Question on road bikes



Wild Wind <[email protected]> wrote:

: Just curious... this shaving off of weight here and there, does
: it really count in the end? I mean, I dare say it's possible to
: design a mudguard that weighed 200g, but I don't know that the
: negligible extra speed you would gain from losing 200g would be
: worth the lack of protection from surface water.

At speed [1] it's the extra wind resistance from mudguards that slows you
down, not the weight (which isn't a great deal, though the combination
of full length 'guards + a rack does add a noticable amount).

Arthur

[1] Speed = more than 20 mph.

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
Arthur Clune wrote:

> Out of interest, what have you got? ISTR a Burrows 8 Freight?
>=20
> How does it compare to the standard bike + Bob, which is what I have?


I've not actually tried a BOB, but my pal with one took a look at my=20
coal bags and said he wouldn't want to try both at once (ISTR it's about =

a 35 Kg rating on a BOB, where the 8 will do occasionals of up to 100 Kg =

and routinely run with 50 Kg according to MB).

But primary improvement are, I think, from the whole thing being=20
designed for the job from the ground up. So a very wide stand which you =

can put down from a handlebar control combined with a parking brake=20
means that loading up is safer and easier. The load bin is wider and=20
deeper than a BOB's, so you can make do without straps for more loads=20
(the fridge to the dump trip, for example, didn't need any special=20
securing, we just lowered it into the freight bin and let it rest back=20
on the frame tubes). Another bonus is that the 20" rear is below the=20
level of the top of the load area (extended from the bin by an integral=20
rack) so you can overhang the end of the bike with no worries about=20
trapping stuff in wheels when you steer.
Another nice feature is a relatively low cross bar, which can make=20
getting on and off with really unwieldy loads a lot more friendly=20
(having said that, I've got a nasty graze on my shin from when I forgot=20
that swinging my leg over the bag of the saddle would interface with a=20
folding bad I had lashed to the back last week, D'oh!), though of course =

there's nothing to stop you using a step-through frame with a BOB.

On the minus side you can't take the load area off and stick it in a=20
cupboard when you get home to leave you with ideal personal transport!=20
It's about the same length as a tandem with a 2m wheelbase so it's not=20
really feasible to prop it in the hall when you add in the width of the=20
load bin (which is integral to the frame). It strikes me as better for=20
serious loads than just about any other bike, but most other bikes do=20
more than one thing well. Another big minus compared to a BOB, of=20
course, is the extra grand it'll cost (basic bike is =A31150 but mine has=
=20
a dynamo with front and rear standlights plus a Klickfix basket (there's =

a mount welded on as standard) for the front for even more carrying=20
capacity to notch the price up the extra =A3100).

I use mine more than I thought I would, and it's been especially handy=20
the last couple of weeks while I've been clearing out the attic and Roos =

has decided Something Must Be Done about the garden, both of which have=20
prompted much dump action...

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Wild Wind <[email protected]> wrote:

: Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately due to space
: restrictions, I can only have the one bike. If I get a bit more
: cash, I'm looking to get a Brompton though.

Ah. That's a different situation.

In that case, if you don't have to carry too much weight: Dawes Audax
or similar. If you want to carry a lot of weight, a tourer (Galaxy or
similar).

The thing is, a Galaxy isn't actually all that fast so may not be any
faster than your current bike depending on what you have. Though with 28mm
tyres pumped hard, it'll not be bad. I've just brought Simon Ward's old
Galaxy for trailer towing duties and I'd forgotten just how "trundly"
they are. Must get round to paying him for it as well...hm.

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook
 
In article <[email protected]>, Wild Wind wrote:
>I never seem to see any road bike with mudguards and racks
>fitted. If there is a good reason for this?


Because "road bike" tends to mean "bike designed for racing"
even when it isn't used for racing. Lots of bikes designed
for use on the road do (or at least can) have mudguards and racks.
As well as audax and touring bikes, there are "city" bikes,
"comfort" bikes, and a fair proportion of "hybrids", depending
on how a particular manufacturer labels their ranges.
 
Wild Wind wrote:

> Just curious... this shaving off of weight here and there, does
> it really count in the end?


To a utility and trundly touring cyclist like me, not at all. I think a
bike without mudguards is daft, but to a racer trying to get every inch
of gain s/he can, yes, it counts. As does the little extra aerodynamic
drag.

People don't race because it's comfortable, they race to go as fast as
they can. The only comfort considerations are the bike mustn't cause so
much discomfort it affects your performance or saps your will to live
over the duration of the event!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Wild Wind wrote:

> Just curious... this shaving off of weight here and there, does
> it really count in the end?


It really does because there are so many parts on a bike. The way to end
up with a really light bike is to pay attention to every detail, right
down to the tens of grams. And a lightweight bike is better to ride,
particularly if the rider is not too heavy.

> I mean, I dare say it's possible to
> design a mudguard that weighed 200g, but I don't know that the
> negligible extra speed you would gain from losing 200g would be
> worth the lack of protection from surface water.


Depends how much you care about getting wet.

> But then again, we all have different things we look for in riding.


Indeed, but we can all change our minds about what we think is essential.

~PB
 
"Wild Wind" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2hjih4FdumfgU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> I never seem to see any road bike with mudguards and racks
> fitted. If there is a good reason for this? I'd like to
> get a road bike myself for the enhanced speed - but I don't
> want to get splashed going through puddles and I do use my
> current bike quite a lot for carrying stuff around.
>
> --
> Akin
>
> aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
>
>


Mine's a Giant OCR4 and it's got braze-ons for mudguards (recently removed
cos I thought the worst of the weather was over, silly me), and a rack
fitted with P-clips. It would be nice, really nice, to have one bike with
all the bumph, and one sleek speed machine, but I just haven't got that
sort of money so it doubles up as a commuter (rode a few months with a
backpack, hated it) and a long-days-out bike. I reckon it could take the
weight for two or three days light touring as well (between youth hostels).
 
Wild Wind wrote:

> Am I correct in saying that while it is technically feasible
> to manufacture mudguards that will fit into the clearances provided
> by road bikes, this isn't done because people who use road bikes
> generally *don't* want mudguards that will slow them down anyway,
> so there's no point in making them?


Yes. There are mudguards (Salmon) that fit most racing bikes, but
they're rarely seen.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I use different bikes for different things. Since you probably won't
> be going too fast carrying heavy luggage this may be the better
> approach. Audax bikes are somewhere between a racer and tourer and are
> designed to eat miles fast in comfort carrying light luggage, for more
> luggage
> consider a tourer and/or a trailer.


Definitely. I'm a great believer in a really fast road bike and a
trailer. Hitch on the trailer and you can carry anything you need,
unhitch it and you can zoom off. Best of both worlds.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
 
in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : how much does your race bike weigh?
>
> 18lbs.


Which by implication says your Audax weighed 24lbs, which is the same as
Juliette's full-suspension, disk braked Santa Cruz Juliana. My (large)
Cannondale Jekyll weighs only 3lbs more, and that's with the low-end
steel sprung lefty - the titanium/carbon lefty on the high-end Jekylls
would save another 2lbs.

You sure?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > : how much does your race bike weigh?
> >
> > 18lbs.

>
> Which by implication says your Audax weighed 24lbs, which is the same as
> Juliette's full-suspension, disk braked Santa Cruz Juliana. My (large)
> Cannondale Jekyll weighs only 3lbs more, and that's with the low-end
> steel sprung lefty - the titanium/carbon lefty on the high-end Jekylls
> would save another 2lbs.
>
> You sure?


Seems reasonable to me.

My new audax style bike, with an 60cm Al frame, lowish-end components
(mirage, tiagra), back rack, mudguards, schmidt dynohub + lights and a
klick-fix handlebar bag mount weighs about 27lb on my bathroom scales (that
includes pedals - many published weights don't).

cheers,
clive
 
Clive George wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
>>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: how much does your race bike weigh?
>>>
>>>18lbs.

>>
>>Which by implication says your Audax weighed 24lbs, which is the same as
>>Juliette's full-suspension, disk braked Santa Cruz Juliana. My (large)
>>Cannondale Jekyll weighs only 3lbs more, and that's with the low-end
>>steel sprung lefty - the titanium/carbon lefty on the high-end Jekylls
>>would save another 2lbs.
>>
>>You sure?

>
>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> My new audax style bike, with an 60cm Al frame, lowish-end components
> (mirage, tiagra), back rack, mudguards, schmidt dynohub + lights and a
> klick-fix handlebar bag mount weighs about 27lb on my bathroom scales (that
> includes pedals - many published weights don't).
>
> cheers,
> clive
>
>


At this rate I'm going to have to go and get my bathroom scales out..

--


Velvet
 
Clive George wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
>>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Clive George <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: how much does your race bike weigh?
>>>
>>>18lbs.

>>
>>Which by implication says your Audax weighed 24lbs, which is the same as
>>Juliette's full-suspension, disk braked Santa Cruz Juliana. My (large)
>>Cannondale Jekyll weighs only 3lbs more, and that's with the low-end
>>steel sprung lefty - the titanium/carbon lefty on the high-end Jekylls
>>would save another 2lbs.
>>
>>You sure?

>
>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> My new audax style bike, with an 60cm Al frame, lowish-end components
> (mirage, tiagra), back rack, mudguards, schmidt dynohub + lights and a
> klick-fix handlebar bag mount weighs about 27lb on my bathroom scales (that
> includes pedals - many published weights don't).
>
> cheers,
> clive
>
>


My teeny audax frame (either a 51 or a 53cm, can't remember, it's the
smallest dawes do on it), tiagra etc components, back rack, guards,
extra bar extender plus light fittings/computer etc, pump, bell,
airzound, lock-mount (but not the lock), pedals..

Comes in at 28lbs. I know full well if I strip it down to bare bones
it'll be a fair bit lighter than that - if I was going for as light as
possible I'd debate removing the guards (if it's fine, then they'd come
off), certainly take off the rack, bar extender (leaving just one light
front and aft - if I was going to be out after dark, battery powered
instead of the lead-acid fronts I have currently), bell, airzound,
lockmount.. judging from the difference in weight from when I first got
the bike, I'd say it'd make a fair bit of difference, but I'm not about
to go strip it down tonight just to find out, it'll be used at the
weekend (woohoo!), and the forecast is showers :)

Steel framed, not aluminium, of course. Looks like a small steel frame
is roughly the same as a large alu frame, which matches with what I
thought when I hefted t'other halfs big alu frame racer.

--


Velvet
 
Velvet wrote:

> At this rate I'm going to have to go and get my bathroom scales out..


Ooh. Go on! Let's all be weight weenies. My bike weighs in at 19.8lbs --
that's an alu framed Specialized Sirrus.
 
Simonb wrote:

> Velvet wrote:
>
>
>>At this rate I'm going to have to go and get my bathroom scales out..

>
>
> Ooh. Go on! Let's all be weight weenies. My bike weighs in at 19.8lbs --
> that's an alu framed Specialized Sirrus.
>
>


Someone as amply proportioned as me would *never* be mistaken for a
weight weenie... :)

--


Velvet
 
"Wild Wind" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Simonb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Wild Wind wrote:
> > > I never seem to see any road bike with mudguards and racks
> > > fitted. If there is a good reason for this?

> >
> > They lack the necessary rack/mudguard braze-ons and don't have the right
> > clearances for mudguards.

>
> Am I correct in saying that while it is technically feasible
> to manufacture mudguards that will fit into the clearances provided
> by road bikes, this isn't done because people who use road bikes
> generally *don't* want mudguards that will slow them down anyway,
> so there's no point in making them?


The reasons you give mean that the market is relatively small and the guards are
quite expensive.

Take a look at http://www.deesidecycles.com/mudguards.htm and check out the
Salmon guards. The SKS Race Blades that Arthur mentioned are there too.

> > > I'd like to
> > > get a road bike myself for the enhanced speed - but I don't
> > > want to get splashed going through puddles and I do use my
> > > current bike quite a lot for carrying stuff around.

> >
> > Get a so-called 'Audax' bike. It has slightly larger clearances and
> > braze-ons in all the right places. Good for fast, light touring.
> >
> > Or get a tourer.

>
> What's the difference between an Audax and a tourer?


The former is a lighter/faster version of the latter. It will still take
mudguards and rack, but has narrower tyres, higher gearing, and a sportier
riding position, but still less extreme than a full-on racer. It may also have
dual-pivot brakes in place of the tourer's vees/cantis.

Take a look at the Dawes Audax vs the Galaxy on the Dawes site, and look at the
various models offered by www.sjscycles.com to get an idea of the differences in
design.
--
Mark South
Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net
<<Tiens! Ce poulet a une grenade!>>
 
A big thank you to all who answered the questions I had
on road bikes. I've been to Dawes website, and it looks
like their Audax bike might be what I'm looking for.

But again out of curiosity, I must ask - aren't there other
bike manufacturers (apart from Dawes which seems to be the
only manufacturer mentioned) that do road type bikes with the
rack and guards? I would have thought that I'm not the only
person who would like the speed of roadsters with the
utility of tourers/hybrids, and that there would be a range
of bikes to meet this demand.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
 
in message <[email protected]>, Clive George
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Which by implication says your Audax weighed 24lbs, which is the same
>> as Juliette's full-suspension, disk braked Santa Cruz Juliana. My
>> (large) Cannondale Jekyll weighs only 3lbs more, and that's with the
>> low-end steel sprung lefty - the titanium/carbon lefty on the
>> high-end Jekylls would save another 2lbs.
>>
>> You sure?

>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> My new audax style bike, with an 60cm Al frame, lowish-end components
> (mirage, tiagra), back rack, mudguards, schmidt dynohub + lights and a
> klick-fix handlebar bag mount weighs about 27lb on my bathroom scales
> (that includes pedals - many published weights don't).


Well I'll be something or othered. So much for the theory that
full-suspension mountain bikes are heavy. OK, yes, I do appreciate that
your weight includes lights... but mine includes a klick-fix as well.
And pedals and bottle cages and bar-ends and stuff. I had assumed a
reasonable audax would come in under 22lbs.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
 
Wild Wind wrote:
> A big thank you to all who answered the questions I had
> on road bikes. I've been to Dawes website, and it looks
> like their Audax bike might be what I'm looking for.
>
> But again out of curiosity, I must ask - aren't there other
> bike manufacturers (apart from Dawes which seems to be the
> only manufacturer mentioned) that do road type bikes with the
> rack and guards?


I'm sure there are others, but:

http://www.sjscycles.com/store/vIndex.htm
http://www.ricciltd.com/ricci1.html
http://www.robertscycles.com/
http://www.merciancycles.co.uk/bikes.htm
http://www.bobjacksoncycles.co.uk/default.php
http://www.ribblecycles.co.uk/