Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Classic & Vintage
Reload this Page >

I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid

Notices
Classic & Vintage This forum is to discuss the many aspects of classic and vintage bicycles, including musclebikes, lightweights, middleweights, hi-wheelers, bone-shakers, safety bikes and much more.

I'm sorry...some modern drivetrains are stupid

Old 04-01-20, 07:24 PM
  #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
Originally Posted by Headpost
Wow, I had no idea narrow-wide chainrings even existed. Thank you everyone for keeping me from doing or saying something stupid in the future! (Also for all the other interesting information in this thread.)
My 1x11 roadie had narrow-wide teeth on the chainring (singular) and also on the jockey wheels on the clutched RD. Chain stays put (pun intended).

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.
RobbieTunes is offline  
Likes For RobbieTunes:
Old 04-01-20, 07:36 PM
  #77  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by RobbieTunes
had narrow-wide teeth on the chainring (singular)
Narrow-wide is basically only ever used singular. A mechanism designed to resist derailing poses problems for a derailleur!
HTupolev is offline  
Old 04-01-20, 09:26 PM
  #78  
Thrifty Bill
 
wrk101's Avatar
 
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.
wrk101 is offline  
Old 04-01-20, 10:00 PM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1107 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times in 758 Posts
Originally Posted by scarlson
I thought Olivetti made typewriters.

What is this thing typewriter you speak of?
Camilo is offline  
Likes For Camilo:
Old 04-02-20, 01:41 AM
  #80  
Master Parts Rearranger
 
RiddleOfSteel's Avatar
 
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:

RiddleOfSteel is offline  
Likes For RiddleOfSteel:
Old 04-02-20, 03:02 AM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 2,409
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1103 Post(s)
Liked 1,824 Times in 878 Posts
Originally Posted by alo
This bike would be OK until you had a crash. It would not be as strong in a head on collision, or even hitting a large pot hole.
Having raced that particular model I can tell you the head tube angle changes when going over even moderately rough stuff.
nomadmax is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 05:53 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by wrk101
"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.
My favourite example is Campagnolo's Cambio Corsa with the sliding hub and two levers mounted on the seat stay. It was archaic even in its day.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 06:08 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Trakhak's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by alo
This bike would be OK until you had a crash. It would not be as strong in a head on collision, or even hitting a large pot hole.
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.
Trakhak is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 07:02 AM
  #84  
Old fart
 
JohnDThompson's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by T-Mar
My favourite example is Campagnolo's Cambio Corsa with the sliding hub and two levers mounted on the seat stay. It was archaic even in its day.
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.
JohnDThompson is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 07:22 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by seypat
Great info with a picture to boot! You da man. What size wheels/tires are those? A more modern wheelset might push the weight down even more.
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.
T-Mar is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 07:49 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by T-Mar
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.
Wow! Heck of a bandolier as well.
seypat is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 07:59 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
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.
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".
T-Mar is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 09:52 AM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 610

Bikes: I've stopped at seven.

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 301 Times in 184 Posts
Originally Posted by T-Mar
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.
Heh, it didn't take manufacturers long to start lying about how much their bicycles weigh.

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.
Headpost is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 10:07 AM
  #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
Originally Posted by T-Mar
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.
Riding one of these is such a strange and different feel. Without mentioning traditional bent over body placement, its the sway of the saddle and body -as if one is kind of floating. No seatpost directly below or connection to the frame. Its weird but works.
crank_addict is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 10:35 AM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 610

Bikes: I've stopped at seven.

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 301 Times in 184 Posts
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.
Headpost is offline  
Likes For Headpost:
Old 04-02-20, 12:07 PM
  #91  
Some Weirdo
 
Ferrouscious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Rexburg, ID
Posts: 502

Bikes: '86 Schwinn Prelude, '91 Scott Sawtooth, '73 Raleigh "Grand 3"

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 141 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Classtime
Maybe I don't ride hard. Cracked Campy pulleys work "forever". However, I don't know how long a cracked Shimano pulley will work. Does anybody know?
A long time. I did a full season on a cracked sealed bearing Shimano pulley. 4000mi?
Ferrouscious is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 12:13 PM
  #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
Originally Posted by T-Mar
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.
I wonder how much the bandolier weighed loaded with ammo.
seypat is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 01:46 PM
  #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
Originally Posted by Headpost
Heh, it didn't take manufacturers long to start lying about how much their bicycles weigh.

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.
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.
tricky is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 02:31 PM
  #94  
aka Tom Reingold
 
noglider's Avatar
 
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.
__________________
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.
noglider is offline  
Likes For noglider:
Old 04-02-20, 02:35 PM
  #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
Originally Posted by Headpost
Heh, it didn't take manufacturers long to start lying about how much their bicycles weigh.

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.
Seller of my Cipollini said 14.57 lbs. He was off, which I expected. With pedals and cages and Garmin mount and Garmin Edge 1000 amd Varia taillamp and Hotshot taillamp it's 16.7 lbs. A bit lighter than a steel Wraith.

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.
RobbieTunes is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 03:47 PM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1971 Post(s)
Liked 1,297 Times in 629 Posts
Originally Posted by seypat
I wonder how much the bandolier weighed loaded with ammo.
There are a few long downhill Strava segments in my area where the KOM is held by a dude who was on a recumbent, headed to the shooting range with a rear bag full of ammunition. Super aero, super gravity assist.
HTupolev is offline  
Likes For HTupolev:
Old 04-02-20, 03:58 PM
  #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
Originally Posted by noglider
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.
Yup! There is just that much less to think about with just one lever. I've only ridden a bike once with 1x. It was a rental Santa Cruz full squish mountain bike in Santa Fe, but I liked it a lot.
tricky is offline  
Old 04-02-20, 07:49 PM
  #98  
Ride, Wrench, Swap, Race
 
dddd's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by crank_addict
Riding one of these is such a strange and different feel. Without mentioning traditional bent over body placement, its the sway of the saddle and body -as if one is kind of floating. No seatpost directly below or connection to the frame. Its weird but works.
I struggled at first getting up to speed on a Pedersen, especially because of it's lateral wiggle at the saddle, which made road riding in a tight group scary, and apparently even scarier to watch!
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.
dddd is offline  
Likes For dddd:
Old 04-03-20, 07:05 PM
  #99  
Senior Member
 
cinco's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by nlerner
Yeah, we should all be running Campy NR derailleurs with their cracked pulleys and narrow range, just like Eddie did!

Yeah, 1 x 11 is just stoopid.

You know, some of my bikes have 12 speeds! What an amazing advance, right? 1x setups have no practical value unless you're missing an arm or a large chunk of brain material - they're just the latest way of parting a fool from his money. Like 650c wheels. No, I mean 29ers. No, I mean 650b. No, I mean disc brakes. Oops, now they're hydraulic. Electric. Wireless.

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.
cinco is offline  
Likes For cinco:
Old 04-03-20, 08:30 PM
  #100  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 712
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 283 Post(s)
Liked 262 Times in 164 Posts
Originally Posted by HTupolev
There are a few long downhill Strava segments in my area where the KOM is held by a dude who was on a recumbent, headed to the shooting range with a rear bag full of ammunition. Super aero, super gravity assist.
Now that's funny!
grizzly59 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.