![]() |
I need some decent but semi-inexpensive rain gear. It's just for light rides (30 miles and under).
Mostly looking at long pants and some type of shell top layer. I don't like flashy stuff..just simple designs that won't make me look like a total fred. There is tons of stuff to choose from but from my snowboarding days, what you spend isn't always equivalent to quality/keeping you dry (nothing worse than spending $150 on pants and having a wet butt while sitting on your second lift of the day). Any good bang for your buck models/brands I should stick with? |
Originally Posted by Regulatori
(Post 18409334)
I need some decent but semi-inexpensive rain gear. It's just for light rides (30 miles and under).
Mostly looking at long pants and some type of shell top layer. I don't like flashy stuff..just simple designs that won't make me look like a total fred. There is tons of stuff to choose from but from my snowboarding days, what you spend isn't always equivalent to quality/keeping you dry (nothing worse than spending $150 on pants and having a wet butt while sitting on your second lift of the day). Any good bang for your buck models/brands I should stick with? |
Please don't shoot if the question is too silly:
Why does Shimano make the Dura Ace track sprockets no higher than 16 teeth, but they make them in both 1/8 and 3/32 widths? Is 3/32 also an usual width on the velodrome? |
It's not unheard of. On the other hand, anything bigger than a 16t cog (unless paired with a monstrous chainring) would be way too spinny for track racing.
|
Originally Posted by seau grateau
(Post 18412711)
It's not unheard of. On the other hand, anything bigger than a 16t cog (unless paired with a monstrous chainring) would be way too spinny for track racing.
|
Originally Posted by seboros
(Post 18412655)
Please don't shoot if the question is too silly:
Why does Shimano make the Dura Ace track sprockets no higher than 16 teeth, but they make them in both 1/8 and 3/32 widths? Is 3/32 also an usual width on the velodrome? |
I'm looking for a jersey that is mostly black but with a decent amount of hi vis yellow accents. I can't find anything like that, really, most are hi vis yellow with black accents. Anyone know of any?
|
Originally Posted by IFPCL
(Post 18414067)
I'm looking for a jersey that is mostly black but with a decent amount of hi vis yellow accents. I can't find anything like that, really, most are hi vis yellow with black accents. Anyone know of any?
http://d2plslj6xljffa.cloudfront.net...SSJ_P4.jpg?v=s http://d2plslj6xljffa.cloudfront.net...SJ_P10.jpg?v=s |
Thank you [MENTION=176970]seau grateau[/MENTION], [MENTION=168526]TejanoTrackie[/MENTION] & [MENTION=367130]veganbikes[/MENTION]!
|
|
Originally Posted by seboros
(Post 18412655)
Why does Shimano make the Dura Ace track sprockets no higher than 16 teeth, but they make them in both 1/8 and 3/32 widths? Is 3/32 also an usual width on the velodrome?
|
The way I see it from what I've learned so far: apparently the ss/fg transmission has to deal with stronger forces due to the fact that it also does the braking (coaster brake or fg) and, when riding fixed gear, is always in motion. Therefore thicker chain and sprockets seem to make sense.
If Shimano sells their Dura Ace track 3/32 cogs for the road fg conversions (because one can keep the 3/32 thick road chainrings) why then not make the cogs with more teeth than 16? If the Dura Ace track cogs are indeed only intended for the track, then why make them in both 1/8 and 3/32 widths? I guess my question is: Are there situations on the track where a 3/32 transmission would make a more suitable choice? |
I think drive train durability would be the main advantage of 1/8 over 3/32. 3/32 is always going to be a bit lighter, but this is rarely a concern on the track. Some sources I've read describe endurance track racers using 3/32 because the chains are less rigid and easier to push over longer periods of time. 3/32 was probably more commonly used for track and fixed gear when the equipment was more interchangeable. Modern 9+ speed chains are said to be too narrow to be usable on 3/32 fixed cogs.
Here's a couple links that discuss the subject a bit: http://www.kenhart.com/track/FAQ_Roa...ack_Chains.pdf http://www.ridethetrack.com/pdf/trackracing_intro.pdf |
Hey, thank you very much, [MENTION=176970]seau grateau[/MENTION]! Those links are bookmark worthy. The information there clearly answered my question and then some.
My question arose as I am making my first fixed gear conversion. Having already bought a used Shimano 600 tri color crankset (which I' ve read gives a 42mm chainline paired with an 107mm bottom bracket) my initial intention was to seek for a 3/32 chain and cog, to keep the 600 chainring. But as my fat ass weighs 220 lbs, I wondered whether the 1/8 transmission would be the way to go. Yet, now that I've read what you suggested, it is clear I won't have the power nor the skill to ride so aggressively on the street that a 3/32 setup would become a reliability issue. So, I guess, I would pick which solution comes more handy. Thank you again! |
I dont think 3/32 would really be a reliability issue unless u were mashing with a lot of power. I would personally just switch to a 3/32 chain and cog, thats what I did on my fixed conversion last year and it was plenty durable. I dont think you can go wrong with either decision.
|
Why are so many people under the false impression that 3/32" chains are weaker than 1/8"?
|
Originally Posted by Scrodzilla
(Post 18421726)
Why are so many people under the false impression that 3/32" chains are weaker than 1/8"?
|
Originally Posted by TimothyH
(Post 18421748)
Cause we live in the land of SUV's and supersize fries.
|
Originally Posted by seboros
(Post 18420659)
Hey, thank you very much, @seau grateau! Those links are bookmark worthy. The information there clearly answered my question and then some.
My question arose as I am making my first fixed gear conversion. Having already bought a used Shimano 600 tri color crankset (which I' ve read gives a 42mm chainline paired with an 107mm bottom bracket) my initial intention was to seek for a 3/32 chain and cog, to keep the 600 chainring. But as my fat ass weighs 220 lbs, I wondered whether the 1/8 transmission would be the way to go. Yet, now that I've read what you suggested, it is clear I won't have the power nor the skill to ride so aggressively on the street that a 3/32 setup would become a reliability issue. So, I guess, I would pick which solution comes more handy. Thank you again! |
Originally Posted by Scrodzilla
(Post 18421726)
Why are so many people under the false impression that 3/32" chains are weaker than 1/8"?
|
And in other cases certain 1/8" chains are stronger than others, making the original "problem" even less relevant.
When comparing two chains made the exact same way, one being 3/32" and the other 1/8" - like the KMC K810SL and K170SL for example - the only actual difference between them is the pins are shorter on the 3/32" version. The plates are the same thickness and I would bet one is just as "strong" as the other. |
Originally Posted by TimothyH
(Post 18421748)
Cause we live in the land of SUV's and supersize fries.
This. |
Originally Posted by Scrodzilla
(Post 18421956)
And in other cases certain 1/8" chains are stronger than others, making the original "problem" even less relevant.
When comparing two chains made the exact same way, one being 3/32" and the other 1/8" - like the KMC K810SL and K170SL for example - the only actual difference between them is the pins are shorter on the 3/32" version. The plates are the same thickness and I would bet one is just as "strong" as the other. |
We're talking about 1/32th of an inch here. I'm not persuaded there is any real world difference between them.
|
Originally Posted by fehcxsvv
(Post 18426987)
We're talking about 1/32th of an inch here. I'm not persuaded there is any real world difference between them.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.