sothach wrote: > I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed once. > Who makes decent ones?
I've heard good things said of (IIRC) Hope's.
> I think the whole idea is barse ackwards, and hydrualic rims brakes > make a lot more sense: more leverage, more 'modulation', longer pad > life & easier pad change, free choice of wheels, less load on spokes, > and off-road: clearance for rocky stream beds & less prone to > branch-ingestion damage (for the last two: DAMHIKIJKOK)
But no rim wear, so especially if you're on grit and sand you don't destroy your wheels by the act of using the brakes, and the rotor isn't as prone to a damn good soaking in rather low friction fluids.
Only the rim wear is an argument on the road, but that's still an argument.
Pete (who uses HS-33s). -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> I think attaching a rack and panniers to this bike would be a mistake. If > you want a bike to take panniers then something a bit more utilitarian > would be better. But in my opinion a trailer is a better solution than > panniers anyway and would work fine with that bike.
Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.
Rob Morley wrote: > Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it.
I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the morning)
But even with an urban MTB, something like a Toppeak MTX beam rack is a useful permanent fixture, at least it makes a good mounting point for a rear light.
> > Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it. > I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while > until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I > think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing > tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the > morning)
You'd have noticed it a lot sooner if you'd gone through a narrow gap. :-) And what about finding parking space?
>> Which means you *can* buy another bike!! > That's really a great idea... but where do a put the bike stand? I live > in a mini apartment in Tokyo... The spot I rent for my bike > unfortunately has no space for a bike stand. Renting another spot costs > as much as it costs to rent a car garage in smaller cities. So we are > back to one bike. :-)
How mini are these mini-apartments that you didn't mention you lived in??? Surely there's enough room to stand up, and my two bikes are not much higher than head height. The point of this bike stand is that two bikes take up the same floor space as one.
In article <4554c146$0$18059$db0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>
Paul Boyd <use...@abcd.com> wrote: > On 10/11/2006 09:39, Ken Aston said, > >> Which means you *can* buy another bike!! > > That's really a great idea... but where do a put the bike stand? I live > > in a mini apartment in Tokyo... The spot I rent for my bike > > unfortunately has no space for a bike stand. Renting another spot costs > > as much as it costs to rent a car garage in smaller cities. So we are > > back to one bike. :-)
> How mini are these mini-apartments that you didn't mention you lived > in??? Surely there's enough room to stand up, and my two bikes are not > much higher than head height. The point of this bike stand is that two > bikes take up the same floor space as one.
Or tie them to the ceiling and they take no floor space at all - but mind your head. :-)
I have only towed a trailer this year ( a standard BoB Yak) and apart from the huge advantage when camping/touring I actually found that I towed the trailer nearly all the time. I did all my shopping with it and together with a discarded box from the market ( it fitted nearly perfectly). I certainly didn't notice its unloaded state behind me, apart from a few more rattles.
It also had the advantage of being "different" in the traffic. The dozy cagers saw it and all motorist gave me a wider berth
Sadly, because I was changing to a recumbent trike (and ICE said their machine didn't like it and there would be warranty problems.)
I sold it at a very fair price in mid September. Another lesson learned -- I should have waited until I had the box of pieces of Trice Q NT delivered before I sold it.
Trice and I fell out in some 3 hours on evening day before they promised delivery. I won't go into that. But I wish I hadn't sold my very useful BOB Yak trailer
A tail end query what is the Edinburgh "copy" like I am in particularly interested in the rain proofness of the "dry sack" Next year, with my v small tent, I am starting in Venice and doing a "half" of Italy circular tour of about 2000 kms. The trailer beats carrying 4 panniers and I shall be definitely towing one again -- and almost certainly a single wheeled one like the Yak
>> Except it's a pain lugging a trailer around just in case you need it. > I dunno about that. I hadn't been doing the school run for a while > until last week; I dropped the wee one off and rode on to work - I > think I'd gone about 10 miles before I noticed this orange thing > tailgating me very closely (note to self: drink more coffee in the > morning)
> But even with an urban MTB, something like a Toppeak MTX beam rack is a > useful permanent fixture, at least it makes a good mounting point for a > rear light.
>> Mainly I will ride around the city, but next year I want to go on a >> month-long road trip. I assumed that attaching front and rear racks >> and going on the road with the extra 30 kg of weight would be OK. >> But the shop staff told me that the bike is not suitable for this >> purpose. The weight would be too heavy for the carbon fork and the >> thin tyres. And besides I would not be able to attach a front rack.
>> My weight is only 70 kg so I don't understand why 100 kg would be a >> problem for the bike. Does it mean that taller/heavier people would >> not be able to ride the bike even without a load?
> I think it's the carbon fork that's the problem rather than the bike > itself. It won't have braze-ons (obviously...) for dedicated racks > and the attachment systems of racks that don't need braze-on eyelets > will stress and crush the carbon in ways it wasn't designed for. If > you're going to use it as a tourer I think it'll work a lot better > with light loads, or you're compromising its fundamental design > goals, and the gearing will make you suffer badly on hills with that > much extra weight (gearing on my tourer goes about a third lower, and > I use the lot!) >> Do you think I will find a suitable front rack for regular panniers >> which I can attach to the bike?
> I'm not sure you can do it sensibly without replacing the fork for > something metal.
Tifosi CKF8 carbon forks have "mudguard eyes" on the aluminium dropouts. I'd expect these to be OK with a rack and some luggage. What the safe limit would be though, I'm not sure.
('ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk') wrote: > I have only towed a trailer this year ( a standard BoB Yak) and apart > from the huge advantage when camping/touring I actually found that I > towed the > trailer nearly all the time. I did all my shopping with it and together > with a discarded box from the market ( it fitted nearly perfectly). I > certainly didn't notice its unloaded state behind me, apart from a few > more rattles.
> It also had the advantage of being "different" in the traffic. The dozy > cagers saw it and all motorist gave me a wider berth
> Sadly, because I was changing to a recumbent trike (and ICE said their > machine didn't like it and there would be warranty problems.)
> I sold it at a very fair price in mid September. Another lesson learned > -- I should have waited until I had the box of pieces of Trice Q NT > delivered before I sold it.
> Trice and I fell out in some 3 hours on evening day before they promised > delivery. I won't go into that. But I wish I hadn't sold my very useful > BOB Yak trailer
> A tail end query what is the Edinburgh "copy" like I am in particularly > interested in the rain proofness of the "dry sack"
I think the answer is, like all Edinburgh Bicycle products, built to a price but remarkably good value. The design is very good. It is steel; unlike the BoB Yak it folds flat and packs away into it's own bag. Execution is not quite so good. It's heavy and the welding is a bit crude. The wheel is not particularly high quality and I'd be a little concerned about the durability of the bearing, but after all if it failed after a couple of years it would be easy to rebuild the wheel on a better hub. The one that I've seen regularly shows some signs of rust after only about six months use, so you may find it needs repainted at some point. But it's amazingly cheap.
in message <1163147951.099228.147...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Ken
Aston ('kena...@googlemail.com') wrote: > OK, I see. So would it be practical to change the fork shortly before > going on a road trip?
> How about the 28 spokes of the front wheel? Will they make it?
OK, let's cut through some of the nonsense.
Carbon forks are typically stronger and more resilient than any other forks used on road bikes. Strength of the forks is not an issue. Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in good condition. Modern quality low-spoke-count wheels are very strong. Strength of the wheel is not an issue.
The bike /can/ carry the luggage. Finding a front rack which will fit to the forks might be an issue but is probably not impossible. As you point out in your photos, it does have the braze-ons to take a rear rack.
But the bike has race geometry, which is designed to have light, sensitive steering. This means, of course, that it's sensitive to weight on the steering subsystem, and relatively more likely to suffer dynamic steering oscillations than a more stable geometry.
I wouldn't burden this bike with pannier racks. You'd spoil the feel of the bike, and it would be a shame. A trailer doesn't cost much more than an equivalent set of panniers and racks for them.
Hi. Just thought I'd chip in as I have had a Fairfax for about 18 months. I've been very happy with the bike and have taken it touring, admittedly for only a week at a time (once to Devon and once to Normandy). Otherwise I use it for commuting and recreational rides. I have fitted a rear rack and used panniers for touring. I can't afford to have more than one bike but this has suited me fine.
Simon Brooke wrote: > Carbon forks are typically stronger and more resilient than any other > forks used on road bikes. Strength of the forks is not an issue.
Crushing resistance will be if trying to clamp something to them.
> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which > I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic > Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in > good condition.
That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger in general, as I think you've agreed before.
>> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which >> I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic >> Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in >> good condition.
> That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger in > general, as I think you've agreed before.
<usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote: >Ken Aston said the following on 10/11/2006 08:43: >> That would be great but I just don't have the space to store the bike. >> I live in a big city, if I want a place to put the extra bike, I have >> to rent one.
>There's no such thing as not enough space for bikes:
Mark Thompson wrote: >>> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel >>> which I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke >>> Mavic Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true >>> and in good condition.
>> That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger >> in general, as I think you've agreed before.
> I think he meant strong, not stronger.
I know, I made a mistake with my wording. Sorry about that.
That one incident doesn't prove modern low spoke count wheels are as strong as conventional wheels with more spokes, in general. Too many complicated factors to prove anything.
in message <4rmcstFrtg1...@mid.individual.net>, Pete Biggs
('...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs.tc') wrote: > Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Carbon forks are typically stronger and more resilient than any other >> forks used on road bikes. Strength of the forks is not an issue.
> Crushing resistance will be if trying to clamp something to them.
Indeed. You'd need to use the tapped holes in the drop-out (which the fork in question has) and the brake-mount bolt (which, again, the fork in question has).
>> Second, as I've pointed out a number of times before, the wheel which >> I crashed at 46mph into solid rock last year was an 18 spoke Mavic >> Ksyrium. Apart from a dented rim, it is still perfectly true and in >> good condition.
> That one incident doesn't prove low-spoke count wheels are stronger in > general, as I think you've agreed before.
No, it doesn't. But frankly from my experience I'd rather trust an 18 spoke Mavic than most 36 spoke jobs. They are very strong and reliable wheels.
> A tail end query what is the Edinburgh "copy" like I am in particularly > interested in the rain proofness of the "dry sack" > Next year, with my v small tent, I am starting in Venice and doing a "half" > of Italy circular tour of about 2000 kms. The trailer beats carrying 4 > panniers and I shall be definitely towing one again -- and almost certainly > a single wheeled one like the Yak
I bought a Monoporter earlier in the summer and have to say I'm very impressed. The steering is stiffer but the bike is very stable and you can corner at speed as if the trailer isn't there. I have been downhill with a full load of camping gear on board at over 42 mph without any problems whatsoever.
I didn't bother with the official dry-bag as it costs extra and I already had something suitable to use instead but it is made by Ortlieb so should be 100% waterproof.
> No, it doesn't. But frankly from my experience I'd rather trust an 18 > spoke Mavic than most 36 spoke jobs. They are very strong and reliable > wheels.
Um, surely from your experience you'd rather trust a wheel with built-in crumple zones? :)
>>>> I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed >>>> once. Who makes decent ones? >>> I've heard good things said of (IIRC) Hope's. >> Hope hydraulics are definitely very nice (if sometimes noisy). I >> didn't know they made mechanicals.
> They don't...
Clearly I didn't RC, in that case. Well, best I can say then is that I've heard nice things about /some/ mechanical discs, though as before the caveat that I don't really see the point myself unless you're MTBing in grit in a budget.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
>>>>> I've only seen the Shimano Deore ones on a cross bike I borrowed >>>>> once. Who makes decent ones? >>>> I've heard good things said of (IIRC) Hope's. >>> Hope hydraulics are definitely very nice (if sometimes noisy). I >>> didn't know they made mechanicals.
>> They don't...
> Clearly I didn't RC, in that case. Well, best I can say then is that > I've heard nice things about /some/ mechanical discs, though as before > the caveat that I don't really see the point myself unless you're MTBing > in grit in a budget.
The original Hopes were mechanical but if you are offered a pair they are way way old
-- Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
|
