Going back to 23/25 from 28/30...?
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Oi .... people ....
Aesthetics are subjective. I can name some CF bikes which i think are awesome and amazing ... and I can appreciate classic steel .... just as I like women of almost any age and a huge variety of body types. I never understood the sense of having only one "type," but hey, whatever floats your boat ......
This is ... INTELLIGENT people can tell fact from opinion, and don't argue one against the other.
If one guy thinks the Colnago is the epitome of cycle aesthetics ... it is. if another thinks is it a plastic turd, it is ....
That is opinion. Wholly subjective.
On the other hand, some people think whatever they say is logic, it seems ….
Logic implies a string of interwoven facts, each supported by the one before and supporting the one after … a conceptual structure wherein if one taps in at any point and asks “Why?” one can point to an adjoining bit of information which explains it.
Some folks don’t seem to be able to grasp that.
Oh, and to be successfully snarky, you have to be logical.
Here for instance you imply that what I take as my standard for judging a good ride, I am trying to deny to you.
However, breaking it down logically … YOU are the one who set as the goal, YOU are the one who picked another standard. I think my standard makes a lot more sense, particularly because to me, “sense’ involves walking one’s talk. If I say I value rides by the pleasure I take in riding, and go ride, however poorly, and enjoy it … I have met my standard.
You, however are hypocritical. As I said above,
Yet, you are not. Your further attempt at snark— is ludicrous and pathetic because, my fellow cyclist and trash poster … YOU are the one who has a problem following what you claim is the guiding idea determining your tire choices.
I sort of suggest you back away from this one … plenty of other stuff to discuss …….
Aesthetics are subjective. I can name some CF bikes which i think are awesome and amazing ... and I can appreciate classic steel .... just as I like women of almost any age and a huge variety of body types. I never understood the sense of having only one "type," but hey, whatever floats your boat ......
This is ... INTELLIGENT people can tell fact from opinion, and don't argue one against the other.
If one guy thinks the Colnago is the epitome of cycle aesthetics ... it is. if another thinks is it a plastic turd, it is ....
That is opinion. Wholly subjective.
On the other hand, some people think whatever they say is logic, it seems ….
Some folks don’t seem to be able to grasp that.
Here for instance you imply that what I take as my standard for judging a good ride, I am trying to deny to you.
However, breaking it down logically … YOU are the one who set as the goal, YOU are the one who picked another standard. I think my standard makes a lot more sense, particularly because to me, “sense’ involves walking one’s talk. If I say I value rides by the pleasure I take in riding, and go ride, however poorly, and enjoy it … I have met my standard.
You, however are hypocritical. As I said above,
I sort of suggest you back away from this one … plenty of other stuff to discuss …….
Likes For Maelochs:
#78
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,997
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4955 Post(s)
Liked 8,098 Times
in
3,833 Posts
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Last edited by Eric F; 01-26-24 at 04:19 PM.
Likes For Eric F:
#79
The Wheezing Geezer
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Espańola, NM
Posts: 1,055
Bikes: 1976 Fredo Speciale, Jamis Citizen 1, Ellis-Briggs FAVORI, Rivendell Clem Smith Jr.
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 414 Post(s)
Liked 920 Times
in
447 Posts
Straight forks may be timeless, since it looks like we're stuck with them until the end of it, but they are not classic. Classic forks are curved.
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
The romanticization of mass-produced Columbus tubed, lugged construction steel bikes ending in a vowel has extended beyond the protected confines of the C&V subforum, prompting a need for commentary. The 70s and 80s witnessed a period of stagnant and unremarkable bicycle development, dominated by branding hype alone. Countless bikes, virtually identical in materials, geometry, and build techniques, flooded the market, each supposedly superior to the other. Were there true distinctions among the tens of thousands of Masi, Colnago, Olmo, Pinarello, Basso, Cinelli, etc. mass-welded across Italy? In an era when Italy was criticized for subpar workmanship, these bikes stand out as an anomaly. I remain unconvinced. Legendary only in the eyes of a child of the 70s, the market for these old bikes has virtually collapsed as us old-timers move on to pickleball. VW Beetles were also considered legendary but I will take my E63 any day of the week.
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 01-26-24 at 03:54 PM.
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#81
Cheerfully low end
Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 1,978
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times
in
667 Posts
Technically yes, I recently bought a 23mm home trainer tire.
However, I don’t ride roads except to reach or connect to trails. So 32mm is skinny to me. My (1980s) road bike has had 32s for years and I think it can run 35s but I need wider rims to feel ok about that.
Otto
However, I don’t ride roads except to reach or connect to trails. So 32mm is skinny to me. My (1980s) road bike has had 32s for years and I think it can run 35s but I need wider rims to feel ok about that.
Otto
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,887
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6972 Post(s)
Liked 10,968 Times
in
4,692 Posts
If this thread demonstrates anything, it's that some posters are more into riding, and some are more into bikes as fetish objects.
Likes For Koyote:
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
.
...most of my dry weather bikes have 700x25's on them currently. Those I mostly inflate to 120-130 psi. I do have some wet weather setups with fenders, and on those I use wider tires, like 28's or 32's. If I rode regularly on rougher surfaces, I would certainly use wider tires, even in dry weather.
...most of my dry weather bikes have 700x25's on them currently. Those I mostly inflate to 120-130 psi. I do have some wet weather setups with fenders, and on those I use wider tires, like 28's or 32's. If I rode regularly on rougher surfaces, I would certainly use wider tires, even in dry weather.
#84
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
Likes For 3alarmer:
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
OP, pay attention to the utter vitriol shown here that you will have to endure should you decide to run narrow, high pressure tires. Happens to me every single time I mention my preferred tire size and pressure.Whatever reason you provide for doing so will be derided as “illogical.” You will be called names. People will demand explanations of you, as if you were obliged to explain anything. Simply saying that you prefer the ride won’t be enough. No reason will be acceptable. Going against the herd mentality will not be tolerated, even though many are fond of saying things like “you do you.”
Don’t be discouraged. Not everyone behaves this way.
Don’t be discouraged. Not everyone behaves this way.
#86
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.
I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.
I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.
Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
In the back-and-forth communications about those reviews, Bicycle Quarterly Editor Jan Heine offered to distill their tire pressure research and findings into an article specifically for RBR. We happily accepted Jan’s gracious offer. The result follows. I think you’ll agree with Jan’s contention that the research may well revolutionize tires – and will certainly change the outmoded views we hold about them, not to mention the amount of air we put in them.
— John Marsh
In recent years, there has been a trend toward wider tires and lower tire pressures. We now hear from many sources that wider tires can roll faster than narrower ones, which contradicts what most of us used to believe. In the past, cyclists thought that higher tire pressures decreased the tires’ rolling resistance.
.
If it all looks confusing, that’s because it’s not as simple as we thought. Rolling resistance does vary slightly with tire pressure, but it’s not linear, and it depends on the surface. On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower.
...
The variations are much smaller and hard to predict – they depend on the tire as much as on the road surface – so the take-home message is that tire pressure doesn’t matter enough to worry about it. Inflate your tires enough that they don’t collapse when you corner at speed, and you have found the optimum pressure for your tires. It’s that simple.
...
23 to 25 mm may not sound like much – less than 10% wider. But when you look at the air volume – the area of a circle goes up with the square of the radius – you get 18% more air volume. That is significant.
On smooth roads, 25s are about as fast you get – our research indicates that 28s and 32s aren’t slower, but neither are they any faster (that includes air resistance at speeds of about 18 mph). That means that if your bike can handle wider tires, you can get more comfort and better cornering with wider tires, without losing any speed.
On the average backroad, wider tires make your cycling much more enjoyable: the significant additional air volume they allow makes for a more comfortable ride, and they better handle the bumps and related vibrations, in effect smoothing out the ride.
https://www.roadbikerider.com/the-ti...-jan-heine-d1/
— John Marsh
The Tire Pressure Revolution
By Jan HeineIn recent years, there has been a trend toward wider tires and lower tire pressures. We now hear from many sources that wider tires can roll faster than narrower ones, which contradicts what most of us used to believe. In the past, cyclists thought that higher tire pressures decreased the tires’ rolling resistance.
What has changed?
At Bicycle Quarterly, we’ve been researching tire performance for the last eight years, and the most revolutionary finding is this: Tire pressure has almost no effect on a tire’s speed. We did not believe it at first, either, so we’ve tested it numerous times. It’s been confirmed time and again, with different methodologies. Below is only one dataset, click here for more data….
If it all looks confusing, that’s because it’s not as simple as we thought. Rolling resistance does vary slightly with tire pressure, but it’s not linear, and it depends on the surface. On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower.
...
The variations are much smaller and hard to predict – they depend on the tire as much as on the road surface – so the take-home message is that tire pressure doesn’t matter enough to worry about it. Inflate your tires enough that they don’t collapse when you corner at speed, and you have found the optimum pressure for your tires. It’s that simple.
...
23 to 25 mm may not sound like much – less than 10% wider. But when you look at the air volume – the area of a circle goes up with the square of the radius – you get 18% more air volume. That is significant.
On smooth roads, 25s are about as fast you get – our research indicates that 28s and 32s aren’t slower, but neither are they any faster (that includes air resistance at speeds of about 18 mph). That means that if your bike can handle wider tires, you can get more comfort and better cornering with wider tires, without losing any speed.
On the average backroad, wider tires make your cycling much more enjoyable: the significant additional air volume they allow makes for a more comfortable ride, and they better handle the bumps and related vibrations, in effect smoothing out the ride.
https://www.roadbikerider.com/the-ti...-jan-heine-d1/
I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.
There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.
__________________
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 7,887
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6972 Post(s)
Liked 10,968 Times
in
4,692 Posts
...today, I rode a steel framed bicycle, made by Boone McReynolds, a couple of hours around town, stopping at the food co-op and then Costco, to pick up some stuff. It has fenders, and some of the last edition of Ruffy Tuffy tires that the infamous retrogrouch Grant Petersen kind of popularized, for a while way back when. They are 700x28, because I think that was the only size they came in.
The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.
I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.
I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.
Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
Let's take a moment to review. I've stated clearly the bulk of my riding is on asphalt, even if some of it is a tad rough in places. I'm not riding back roads, for the most part, and I do weigh in at a heavier than average 236# (although I'm also 6'2" tall, and formed about the way you'd expect for someone who exercised for overall strength, because he earned his living in a physical occupation.) I know enough about cycling from those 40 years of interest, to realize that not all opinions carry equal weight, and that opinions in the world of bicycle are frequently transient. And sometimes I ride loaded down with stuff.
I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.
There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.
The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.
I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.
I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.
Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
Let's take a moment to review. I've stated clearly the bulk of my riding is on asphalt, even if some of it is a tad rough in places. I'm not riding back roads, for the most part, and I do weigh in at a heavier than average 236# (although I'm also 6'2" tall, and formed about the way you'd expect for someone who exercised for overall strength, because he earned his living in a physical occupation.) I know enough about cycling from those 40 years of interest, to realize that not all opinions carry equal weight, and that opinions in the world of bicycle are frequently transient. And sometimes I ride loaded down with stuff.
I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.
There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.
#88
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,421
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 1,156 Times
in
494 Posts
On your road bike, anyone ever go to a fatter tire (28-32ish) and lower psi and then decide that thin is still in?
Are there still those that don't follow the 'science' and CRR stats and say -- I like it firm, thin, and fast (at least the perceived feeling of fast)?
I will certainly agree that wider is more comfortable, but for a go-fast bike where I limit rides to 20-30 miles per ride, on good and bad tarmac -- am I missing something?
Thanks!
Are there still those that don't follow the 'science' and CRR stats and say -- I like it firm, thin, and fast (at least the perceived feeling of fast)?
I will certainly agree that wider is more comfortable, but for a go-fast bike where I limit rides to 20-30 miles per ride, on good and bad tarmac -- am I missing something?
Thanks!
Likes For RChung:
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
On your road bike, anyone ever go to a fatter tire (28-32ish) and lower psi and then decide that thin is still in?
Are there still those that don't follow the 'science' and CRR stats and say -- I like it firm, thin, and fast (at least the perceived feeling of fast)?
I will certainly agree that wider is more comfortable, but for a go-fast bike where I limit rides to 20-30 miles per ride, on good and bad tarmac -- am I missing something?
Thanks!
Are there still those that don't follow the 'science' and CRR stats and say -- I like it firm, thin, and fast (at least the perceived feeling of fast)?
I will certainly agree that wider is more comfortable, but for a go-fast bike where I limit rides to 20-30 miles per ride, on good and bad tarmac -- am I missing something?
Thanks!
So, enjoy your skinny tires. If you wear them out soon you can just go out and buy better ones.
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Unfortunately, your “commentary” is biased, not to mention uninformed. I know the name of the guy that hand-built my Cinelli. Who (or what) built your bike(s)?
#91
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
And I'm obviously saying clearly to you that the rotating weight of the wheel rims and tires is more important to me, than the overall weight of the bike. Because of how that 'feels" when I ride the bicycle.
It has steel fenders, for gosh sakes. And they are shiny chrome. Sorry, but chromed steel is, in and of itself, easily seen as fetishization in the era of plastic bikes. You can hardly blame me for presuming that my own tastes and practices have been called into question. Apparently, my only recourse is to be someone else. I hope, at least, that guy is better looking.
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
#92
Expired Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,547
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3674 Post(s)
Liked 5,437 Times
in
2,763 Posts
...today, I rode a steel framed bicycle, made by Boone McReynolds, a couple of hours around town, stopping at the food co-op and then Costco, to pick up some stuff. It has fenders, and some of the last edition of Ruffy Tuffy tires that the infamous retrogrouch Grant Petersen kind of popularized, for a while way back when. They are 700x28, because I think that was the only size they came in.
The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.
I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.
I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.
Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
Let's take a moment to review. I've stated clearly the bulk of my riding is on asphalt, even if some of it is a tad rough in places. I'm not riding back roads, for the most part, and I do weigh in at a heavier than average 236# (although I'm also 6'2" tall, and formed about the way you'd expect for someone who exercised for overall strength, because he earned his living in a physical occupation.) I know enough about cycling from those 40 years of interest, to realize that not all opinions carry equal weight, and that opinions in the world of bicycle are frequently transient. And sometimes I ride loaded down with stuff.
I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.
There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.
The bike has shiny chrome steel fenders, and is set up more or less as a touring bike, but rack and bags are in the back, and a front bar bag makes up the rest of the cargo space.
I use those tires because they are a practical alternative, given their relative resistance to flats. I ride the at 120psi because that's pretty much how they seem to work best for me, given my size as a taller person, and my weight of 236, before I add any cargo to the bags. I certainly don't want to revisit the issues raised in the long and tedious thread about rotating weight versus weight of the frame and the rider. But I do ride a bike quite a bit, and have ridden many miles in pursuit of a means of alternative transportation over the past 40 years or so.
I wonder if it is the winter weather that has people so intensely interested in the tires I use and the inflation pressures I find most enjoyable in using them ? I would offer an alternative theory of what this thread demonstrates. And it's not bikes as fetish objects. It's more about the silliness of the various opinions offered in an endless stream, from people who know what works for them, and are sure it must work for everyone the same way.
Or to go back to retro-grouch Jan Heine's writing in BQ :
Let's take a moment to review. I've stated clearly the bulk of my riding is on asphalt, even if some of it is a tad rough in places. I'm not riding back roads, for the most part, and I do weigh in at a heavier than average 236# (although I'm also 6'2" tall, and formed about the way you'd expect for someone who exercised for overall strength, because he earned his living in a physical occupation.) I know enough about cycling from those 40 years of interest, to realize that not all opinions carry equal weight, and that opinions in the world of bicycle are frequently transient. And sometimes I ride loaded down with stuff.
I simply offered up a description of my current practice here. I didn't even express it as an opinion that it might be right or wrong for someone else.
There might very well be some fetishization going on, but I can assure you it's not me engaging in it. Unless somehow having dry weather bicycles that go more toward old race bikes, and different wet weather bicycle setups is too kinky for your tastes. Which it very well might be...I'm not here to judge.
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
”You be you.” “Ride what you like.”
A load of BS. Spouted from sheep.
Likes For smd4:
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
Last edited by Atlas Shrugged; 01-27-24 at 10:02 AM.
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
If I know the guy who made my hamburger at McDonald’s does that make it special? So this called unique bicycle is manufactured with the same tubing, lugs, brazing materials and techniques as tens of thousands of other bikes made that year what would make it so cherished. Check out this staged image of Cinellis so called shop. There must be one hundred frames hanging in the background awaiting some gullible consumer buying into their limited production BS.
Why didn’t you also post the photo’s caption?
You’re better than that. And comparing a burger to a bike frame? Really? And no, you don’t know the guy who made your McDonalds burger.
Last edited by smd4; 01-26-24 at 09:17 PM.
#96
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 5,794
Bikes: 1989 Cinelli Supercorsa
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3513 Post(s)
Liked 2,927 Times
in
1,776 Posts
Oh sorry. I’m not sure this was directed to me. OK to respond anyway? I bow in deference to your all knowing judgment.
Last edited by smd4; 01-26-24 at 09:36 PM.
Likes For smd4:
#97
Friendship is Magic
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 22,984
Bikes: old ones
Mentioned: 304 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26425 Post(s)
Liked 10,381 Times
in
7,209 Posts
...Cinelli was certainly no stranger to marketing. But I do think maybe you have the wrong idea about the level of skill required in various aspects of metal fabrication, to produce a very good to excellent bicycle frame, using the steel tubing and lug brazing materials that were available at the time. But maybe I'm just another gullible consumer of the artisanal bicycle conspiracy propaganda.
In their own way, those small Italian builders were much more insidious than "Big Bicycle".
__________________
Likes For 3alarmer:
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,659
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1248 Post(s)
Liked 1,323 Times
in
674 Posts
...Cinelli was certainly no stranger to marketing. But I do think maybe you have the wrong idea about the level of skill required in various aspects of metal fabrication, to produce a very good to excellent bicycle frame, using the steel tubing and lug brazing materials that were available at the time. But maybe I'm just another gullible consumer of the artisanal bicycle conspiracy propaganda.
In their own way, those small Italian builders were much more insidious than "Big Bicycle".
In their own way, those small Italian builders were much more insidious than "Big Bicycle".
Likes For Atlas Shrugged:
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Two quotes from the article:
"At Bicycle Quarterly, we’ve been researching tire performance for the last eight years, and the most revolutionary finding is this: Tire pressure has almost no effect on a tire’s speed."
Followed by: "On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower."
If the supposed experts cannot help but contradict themselves in subsequent paragraphs, I would not trust any of the conclusions in the article. That is not science, that is journalism approaching fiction... which is great, but not informative.
"At Bicycle Quarterly, we’ve been researching tire performance for the last eight years, and the most revolutionary finding is this: Tire pressure has almost no effect on a tire’s speed."
Followed by: "On smooth surfaces like the one used in the tests shown above, moderately high tire pressure – say 100-110 psi for a 25 mm tire – actually rolls slower than either a lower pressure (80 psi) or a higher pressure (130 psi). On rough surfaces, higher pressures roll significantly slower."
If the supposed experts cannot help but contradict themselves in subsequent paragraphs, I would not trust any of the conclusions in the article. That is not science, that is journalism approaching fiction... which is great, but not informative.
Likes For Maelochs:
#100
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,491
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,479 Times
in
1,836 Posts
Maybe you can fool some people but when you say stuff like that, you look like a fool to rational people.
If you think all that was "vitriol," I hope you never get me angry ,.. you will melt as if actual vitriol were poured on you.
All anyone did was ask you to use logic ... instead you chose to go in the other direction, but ... you do you.
By the way .... if you actually read what other people post, you would have noted that on two of my bikes I run 23s at 115-125 psi.
Funny, I have no acid burns on me anywhere.
Oh, sorry .... you are not interested in facts Or logic.