Why ride a MTB

Hunrobe wrote:
||| "Mike Kruger" [email hidden]
||
|| wrote:
||| Hunrobe wrote:
||||
|||| Not to pick ... because I know you didn't coin it and are
|||| just quoting, but "Lance wannabe" is not only insulting
||| but dumb. I
|||| mean he is: 1- arguably the best multiday tour racer
||| extant,
|||| 2- doing something he obviously loves,
|||| 3- a multi-millionaire,
|||| 4- admired by millions for what he's done both on and off
||| the bike,
|||| 5- dating Cheryl Crow,
|||| 6- the only (at least so far) 6 time winner of the TdF.
|||| If one needs or wants heroes one could do worse than him.
||||
||| Not to mention
||| * cancer survivor
||| * cancer philanthropist
|||
||
|| See # 4 in above list. BTW, what's so awful about liking light
|| bikes? <g>

I'm a big dude and I like a light bike. Easier to grab it up and move it
around as needed, for one thing.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hunrobe wrote:
||| "Mike Kruger" [email hidden]
||
|| wrote:
||| Hunrobe wrote:
||||
|||| Not to pick ... because I know you didn't coin it and are
|||| just quoting, but "Lance wannabe" is not only insulting
||| but dumb. I
|||| mean he is: 1- arguably the best multiday tour racer
||| extant,
|||| 2- doing something he obviously loves,
|||| 3- a multi-millionaire,
|||| 4- admired by millions for what he's done both on and off
||| the bike,
|||| 5- dating Cheryl Crow,
|||| 6- the only (at least so far) 6 time winner of the TdF.
|||| If one needs or wants heroes one could do worse than him.
||||
||| Not to mention
||| * cancer survivor
||| * cancer philanthropist
|||
||
|| See # 4 in above list. BTW, what's so awful about liking light
|| bikes? <g>

I'm a big dude and I like a light bike. Easier to grab it up and move it
around as needed, for one thing.

Light bikes are also nice for us older small dudettes. It makes it much
easier to load and unload it from the bike rack, increases speed, makes
climbing easier, etc.

Peter Cole said:

"loki" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Us larger frame guys certainly can ride a roadie. Speaking for myself -

and

Quoted message said:

maybe it's purely psychological - I feel more comfortable on a mtb.

A lot of people like the extra margin with road hazards derived from
over-size tires. This makes sense if you get rid of the deep tread. Even
at
235 (6'10"😉, I don't have a problem with road hazards, even in winter, so
I'd rather not use such large tires. Studded tires are the only real
solution to ice, but they're heavy, due to the weight of the studs and
the
tread depth required to hold them.

Ok, again the hang up on weight. That can be the difference between
drinking one extra coffee or not. I think I would take the weight over the
chance of a weak rim. It does not register with me how a few ounces makes
that big a difference in a bycycle decision. Well built with heavy duty
spokes would impress me more than just the number of spokes.
As I mentioned a few posts back a kid has a bike x-mart that has an absurd
number of spokes, but to what end? Don't large skinny tires have more pinch
flat problems going over minor obstacles like 1/4" curb risers to the
redestrian walkway and such anyway? I think a bunny hop on a full sized
bike
might look a little silly, and even on the road I have found times for
this manuever.
Is this baiting trouble or are all you 700 x 35 (or less) really that good?
Just curious, no argument intended here.

--
Bill (?) Baka

Mike Kruger said:

Hunrobe said:

Not to pick ... because I know you didn't coin it and are
just quoting, but "Lance wannabe" is not only insulting

but dumb. I

Quoted message said:

mean he is: 1- arguably the best multiday tour racer

extant,

Quoted message said:

2- doing something he obviously loves,
3- a multi-millionaire,
4- admired by millions for what he's done both on and off

the bike,

Quoted message said:

5- dating Cheryl Crow,
6- the only (at least so far) 6 time winner of the TdF.
If one needs or wants heroes one could do worse than him.

Not to mention
* cancer survivor
* cancer philanthropist

What's the saying: "I'd give my left nut ..."

Ron

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Studded tires are the only real
solution to ice, but they're heavy, due to the weight of the studs and
the
tread depth required to hold them.

Ok, again the hang up on weight. That can be the difference between
drinking one extra coffee or not.

In this case, the weight difference is almost 2 lb, noticeable, but the
rolling resistance of the tread has a larger impact on speed/effort.

Quoted message said:

I think I would take the weight over the
chance of a weak rim. It does not register with me how a few ounces makes
that big a difference in a bycycle decision.

Like the man said: "Light, reliable, inexpensive -- pick any 2". Bikes are
always a trade-off and weight is just one factor. All things being equal
(which of course they never are), I'd go for the lighter bike. In the real
world there's a diminishing return curve, so the decision is where on the
curve you want to go.

Quoted message said:

Is this baiting trouble or are all you 700 x 35 (or less) really that

good?

Quoted message said:

Just curious, no argument intended here.

I find 26" knobbies will lower my average speed perhaps 10% over 700c
slicks. That's not the end of the world, but I find it more pleasant to go
that much faster.

Peter Cole said:

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Studded tires are the only real
solution to ice, but they're heavy, due to the weight of the studs and
the
tread depth required to hold them.

Ok, again the hang up on weight. That can be the difference between
drinking one extra coffee or not.

In this case, the weight difference is almost 2 lb, noticeable, but the
rolling resistance of the tread has a larger impact on speed/effort.

I weigh in at about 150 pounds, the bike 48 pounds, and the back pack
for the longer trips is about 20 pounds. The two water bottles on the
frame are 24 Oz. which is about 1.5 pounds each.
A few ounces stops making sense after a while.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think I would take the weight over the
chance of a weak rim. It does not register with me how a few ounces
makes
that big a difference in a bycycle decision.

Like the man said: "Light, reliable, inexpensive -- pick any 2". Bikes
are
always a trade-off and weight is just one factor. All things being equal
(which of course they never are), I'd go for the lighter bike. In the
real
world there's a diminishing return curve, so the decision is where on the
curve you want to go.

Quoted message said:

Is this baiting trouble or are all you 700 x 35 (or less) really that

good?

Quoted message said:

Just curious, no argument intended here.

I find 26" knobbies will lower my average speed perhaps 10% over 700c
slicks. That's not the end of the world, but I find it more pleasant to
go
that much faster.

That is perception. The only way to verify that is to hit a marker at an
exact speed and stop pedaling, assume the same position on both bikes,
and see how far you coast. I have not found all that much difference.
I think it is overrated. I keep about 55 pounds in my MTB tires and 100
to 120 in my 700s. The only difference seems to be aero and that disappears
below about 10 mph and the coast distance is close enough not to make a
difference to me.
I keep telling you guys, if you wnat speed go out and buy a small
motorcycle.
Lots of speed, bigger motorcycle.

--
Bill (?) Baka

I think the original question could just have easily been "Why do people that live in the city buy SUV's...." and gotten pretty much the same responses :-)

L

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:38:03 GMT, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find 26" knobbies will lower my average speed perhaps 10% over 700c
slicks. That's not the end of the world, but I find it more pleasant to
go
that much faster.

That is perception. The only way to verify that is to hit a marker at an
exact speed and stop pedaling, assume the same position on both bikes,
and see how far you coast. I have not found all that much difference.
I think it is overrated. I keep about 55 pounds in my MTB tires and 100
to 120 in my 700s. The only difference seems to be aero and that

disappears

Quoted message said:

below about 10 mph and the coast distance is close enough not to make a
difference to me.

It's not perception. I ride the same course weekly with a large group
consisting of many of the same riders, and have for years now. I have done
it with a HRM and speedometer. I have absolute confidence in my
observations, and they are consistent with models. My average speed over
rolling terrain for a couple of hours is around 20 mph, with knobbies it's
hard to make 18.

Quoted message said:

I keep telling you guys, if you wnat speed go out and buy a small
motorcycle.
Lots of speed, bigger motorcycle.

Thanks, but I'm into muscle-powered, except when I want to relax, then it's
wind-powered.

Peter Cole said:

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:38:03 GMT, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I find 26" knobbies will lower my average speed perhaps 10% over 700c
slicks. That's not the end of the world, but I find it more pleasant

to

Quoted message said:

go
that much faster.

That had to be Peter, not me. 2% maybe but not 10%.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is perception. The only way to verify that is to hit a marker at an
exact speed and stop pedaling, assume the same position on both bikes,
and see how far you coast. I have not found all that much difference.
I think it is overrated. I keep about 55 pounds in my MTB tires and 100
to 120 in my 700s. The only difference seems to be aero and that

disappears

Quoted message said:

below about 10 mph and the coast distance is close enough not to make a
difference to me.

It's not perception. I ride the same course weekly with a large group
consisting of many of the same riders, and have for years now. I have
done
it with a HRM and speedometer. I have absolute confidence in my
observations, and they are consistent with models. My average speed over
rolling terrain for a couple of hours is around 20 mph, with knobbies
it's
hard to make 18.

Sorry, I can't agree on that. The only real way is to do a coast down
in the same position and time it. Once I get down to about 5 MPH there
is almost no difference before I reach fall off speed of about 0.3 MPH.
It is one of the tricks I am teaching the kids, how slow they can
maintain balance, not how fast, and it helps in parking lot situations
and rodk crawling, not that I expect much sympathy on that. I actually
have a MTB 26" X 2.25" that I can maintain 20 MPH on better than a
roadie with 26" x 1 3/8" (1.25"😉 just because of the riding position.
My Super Sport 700 x 25 is a problem because the frame is meant for
someone about 6' tall and I am only 5' 7" but again 20 is about it.
It may have to do with the fact that my knobbies and 1.75 inchers are
kept at 55 to 60 pounds and the 700 roadie as at 100. The 26" is a
compromise at 55 since I don't know what is safe and a tire blowing up
puts an M-80 to shame.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I keep telling you guys, if you wnat speed go out and buy a small
motorcycle.
Lots of speed, bigger motorcycle.

Thanks, but I'm into muscle-powered, except when I want to relax, then
it's
wind-powered.

--
Bill (?) Baka

"Bill Baka" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

the versatility
of an ATB can't be beat if you want to cut across the grass in the park.

Why is an ATB required if you want to cut across the grass in the park? This
is a function of the tires, mostly, not the bike.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Still, my bike is one of those comfort road bikes with a sloping top
tube....so I still don't see the point. But the low spoke count did make
the bike look cool, though.

That's the real reason for them. Contrary-wise, that's also the reason for
high spoke count wheels on BMX bikes. Summary: anything different can be
pushed as cool.

"Low spoke count wheels will make your bike look cooler", is indeed a marketing
strategy but I don't believe (and I doubt you do either) that low spoke count
wheels were developed and built for pro riders with that goal- increased "cool
factor"- in mind.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Low spoke count wheels will make your bike look cooler", is indeed a

marketing

Quoted message said:

strategy but I don't believe (and I doubt you do either) that low spoke

count

Quoted message said:

wheels were developed and built for pro riders with that goal- increased

"cool

Quoted message said:

factor"- in mind.

I doubt that low spoke count wheels were developed for pros at all. I think
they were developed for the retail market and the pros are paid to ride
them. The economics of product development more or less require this, but
it leads to all that "race inspired" hype that's so common in bikes and
cars. It's as phony as "stock car" bodies that are skins made to look like
production vehicles. Bike marketing, like car marketing, is about fantasy,
not utility.

Peter Cole said:

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Low spoke count wheels will make your bike look cooler", is indeed a

marketing

Quoted message said:

strategy but I don't believe (and I doubt you do either) that low spoke

count

Quoted message said:

wheels were developed and built for pro riders with that goal- increased

"cool

Quoted message said:

factor"- in mind.

I doubt that low spoke count wheels were developed for pros at all. I
think
they were developed for the retail market and the pros are paid to ride
them. The economics of product development more or less require this, but
it leads to all that "race inspired" hype that's so common in bikes and
cars. It's as phony as "stock car" bodies that are skins made to look
like
production vehicles. Bike marketing, like car marketing, is about
fantasy,
not utility.

Kind of like a Ford body on a Chevy engine. It just doesn't add up.

--
Bill (?) Baka

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I doubt that low spoke count wheels were developed for pros at all. I think
they were developed for the retail market and the pros are paid to ride
them. The economics of product development more or less require this, but
it leads to all that "race inspired" hype that's so common in bikes and
cars. It's as phony as "stock car" bodies that are skins made to look like
production vehicles. Bike marketing, like car marketing, is about fantasy,
not utility.

On some level, all marketing is designed to appeal to emotion but marketing is
different from R&D. Low spoke count wheels are *marketed* by appealing to a
desire to look "cool" but nonetheless they were *developed* in response to
research that suggested that they would be more aerodynamically efficient. The
slight aero advantage a good low spoke count wheel isn't enough for me to
justify buying a pair to replace the perfectly good Open Pros I already have
but that the advantage exists really isn't open to much debate from what I've
read.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/Oceania/Australia/Victoria/Localities/B/Ballarat/Recreation_and_Sports/Aero/

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I doubt that low spoke count wheels were developed for pros at all. I

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they were developed for the retail market and the pros are paid to ride
them. The economics of product development more or less require this,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it leads to all that "race inspired" hype that's so common in bikes and
cars. It's as phony as "stock car" bodies that are skins made to look

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

production vehicles. Bike marketing, like car marketing, is about

fantasy,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not utility.

On some level, all marketing is designed to appeal to emotion but

marketing is

Quoted message said:

different from R&D. Low spoke count wheels are *marketed* by appealing to

a

Quoted message said:

desire to look "cool" but nonetheless they were *developed* in response

to

Quoted message said:

research that suggested that they would be more aerodynamically

efficient. The

Quoted message said:

slight aero advantage a good low spoke count wheel isn't enough for me to
justify buying a pair to replace the perfectly good Open Pros I already

have

Quoted message said:

but that the advantage exists really isn't open to much debate from what

I've

Quoted message said:

read.

I'll agree that there may be slight performance advantages to low spoke
count wheels, but my point was that the monetary payoff for all such things
is in the recreational market. Refinements like these may offer a very
slight advantage under ideal conditions, which should limit their appeal to
a very narrow market (like competitive time trialists), but they are hyped
and sold to much wider markets, which is why you see LSC wheels on
entry-level hybrid bikes.

The net of this is that the majority of customers for such things are
people who gain nothing and are really just buying into a fantasy. That
would be harmless, except that such things often have tradeoffs (like
service/reliability/cost) which make them poorly suited for most of the
buyers. That, and the inevitable situation where these things begin to
dominate inventory and push more practical components off the shelves.

On a broader level, I think this fantasy marketing is harmful in that it
encourages the development of racing attitudes among recreational riders.
Most of our weekly club rides seem to morph into races over time. This is
generally incompatible with sharing the road with other vehicles. This is
exactly similar to the way that "race-inspired" car features/marketing
encourages dangerous and illegal driving behavior. My club has had to shut
down some weekly rides that had been running for years because of liability
concerns and community complaints.

We have one such weekly ride that has enjoyed a 400 week consecutive run.
The ride has become so popular that even during the winter we can have an
average turnout of 40-50 cyclists. As one of the "founders", I have seen
this change over time to the point where I no longer enjoy it. There has
been ever greater conflict with drivers, and aggressive, race-like
maneuvering in the groups. The worst offenders are riders who don't race,
but who have high-end bikes, all of the accessories, and way more
disposable income (apparently) and attitude than skills or common sense. It
may seem like a reach to some to connect all this to LSC wheels and the
like, but I'm pretty convinced of the connection, and it's not good.

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I'll agree that there may be slight performance advantages to low spoke
count wheels, but my point was that the monetary payoff for all such things
is in the recreational market. Refinements like these may offer a very
slight advantage under ideal conditions, which should limit their appeal to
a very narrow market (like competitive time trialists), but they are hyped
and sold to much wider markets, which is why you see LSC wheels on
entry-level hybrid bikes.

The net of this is that the majority of customers for such things are
people who gain nothing and are really just buying into a fantasy. That
would be harmless, except that such things often have tradeoffs (like
service/reliability/cost) which make them poorly suited for most of the
buyers. That, and the inevitable situation where these things begin to
dominate inventory and push more practical components off the shelves.

On a broader level, I think this fantasy marketing is harmful in that it
encourages the development of racing attitudes among recreational riders.
Most of our weekly club rides seem to morph into races over time. This is
generally incompatible with sharing the road with other vehicles. This is
exactly similar to the way that "race-inspired" car features/marketing
encourages dangerous and illegal driving behavior. My club has had to shut
down some weekly rides that had been running for years because of liability
concerns and community complaints.

We have one such weekly ride that has enjoyed a 400 week consecutive run.
The ride has become so popular that even during the winter we can have an
average turnout of 40-50 cyclists. As one of the "founders", I have seen
this change over time to the point where I no longer enjoy it. There has
been ever greater conflict with drivers, and aggressive, race-like
maneuvering in the groups. The worst offenders are riders who don't race,
but who have high-end bikes, all of the accessories, and way more
disposable income (apparently) and attitude than skills or common sense. It
may seem like a reach to some to connect all this to LSC wheels and the
like, but I'm pretty convinced of the connection, and it's not good.

I agree with you that:
1- LSC wheels on an entry level hybrid bike are just plain foolish if you
eliminate the "entry level" qualifier and make that *any* hybrid bike since an
"aero" hybrid is a contradiction in terms and
2- a racing mentality has no place on public streets no matter how many wheels
are on the pavement.
I also agree that there likely is a connection between rider behavior and the
bike they are on but I can't say that I blame marketing for dangerous and
illegal behavior. The plain fact is that for most people it is fun to go fast
whether on two or four wheels. Marketing appeals to that thrill seeking
behavior but it doesn't create it.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Hunrobe" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I agree with you that:
1- LSC wheels on an entry level hybrid bike are just plain foolish if you
eliminate the "entry level" qualifier and make that *any* hybrid bike

since an

Quoted message said:

"aero" hybrid is a contradiction in terms and
2- a racing mentality has no place on public streets no matter how many

wheels

Quoted message said:

are on the pavement.
I also agree that there likely is a connection between rider behavior and

the

Quoted message said:

bike they are on but I can't say that I blame marketing for dangerous and
illegal behavior. The plain fact is that for most people it is fun to go

fast

Quoted message said:

whether on two or four wheels. Marketing appeals to that thrill seeking
behavior but it doesn't create it.

I have no quibble with bike road racing, nor with equipment that gives
people who do that a little edge (although there is a sort of "arms race"
inevitably); nor do I think there's anything wrong with thrill seeking, or
marketing to thrill seekers. There's a time and place for racing, though.
Car manufacturers often depict sleek sedans zooming along twisting roads,
or now, even drag racing from stop lights. They used to put in disclaimers
about "professional drivers" and "closed tracks" -- no more.

Bike racing needs to be done on closed roads. When groups of cyclists start
effectively racing on open roads, bad things happen. If an individual wants
to ride an ultra-light bike with advanced aerodynamics just to go a bit
faster, fine, but I don't think that extra 5% makes any real difference in
thrills except in the fantasy of their own imagination. I wonder what
proportion of aerodynamic wheels and ultralight frames are sold to people
who actually race? The deception is subtle and quantitative. There's no
argument that an aero wheel will make you a bit faster, the real issue is
exactly how much faster, and whether that makes any real difference at all,
especially in light of the tradeoffs.

Quoted message said:

"Peter Cole" [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I have no quibble with bike road racing, nor with equipment that gives
people who do that a little edge (although there is a sort of "arms race"
inevitably); nor do I think there's anything wrong with thrill seeking, or
marketing to thrill seekers. There's a time and place for racing, though.
Car manufacturers often depict sleek sedans zooming along twisting roads,
or now, even drag racing from stop lights. They used to put in disclaimers
about "professional drivers" and "closed tracks" -- no more.

Most of the television ads like you describe that I've seen lately seem to
still have that qualifier appended but I seldom watch tv ads so maybe you're
right.

Quoted message said:

Bike racing needs to be done on closed roads. When groups of cyclists start
effectively racing on open roads, bad things happen. If an individual wants
to ride an ultra-light bike with advanced aerodynamics just to go a bit
faster, fine, but I don't think that extra 5% makes any real difference in
thrills except in the fantasy of their own imagination. I wonder what
proportion of aerodynamic wheels and ultralight frames are sold to people
who actually race? The deception is subtle and quantitative. There's no
argument that an aero wheel will make you a bit faster, the real issue is
exactly how much faster, and whether that makes any real difference at all,
especially in light of the tradeoffs.

After reading back over what you and I have posted in this thread I rather
think we're in almost complete agreement. The only disagreement I can identify
is that you seem to think (I could be misreading your posts) a deception is
being perpetrated upon consumers through marketing strategies while I think the
marketing is simply aimed at the self-deception of the targeted consumers who
are likely aware that it is indeed self-deception.

Regards,
Bob Hunt