I was thinking about something today and then saw this thread - perfect! So my stupid question is why the drive side is almost universally on the right? I have a feeling that it has something to do with horses

-G

It probably has to do with threading standards more than horses.

+1
see prior page- righty/tighty: lefty/loosey

Not necessarily a leg-swing-over maneuver, but try this: Unclip both cleats, slow to a walking pace, throw the bike forward and jump off the back. Just be sure to grab hold of you saddle on the way down.

I think advances in derailleur design and the wider ranges made possible had something to do with it, too. Late 70s, early 80s seems right IME. Haven't a clue about any sizes after that.

As for the former point of rim size, as non-UK European makers became more known in the late 60s, so their preferred metric size became more common.

I've read in another thread that the chrome under most paint is rough on purpose for the paint to stick better. You may not want to strip the paint off...

Get yourself a Vernier gauge... you'll be glad you did :)

On a crank the strength provided by anodisation would be negligible. On rims it can be significant.

The only thing I can think of would be a cyclocross dismount only slowed down a little bit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y3TaKmMi9o

Well put! There's no denying that bikes are inherently horse-like, though. At least I think that's why I liked bikes as a (young) child..? :)

To be more precise: Hold the cone wrench steady, so as no to change the setting, and tighten the nut against it.

It's actually horses, or so I've been led to believe. Horses and swords, with a stop over at the Penny Farthing. Because Penny Farthings require that slightly ridiculous mounting method, they need a foot peg. The fact that the pegs are almost always on the left hand side, even when bikes just barely had drivetrains indicate that there must have been some other reason.

tom....I am a bit of klutz and a definite clyde....and I have never had that problem.

hopefully that 'oops' did not involve a high seat tube.

maybe a bit higher retention?

(use or have used shimon pd 6400 (look cleate), spd pedals and speedplay

Really?

Ah, good! I'll practice that. Thanks.

A 700c is not an upgrade from a 27", just an attempt to get the tire sizes more uniformed across the globe. There was a time in the 90's it was almost impossible to find a decent 27" tire, I think Nashbar was the only place that had them and they had one model a Forte. But tire manufactures have discovered that oops, there are a lot of people that have 27" wheels yet, so some have begun to remanufacture that size again. Now you can get a pretty decent quality 27" tire, Conti Gatorskin, Gatorskin Hardshell, Tour Ride, Super Sport Plus, and Ultra Sport, Schwalbe Marathon and HS159. Panaracer Pasela and Pasela Tour Guard, Michelin World Touring, and Vittoria Zaffiro; plus quite a few of low end cheap tires.

So you should be able to find a decent 27" today with no problems. Also you DO NOT have to use 27" tubes, any 700c from 18 all the way to 35mm widths will work, remember tubes expand, in fact it's better for easier tire installation to have a tube one size smaller then recommended for the tire size. I have one bike that uses 27" tires and use the same 700x18-25 tubes in it as well as my 700c tires. However, in order to use 700c tubes in a 27" rim you have to convert the rims to a presta fitting so the presta valve will fit into a 27" rim that was drilled to accept a Schrader valve called a Schrader-Presta rim hole adapter, they just press in by hand and your good to go; these adapters are cheap, less the dollar for a pair. But you can still find 27" Schrader tubes, I just don't think the quality of the Schrader tubes I saw were very good. Sunlite makes a nice puncture resistant (thick tube on the side next to the tire) that uses a Schrader but the tube is heavy.

OK, here's my 'stupid' question...

If a shorter height male rode a classic mixte frame bike as a commuter for the convenience of the step through frame, is this considered a major gaffé or faux pas?

I wonder because in other countries some models of utility bikes are considered 'unisex', and you do see men riding step through frames.

As I recall, this was the case in earlier times... comments?

Alan :)

^I'm okay with a man on a mixte (but I'm also sporting a pink shirt today). :innocent:

Q1: Would you build up a bike for resale on CL using a wheelset with Maillard Helicomatic hubs?

Q2: What to you call the type of seat post that narrows at the top and has a detachable clamp (such as the old Ideale models, or sometime found on Schwinn heavyweights)?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this may be too simple. For instance, I have a number of bikes that have splined cogs so threading is not a factor. How about the shaft drive bikes from the early 20th century, again threading is not a factor, yet the drive side was the right side.

-G

Randy,

Thanks! I dunno... to me, mixte frames look sort of elegant, in their quirky kind of way. I think with upright bars and a rack they're great looking commuters.

Q1: Only if the Helicomatic stuff was brand new, and the seller provided the combo FW wrench/ beer bottle key.

Q2: Personally, I'd call it a seat pillar instead of a seat post.

Alan :speedy:

yep, should have read the whole thread before plunging in, yet inquiring minds want to know. BTW I ain't buying the threading answer just yet.

Well, actually, I have to back the cone wrench counter-clockwise ever so slightly while I'm tightening the locknut. As the locknut jams the cone tight against its threads it presses it a tiny bit closer to the balls. Ten to 20 degrees of loosening while you're tightening the locknut compensates for this. Really good cone-and-axle threads need less back-off than cheapies. This is where an axle vise helps, so you know that any movement of the cone wrench is moving only the cone and not the whole axle.

If your a hetrosexual or a metrosexual then it's just fine to ride a mixte bike; but a true manly man doesn't dare set their legs over one.

I always thought
that it was so that shorter people
could ride bikes with 700c or 27" wheels ,
testosterone aside .

A mixte frame won't be as stiff for hard acceleration so the performance of the frame will feel sluggish. But some men ride mixte frames because they have problems getting their legs over other frames due to various health or handicap problems. Shorter legs have nothing to do with it because you can get regular frames that are built small for that purpose. And you can't find a high quality mixte frame unless you buy custom, only one production bike I know of that is made decent is the Soma, but all the vintage mixte frames were cheaper tubesets and low cost components.

I was being sarcastic earlier.