  You might discover that bicycling now sucks because you don't have the right gear and are always geared too high or too low.  Never the right gear to pedal happily along.

67
Gear Talk / Re: Bike fitting is recommended or not?
« on: August 03, 2017, 04:42:29 pm »
Also keep in mind that you shouldn't mix steel with aluminum if you can help it... One will give up electrons to the other (I don't recall which direction it goes). The end result is that one will weld to the other in the short term, and in the long-term one will actually weaken the other.

Do you know that aluminum seatposts have been used in steel frames for the past 50+ years?  If what you are claiming has any validity, then about 90% of the bicycling world will never be able to adjust their saddle height.  And everyone selling a used bike will have to make sure its sold to someone who has the exact same saddle height.  And aluminum bottom bracket shells have been used for several decades now.  So apparently they are all welded to their steel frames and can never ever be replaced.  So don't ever think about replacing a bottom bracket on a steel frame.

68
General Discussion / Re: Front Suspension
« on: July 30, 2017, 06:12:30 pm »
As mentioned by others, a suspension fork is great in certain situations.  Such as the situations mountain bikes encounter when riding off road on dirt trails with ditches, holes, tree roots, rocks, etc.  You need a suspension fork to absorb the big abrupt bumps.  On paved roads, unless you are riding on bombed out roads in Baghdad, you aren't going to find big abrupt bumps.  You might find short small sections of road that have lots of potholes and cracks.  And a few stretches of roads with bad expansion joints.  But these are usually just a few feet long.  Or a couple miles with the expansion joints every 20 feet.  Not miles and miles and miles all day long day after day after day.  Wider tires, less air pressure, good bike shorts, good gel bike gloves, cork handlebar tape, good saddle, comfortable well fitting bike are what works best for 99.99999999% of paved road riding.  As already mentioned, suspension forks also have downsides.  Springy up down bouncing when you don't want it and the extra weight all the time.  Nothing is free.

69
General Discussion / Re: Bicycle Dynamo Charger
« on: July 19, 2017, 04:25:50 pm »
Not positive what you are asking.  If its whether to use a dynamo hub to charge batteries and GPS and phones and such, then not much comment.  Don't do that myself.  I have heard there are various converters and resistors and such that allow these types of things.  Do some research.  If the question is whether to use a dynamo hub to run a light at night, YES.  Once a person has used a good dynamo powered light on a bicycle, they almost fall over laughing at the foolish, dumb, stupid idea of using batteries to power a light.  At least for constant night riding on a regular basis.  One off rare occasional night riding is still OK with batteries.

70
General Discussion / Re: Touring on carbon
« on: July 13, 2017, 04:35:21 pm »
Another good bike in that price range is the Giant Contend which has been reviewed as such a good frame that testors thought they were riding on a road bike that cost 6 to 7 times more.

The Giant Contend 1 bike costs $810 according to Google search.  6 to 7 times more is about $4800 to $5600.  Anyone who claims they cannot tell the difference between an $800 bike and a $5000 bike is blowing smoke up your keester.

71
Gear Talk / Re: Endurance bike advice
« on: July 03, 2017, 09:38:18 pm »
Opinions?  Oh yes.  Experience?  I've ridden a few different bikes in the mountains and everything in between.  Not sure what an endurance bike is.  Road bike?  If so it should be good for road bicycling in the mountains if the gearing is low enough.  I generally ride a triple Cannondale CAAD7 in the mountains.  52-42-24 chainrings and 13-28 cassette.  Also ridden a Litespeed Tuscany with 46-30 rings and 12-29 cassette.  And a loaded touring bike with much lower gearing.  Perfect for unloaded riding in the Rockies and other big climbs.  A road bike with a compact chainring, 50-34, and a cassette of 11-32 or 11-34 should work fine for mountain road riding.  If you are set on buying a new road bicycle.  Or a road bike with a triple chainring and a inner chainring of less than 30.  24 teeth preferred.  Sort of hard to get those today unless you get a mountain bike crankset.  Rockies aren't too steep.  A 24x23 or 34x32 or anything close to 1:1 is good enough for the Rockies.  Rockies are long, not steep.

72
Gear Talk / Re: Tubeless Rims or Wheelset Query
« on: June 10, 2017, 06:47:55 pm »
Not really sure what you are asking for.  I think all clincher rims can be used tubeless.  Not just those who claim they are tubeless.  Remember this fact.  DT and Velocity make several rims that are very suitable for touring use.  36 hole.  Heavy duty.  There are probably other rim makers too.  Shimano makes a variety of road and mountain hubs with 36 holes.  Wheels are fairly easy to build yourself if you are inclined.  And you can hire a local person to build them for not much money.  Or online places offer this service too.  Spokes are $0.50 to $1.00 each for DT and Sapim double butted 14/15.  So its very easy to build exactly the touring wheel you want without much fuss at all.  What is the problem?

What you are asking is reminiscent of the olden days when all cranksets in the mountain/touring world used 110mm bcd and 74mm bcd centers.  Road used 130 and 135mm.  Back then there was no point complaining that your crank did not have the right chainrings that you wanted.  You could very easily buy any chainring size on earth from Campagnolo, Shimano, TA, Stronglight, Sugino, etc.  Put them on your bike and you will have exactly what you want.

Just buy the wheel parts you want and assemble them yourself or hire someone.  Then you will have exactly the wheelset you want.  Its really not that expensive either.

73
Routes / Re: Pacific Coast Road Quality
« on: June 07, 2017, 01:37:19 pm »
That's my main concern as I'm going by road bike (1,8 cm / 0,7 inch tyres).

Just to beat the dead horse until its a decomposing corpse.  I looked over at Starbike for skinny tires.  Fine German online seller with almost everything bike related on earth.  They had a 100+ road tires listed.  Only tire maker they don't have is Vredestein.  Michelin, Continental, Challenger, Mavic, Vittoria, Ritchey, etc.  Found one 19mm tire, couple 20mm tires, and a few 21mm tires.  Think the 19mm was a tubular track tire.  So when people start talking about going smaller than the already skinny 23mm road tires, they are getting into fantasy drug taking land.

74
Gear Talk / Re: Has anyone found a source for Titanium bike tools?
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:11:15 pm »
There are a couple companies that make titanium parts for bikes.  Search for them.  You could contact them and ask them to make a custom tool for you.  They would know what cone wrenches are so making a custom bike tool would be something they are familiar with.

75
General Discussion / Re: 15mm wrench vs 9/16 wrench???
« on: May 20, 2017, 09:39:11 pm »
Good catch on the spindle size and pedal threading.  I knew the 15mm but did not know the threading size.  Assumed metric since about everything else on a bike is metric.  Except chain size is 1/2" spacing.  And fork steerer tubes are 1" before and now 1 1/8".  Mix of American and metric on bikes I guess.  I forgot to ask about why someone plans 44 days in advance to go to Home Depot to buy a wrench.  July 3, 2017.  I doubt anyone in the history of the world has planned 44 days in advance to go to Home Depot.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 51