Originally Posted by nlerner
(Post 21394779)
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. Cool bike, btw. |
Originally Posted by Wildwood
(Post 21393350)
Give me a lever long enough and I can shift the position of the Earth. Assuming the lever is sufficiently stiff and durable.:)
|
I'll ride about anything, but very particular about what I pay for; if I think it's an improvement I try to keep an open mind. The good thing these days is the internet; if something is dangerous or useless junk it won't last very long.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6b43859c85.jpg |
Originally Posted by RobbieTunes
(Post 21394402)
|
Originally Posted by JaccoW
(Post 21394693)
That's about what is recommended for fully loaded touring. Most die-hard world tourers won't like a 1X setup because they are conservative and tend to prefer proven/readily available technology. But you see the technology a lot on long-distance randonneur bikes.
http://i.imgur.com/CiJwzKx.png (Link) |
Originally Posted by USAZorro
(Post 21394915)
What tool develops this view? I like Sheldon's calculator, but this visual is preferable, imo.
|
Originally Posted by mrv
(Post 21393611)
I don't know. It seems like the rear ends of the modern bikes keep getting wider and wider to accomdate a 1 x 13? 1 x 20? when they gonna stop? how wide a rear-end on a bike? 200mm?
I would love to get something like a 135mm rear hub with a 3X5 gearing and a lot less dish on the wheel. Wouldn't that give a long lasting durable rear wheel set up? I think so. It's OK to say tell me how I'm wrong. (and yep, I'm still talking rim brakes....) ciao! for road there's a lot to be said about a nice, wider range double like a 50/34 and an 11-32 for going fast and climbing most things. But even then I like my 10sp for nice close jumps since I've never met a flat road and I do get tired over time. 5 speeds just doesn't have enough range without dramatic jumps that I can avoid with 10sp |
Originally Posted by JaccoW
(Post 21394693)
Most die-hard world tourers won't like a 1X setup because they are conservative and tend to prefer proven/readily available technology.
A large cassette is the same tech as a small cassette - it's more of a new implementation of a proven technology. I suppose you could say that a clutch in the rear derailleur and the narrow-wide chainring are "new", but they've been used for many years in the MTB world so in my mind they are both proven and readily available. In other words the 1x system would be less likely to break on tour and also I wouldn't need to worry about finding FD parts in a remote area. |
Originally Posted by TenGrainBread
(Post 21394999)
Sort of funny because the 1x system isn't really new technology. If anything, it's a lot simpler with less parts to break than a traditional FD system that a tourer would use.
A large cassette is the same tech as a small cassette - it's more of a new implementation of a proven technology. I suppose you could say that a clutch in the rear derailleur and the narrow-wide chainring are "new", but they've been used for many years in the MTB world so in my mind they are both proven and readily available. In other words the 1x system would be less likely to break on tour and also I wouldn't need to worry about finding FD parts in a remote area. |
Originally Posted by nlerner
(Post 21394779)
Yeah, we should all be running Campy NR derailleurs with their cracked pulleys and narrow range, ...
And that goes for most of you folks. |
Well, duh. If they had cracked pulleys they wouldn't be rideable.
|
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.)
|
Originally Posted by tashi
(Post 21395233)
Well, duh. If they had cracked pulleys they wouldn't be rideable.
Nice site, nice adventures. I wouldn't take a bike on adventures through India or Guatemala with a cracked jockey wheel, either! I wonder what the inventory of 50tooth cassettes is in those places if it needs replacement? Or the rear derailleur? or even 11/12sp chains? We all face trade-offs as cyclists. The joy of choice. |
Originally Posted by TenGrainBread
(Post 21394999)
Sort of funny because the 1x system isn't really new technology. If anything, it's a lot simpler with less parts to break than a traditional FD system that a tourer would use.
A large cassette is the same tech as a small cassette - it's more of a new implementation of a proven technology. I suppose you could say that a clutch in the rear derailleur and the narrow-wide chainring are "new", but they've been used for many years in the MTB world so in my mind they are both proven and readily available. In other words the 1x system would be less likely to break on tour and also I wouldn't need to worry about finding FD parts in a remote area. and of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.....something can be really functional and still fugly |
If there was a polished silver long cage rear derailleur with clutch I would definitely put it on my rando bike though. The 52/42/26 X 11-34 drivetrain could use a bit more tension and less chain slapping when I drive it up places it shouldn't be going.
|
I'm not convinced by the op's apology in the thread title.
|
Originally Posted by tashi
(Post 21395233)
Well, duh. If they had cracked pulleys they wouldn't be rideable.
|
Originally Posted by Chombi1
(Post 21395577)
On the contrary, I have bought used Campy RDs with cracked jockey wheels that show signs that they were ridden with such for many miles......
|
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.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a985d57d6a.jpg |
Originally Posted by JaccoW
(Post 21394693)
That's about what is recommended for fully loaded touring. Most die-hard world tourers won't like a 1X setup because they are conservative and tend to prefer proven/readily available technology. But you see the technology a lot on long-distance randonneur bikes.
(Link) 1x gearing is showing up in touring bikes but it’s got a lot of limitations. You can generally have a high gear or a low gear but not both. That means that you can climb well and spend your time on the flats poking along or you can go fast on the flats and struggle up hill. Most touring bikes aren’t going to accommodate a boost hub some the 10 tooth cog is kind of out of the question. There’s also the cost of a 10-50 1x system. Just the cassette is nearly $200. I can make a wider range system that has a good high and a very good low for less than the cost of the cassette.
Originally Posted by USAZorro
(Post 21394915)
What tool develops this view? I like Sheldon's calculator, but this visual is preferable, imo.
|
Originally Posted by cyccommute
(Post 21395670)
It actually a bit high for a touring bike. It’s what manufacturers might put on a touring bike but it’s not as low as touring gearing can go with just a little modification.
1x gearing is showing up in touring bikes but it’s got a lot of limitations. You can generally have a high gear or a low gear but not both. That means that you can climb well and spend your time on the flats poking along or you can go fast on the flats and struggle up hill. Most touring bikes aren’t going to accommodate a boost hub some the 10 tooth cog is kind of out of the question. There’s also the cost of a 10-50 1x system. Just the cassette is nearly $200. I can make a wider range system that has a good high and a very good low for less than the cost of the cassette. It’s a very good gear calculator. It also allows for comparisons of different drive trains. For example, this compares the 1x system above to a traditional mountain bike like touring setup. The high is much higher with a similar low. It’s not too difficult to get a lower low with just a 36 tooth cog on the cassette. Changing to a 20 tooth inner, either by using a 58mm BCD crank or by modifying a Shimano 64mm BCD crank (it’s not difficult), gives and even lower low with the same high gear. I fully appreciated this gearing on several tours in the eastern US where the mountains lack altitude but they don’t lack for attitude! The roads on the hills are much, much steeper there than here in the west. |
Originally Posted by T-Mar
(Post 21395627)
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.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a985d57d6a.jpg |
Originally Posted by tashi
(Post 21395595)
Do they continue to hold up if ridden hard?
|
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
(Post 21394028)
Because of liability issues, they will only do that surgery for the track crowd. Issue is with threaded cranks. As of now, the pin at the "foot" needs to be threaded into the crank. In a crash a rider will NOT release from that crank. Lawsuits will happen. But the track crowd have been doing bolt-in fastening, double toestraps, toestraps over clipless, etc. for years to prevent accidental un-cleats fixed at speed. Locked in for a crash? That's life. They wouldn't even think about suing.
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.