I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid
#76
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 27,297
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 1,407 Times
in
908 Posts
My 50T 10-42 replaces a 52/36 11-34 that suited me just fine. I like the bike a bit better. I notice the 2lb. difference on the climbs.
We'll see how it does on a local hill where I always spin the rear tire on a short kicker running a 50/34 11-34.
It's a very light bike, but would be light with a double drivetrain, no doubt.
Psych-wise, still weird. I attacked a couple of difficult climbs and as usual, was reluctant to use all the cogs. Whereas "saving" a cog or two on my double was a bank of 2T or 4T, I'm banking 3T with each cog on the 1x. Putting it realistically, I've yet to use the 42, 39, or 36 on the rear with the 50T front. No doubt I will, with Cat 4 climbs in my future (if there is one.)
I've yet to run it on a hilly century with tired legs and a Cat 4 climb after 90 or 95 miles. Last year saw me on the 36T front and 32T rear on both of those.
Otherwise, the SRAM is simple and works.
Approaching a climb; I don't have the same chainy tooth-gnashing noise as the rest of the group drops to the small ring and spins into normalcy, but the same anxiety about climbing, nonetheless.
I can always go to double on it if my old legs require. For Thunder Ridge, 1x is probably OK. For the coast/climb pattern of Dairyland Dare or Horrible Hilly Hundred, probably just drop the 50T front for a 44T.
And yes, I'm on the 10T rear once in a while. Seems odd, as I was rarely on the 11T on my stsndard doubles. A masher gotta mash.
Last edited by RobbieTunes; 04-02-20 at 05:11 AM.
Likes For RobbieTunes:
#77
Senior Member
#78
Thrifty Bill
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Mountains of Western NC
Posts: 23,572
Bikes: 86 Katakura Silk, 87 Prologue X2, 88 Cimarron LE, 1975 Sekai 4000 Professional, 73 Paramount, plus more
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1236 Post(s)
Liked 957 Times
in
624 Posts
"I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid"
While I agree, it is not limited to modern drivetrains. Think of the genius that came up with the idea of plastic derailleurs and plastic brake levers.... or a 23.35mm thread crank arm. Or the Superbe Tech RD, where the cable left the middle of the chain stay at an angle and the body was all enclosed. Or the Shimano FFS.
While I agree, it is not limited to modern drivetrains. Think of the genius that came up with the idea of plastic derailleurs and plastic brake levers.... or a 23.35mm thread crank arm. Or the Superbe Tech RD, where the cable left the middle of the chain stay at an angle and the body was all enclosed. Or the Shimano FFS.
Likes For Camilo:
#80
Master Parts Rearranger
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portlandia's Kuiper Belt, OR
Posts: 4,680
Bikes: 1982 Trek 720 - 1985 Trek 620 - 1984 Trek 620 - 1980 Trek 510 - Other luminaries past and present
Mentioned: 221 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1553 Post(s)
Liked 2,006 Times
in
984 Posts
That truss fork (OP's image) is, regardless of functional merit posited by whomever made it, ugly. Nothing says "I'm gonna rattle the teeth outta your head at every bump and rock!" like a bunch of extra metal on the front end.
The 11-42T and 10-50T cassettes are pretty out there, and, to no one's surprise, quite heavy! For road or near-road use, I find them unnecessary as it's a lot of trade-off in my eyes--elegance being the primary one. It's also about 1/2 a pound heavier a setup (11-42T 1x setup) after running some calculations with decent to upper level road and MTB component weights. Crank and chainring clearance are solid reasons for more off-road focused frame types, so I get that. MTB groupsets are Super Mech 5000 in looks, and I'm not a fan of bringing the BROOTAL look to road frames, unless that road frame looks like a battle wagon with some wheel/tire color composition attitude (Mad Max).
This modern groupset is not stupid, however:
The 11-42T and 10-50T cassettes are pretty out there, and, to no one's surprise, quite heavy! For road or near-road use, I find them unnecessary as it's a lot of trade-off in my eyes--elegance being the primary one. It's also about 1/2 a pound heavier a setup (11-42T 1x setup) after running some calculations with decent to upper level road and MTB component weights. Crank and chainring clearance are solid reasons for more off-road focused frame types, so I get that. MTB groupsets are Super Mech 5000 in looks, and I'm not a fan of bringing the BROOTAL look to road frames, unless that road frame looks like a battle wagon with some wheel/tire color composition attitude (Mad Max).
This modern groupset is not stupid, however:
Likes For RiddleOfSteel:
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
"I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid"
While I agree, it is not limited to modern drivetrains. Think of the genius that came up with the idea of plastic derailleurs and plastic brake levers.... or a 23.35mm thread crank arm. Or the Superbe Tech RD, where the cable left the middle of the chain stay at an angle and the body was all enclosed. Or the Shimano FFS.
While I agree, it is not limited to modern drivetrains. Think of the genius that came up with the idea of plastic derailleurs and plastic brake levers.... or a 23.35mm thread crank arm. Or the Superbe Tech RD, where the cable left the middle of the chain stay at an angle and the body was all enclosed. Or the Shimano FFS.
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,339
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2429 Post(s)
Liked 2,889 Times
in
1,646 Posts
Slingshot bikes have a glass fiber hinge at the seat lug/top tube junction. Chances are that a Slingshot bike would survive undamaged a front-end impact that would damage the front wheel, fork, or frame of a conventional bike.
#84
Old fart
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 24,936
Bikes: Several, mostly not name brands.
Mentioned: 153 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3571 Post(s)
Liked 3,367 Times
in
1,916 Posts
Campagnolo's Cambio Corsa and Paris Roubaix systems were designed when the popular "knowledge" insisted that frictional losses in the chain running through a derailleur pulley cage were simply unacceptable.
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
#86
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,758
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3192 Post(s)
Liked 2,461 Times
in
1,490 Posts
That's the smallest frame size, which used a a 24" wheel. This picture was selected because it's believed to be the earliest surviving Pederesen, (serial no. 31, reportedly 1896, though that's a matter of some contention). Larger frame sizes came with 26" or 28" wheels. Modern Pedersens come with 700C as standard, though they will customize.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 23,233
Mentioned: 652 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4719 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3,034 Times
in
1,874 Posts
The French and everybody else knew otherwise. It just goes to show that Tullio wasn't always right. Once he did switch to a sprung, chain tension cage, he even continued to offer a single pulley derailleur into the 1970s. Things like this really make me question his so called "genius".
#88
Senior Member
That's the smallest frame size, which used a a 24" wheel. This picture was selected because it's believed to be the earliest surviving Pederesen, (serial no. 31, reportedly 1896, though that's a matter of some contention). Larger frame sizes came with 26" or 28" wheels. Modern Pedersens come with 700C as standard, though they will customize.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
Interesting also to learn how much one of those giant cassettes costs. I paid less for the last (used) mountain bike I bought. Oh well, I guess I'm not their target demographic.
#89
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,150
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1361 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 422 Times
in
282 Posts
Here's what I believe to be the original truss fork and frame, on an 1896 Pedersen bicycle. They were strong, rigid and light. Claimed weight was 17 lb in the smallest frame size. Note the hammock style saddle to compensate for the frame's stiffness on the rough roads of the day. Production of the Pedersen stopped in 1917 but was resurrected in 1978 and continues to this day.
#90
Senior Member
From a design perspective, it seems worth pointing out that what I now know to be a "truss fork" makes a lot more sense with such a slack steering angle and an effective headtube length of two feet or more.
Last edited by Headpost; 04-02-20 at 10:41 AM.
Likes For Headpost:
#92
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,758
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3192 Post(s)
Liked 2,461 Times
in
1,490 Posts
That's the smallest frame size, which used a a 24" wheel. This picture was selected because it's believed to be the earliest surviving Pederesen, (serial no. 31, reportedly 1896, though that's a matter of some contention). Larger frame sizes came with 26" or 28" wheels. Modern Pedersens come with 700C as standard, though they will customize.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
If you choose to believe claims in extant photos, there were even lighter version that were developed, such as the attached folding (military?) version at 15 lbs.
Here's what Pedersen himself had to say about his fork design, "I build my front fork of four tubes, which I join at the top, where they carry a pivot spindle. About midway there is a crown plate, which carries the bearing for the pivot bolt, and keeps them apart, so that from there to the top the fork consists of four perfect triangles. On each side two tubes are joined at the lower end, thus forming a fork for the front wheel, each side consisting of a perfect triangle. Made in this way, the front fork is so strong that, although weighing only rather more than half a pound, it will carry a rider of sixteen stone (224 lbs) over a rough road."
The attached Pedersen quintuplet, is a testament tot the strength of truss fork design, though note that it uses six tubes, rather than four.
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Upper Left, USA
Posts: 1,953
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times
in
298 Posts
Thankfully the prices of those cassette are coming down. Typical new technology trickle down cycle. Sunrace is making some big cassettes for reasonable prices. Sram and Shimano are also adding those huge cassettes to their lower tier groups. They are still more expensive, but the group overall is about the same price as a double or triple group since you have one fewer shifter and 1 or two fewer chainrings.
#94
aka Tom Reingold
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York, NY, and High Falls, NY, USA
Posts: 40,691
Bikes: 1962 Rudge Sports, 1971 Raleigh Super Course, 1971 Raleigh Pro Track, 1974 Raleigh International, 1975 Viscount Fixie, 1982 McLean, 1996 Lemond (Ti), 2002 Burley Zydeco tandem
Mentioned: 510 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7287 Post(s)
Liked 2,365 Times
in
1,382 Posts
I don't think the new stuff is stupid. It's very good in many ways. But it's not ideal, and it's not perfect. You might think that simpler is cheaper, but the 1x drivetrains are expensiver. And as some have pointed out, the range still isn't as good as with 2x and 3x.
I suspect that if I had a 1x drivetrain, I would like it. I would like the simplicity of shifting, even though I may have to hit the lever several times every so often. To me it's better than calculating a double shift in my head and worrying about cross-chaining.
I suspect that if I had a 1x drivetrain, I would like it. I would like the simplicity of shifting, even though I may have to hit the lever several times every so often. To me it's better than calculating a double shift in my head and worrying about cross-chaining.
__________________
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Tom Reingold, tom@noglider.com
New York City and High Falls, NY
Blogs: The Experienced Cyclist; noglider's ride blog
“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments.” — Elizabeth West, US author
Please email me rather than PM'ing me. Thanks.
Likes For noglider:
#95
Banned.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 27,297
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 378 Post(s)
Liked 1,407 Times
in
908 Posts
As far as price, my choices were a 2016 Cervelo S5 frame/fork/post assembly and the Cipollini complete plus a new set of Aksiums, an FSA Energy crankset and a set of 6600 calipers.
Both $1100. Easy choice. Same seller and I just made a deal for a DA9100 group with both BB30 and threaded BBs for $450, one season on the group.
Last edited by RobbieTunes; 04-02-20 at 09:28 PM.
#96
Senior Member
Likes For HTupolev:
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Upper Left, USA
Posts: 1,953
Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 634 Post(s)
Liked 444 Times
in
298 Posts
I don't think the new stuff is stupid. It's very good in many ways. But it's not ideal, and it's not perfect. You might think that simpler is cheaper, but the 1x drivetrains are expensiver. And as some have pointed out, the range still isn't as good as with 2x and 3x.
I suspect that if I had a 1x drivetrain, I would like it. I would like the simplicity of shifting, even though I may have to hit the lever several times every so often. To me it's better than calculating a double shift in my head and worrying about cross-chaining.
I suspect that if I had a 1x drivetrain, I would like it. I would like the simplicity of shifting, even though I may have to hit the lever several times every so often. To me it's better than calculating a double shift in my head and worrying about cross-chaining.
#98
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 9,171
Bikes: Cheltenham-Pedersen racer, Boulder F/S Paris-Roubaix, Varsity racer, '52 Christophe, '62 Continental, '92 Merckx, '75 Limongi, '76 Presto, '72 Gitane SC, '71 Schwinn SS, etc.
Mentioned: 132 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1554 Post(s)
Liked 1,274 Times
in
846 Posts
What I figured out, soon enough, is that the hammock saddle needs to be adjusted taut, something that I rarely see on a contemporary Pedersen.
But from old photos, in those days the owners somehow had the information that the saddle needs to be taut, thus sparing themselves of any wiggling or of any "wedgie" effect.
The Pedersen's "truss" fork does feel rigid in use compared to a regular fork, not that a regular fork absorbs all that much though. I used a Softride stem on my Pedersen when I was doing XC races, mainly so that my vision didn't blur when I attacked rocky descents, and at the time I felt that the 700c wheels offered further advantage.
Note that a Pedersen's riding position borders on semi-recumbent, so the irritation of shock through the fork and handlebar is taken rather well.
The Truss fork on the OP's pictured bike is very different and appears to have a bit of designed-in flex due to uppermost curved tubing used in place of straight tubes. But that being a disc-braked bike, the lower legs need to be rigid in use so as not to flex independently.
All disc braked bikes have this need of rigid fork legs, or the steering will pull to the left whenever the front brake is used hard.
The Pedersens that weighed so little as claimed were actually special racing models, and rather few were made. Production Pedersens had to be much heavier and my own replicas weigh nearly 30lbs with 700c road wheels and CX tires. The truss fork on mine (by itself) is much heavier than a normal steel bike's fork.
But the Pedersens indeed were very light in their day. The saddle, back then, was made of very light woven material and needed no steel frame, but the 17-tube frameset structure needed careful design calculation to achieve light weight.
Last edited by dddd; 04-02-20 at 08:19 PM.
Likes For dddd:
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Colorado
Posts: 569
Bikes: Forty of them
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 33 Times
in
21 Posts
The average speed of the TdF has increased 2.1MPH in the last 60 years. None of this garbage even matters to people who are actually in shape and we're supposed to think it's the greatest thing that's ever happened? Just ride your bike and don't condescend to people who aren't frantically drinking whatever Kool-Aid is put in front of them.